Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/354,341

METHOD AND ELECTRONIC APPARATUS WITH PARALLEL SINGLE-STAGE SWITCHING

Non-Final OA §102§103§112
Filed
Jul 18, 2023
Examiner
PEUGH, BRIAN R
Art Unit
2133
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
92%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 3m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 92% — above average
92%
Career Allow Rate
486 granted / 528 resolved
+37.0% vs TC avg
Minimal +1% lift
Without
With
+1.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
15 currently pending
Career history
543
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.0%
-33.0% vs TC avg
§103
25.1%
-14.9% vs TC avg
§102
34.5%
-5.5% vs TC avg
§112
21.9%
-18.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 528 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103 §112
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 18, 2023 and January 4, 2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner. Claim Objections Claims 9 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9, line 1: insert –of—before “memory”. Claim 19, line 3: insert –more—before “memories”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 3, 4, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 3 and 4 recite the limitation "physically most adjacent" in lines 3 and 2-3, respectively. It is unclear to the Examiner as to what constitutes “most adjacent”, and whether this phrase constitutes two groups being directly adjacent to each other, whether one of a plurality of groups is more adjacent to a third group than other groups, or some other interpretation. Claims 19 recites the limitation "the plurality of processor device-memory groups" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A plurality of processor device-memory groups had not been previously recited. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1-7, 9-11, 13, and 15-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Purcell et al. (US# 6,836,815). Regarding claim 1, Purcell et al. teaches an electronic apparatus comprising: a plurality of processor device-memory device groups, and each of the plurality of processor device-memory device groups [PG+Region R] comprising a plurality of memory devices respectively comprising one or more memories [C5, L56-63], a plurality of processor devices respectively comprising one or more processors[C5,L38-40], and a plurality of switches [PSW or MSW or PXB or SXB], wherein each of the plurality of switches comprises a plurality of ports, and each of first memory devices included in a first processor device-memory device group of the plurality of processor device-memory device groups is connected to a first subset of ports of one switch of first switches included in the first processor device-memory device group, and to a first subset of ports of one switch of second switches of the plurality of switches included in a second processor device-memory device group of the plurality of processor device-memory device groups [Fig. 7; C5,L46-55]. Regarding claim 2, Purcell et al. teaches wherein the first memory devices are connected to a first switch of the first switches [and a first switch of the second switches [each PG comprises switches, which are connected to SG switches, which are connected to the memories; Fig. 7]. Regarding claim 3, Purcell et al. teaches wherein the first processor device-memory device group and the second processor device-memory device group are disposed to be physically most adjacent to each other [PG0+R0 & PG1+R0]. Regarding claim 4, Purcell et al. teaches wherein the first processor device-memory device group and the second processor device-memory device group are not physically most adjacent to each other but are logically adjacent to each other [PG0+R0 & PG2+R0]. Regarding claim 5 Purcell et al. teaches, wherein the first processor device-memory device group and the second processor device-memory device group are disposed to transmit electrical signals between each other [by way of read and write access to shared memory group]. Regarding claim 6, Purcell et al. teaches, wherein, in each of the plurality of processor device-memory device groups, an equal number of connections exist between a corresponding plurality of memory devices and a corresponding plurality of switches [Fig. 7, at least between SG0 and MG0]. Regarding claim 7, Purcell et al. teaches wherein any of the plurality of switches is not (directly8) connected to another of the plurality of switches [Fig. 7, PXB not directly connected to MXB]. Regarding claim 9, Purcell et al. teaches, wherein numbers of the plurality memory devices in each of the plurality of processor device-memory device groups is equal [equal due to sharing; fig. 7]. Regarding claim 10, Purcell et al. teaches wherein numbers of the plurality of switches in each of the plurality of processor device-memory device groups is equal [fig. 7; groups mirror each other]. Regarding claim 11, Purcell et al. teaches, wherein a second subset of ports of the one switch of the first switches is connected to a corresponding processor device of the plurality of processor devices [at least PXB is connected to Pn]. Regarding claim 13, Purcell et al. teaches wherein a number of the plurality of processor devices is a multiple of a predetermined integer number [Fig. 7; no constraint on integer or multiple values]. Regarding claim 15, Purcell et al. teaches wherein each of the plurality of switches is a single-stage switch [ crossbar switches read upon interpretation of single state switch as seen in Spec. 0058]. Regarding claim 16, Purcell et al. teaches wherein each of the plurality of processor devices comprises a plurality of ports, and each of first processor devices of the plurality of processor devices in the first processor device-memory device group is connected to a second subset of ports of the one switch of the first switches, and a second subset of ports of the one switch of the second switches included in the second processor device-memory device group [claim language does not require direct connection; see figure 7]. Regarding claim 17, Purcell et al. teaches wherein the electronic apparatus is a storage device [PG +R includes memory devices; Fig. 7]. Regarding claim 18, Purcell et al. teaches electronic apparatus comprising: a plurality of processor device-memory device groups, and each of the plurality of processor device-memory device groups comprising a plurality of memory devices respectively comprising one or more memories, a plurality of processor devices respectively comprising one or more processors, and a plurality of switches, wherein each of the plurality of processor devices comprises a plurality of ports, and each of first processor devices included in a first processor device-memory device group of the plurality of processor device-memory device groups is connected to a first subset of one of first switches of the plurality of switches included in the first processor device-memory device group and to a first subset of ports of one switch of second switches of the plurality of switches included in a second processor device-memory device group of the plurality of processor device-memory device groups [Claim language similar to that of claim 1 and associated citations, and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 as seen in Figure 7 and C5,L29-67]. Regarding claim 19, Purcell et al. teaches electronic apparatus comprising: a plurality of memory device groups, and each of the plurality of memory device groups comprising a plurality of memory devices respectively comprising one or memories and a plurality of switches, wherein each of the plurality of memory devices comprises a plurality of ports, and each of first memory devices included in a first memory device group of the plurality of memory device groups is connected to a first subset of ports of one switch of first switches included in the first memory device group, and to a first subset of ports of one switch of second switches of the plurality of switches included in a second processor device-memory device group of the plurality of processor device-memory device groups [Claim language similar to that of claim 1 and associated citations without associated processor devices, and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 as seen in Figure 7 and C5,L29-67]. Regarding claim 20, Purcell et al. teaches wherein the first memory devices are connected to a first switch of the first switches and a first switch of the second switches [contains similar language to that of claim 2, and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 2]. Regarding claim 21, Purcell et al. teaches electronic apparatus comprising: a plurality of processor device groups, and each of the plurality of processor device groups comprising a plurality of processor devices respectively comprising one or more processors and a plurality of switches, wherein each of the plurality of processor devices comprises a plurality of ports, and each of first processor devices included in a first processor device group of the plurality of processor devices groups is connected to a first subset of one of first switches of the plurality of switches included in the first processor device group, and to a first subset of one switch of second switches of the plurality of switches included in a second processor device of the plurality of processor device groups [Claim language similar to that of claims 1 and 2 and associated citations without associated memories, and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 as seen in Figure 7 and C5,L29-67]. Regarding claim 22, Purcell et al. teaches electronic apparatus comprising: a plurality of processor device-memory device groups, and each of the plurality of processor device-memory device groups comprising a plurality of memory devices respectively comprising one or more memories, a plurality of processor devices respectively comprising one or more processors, and a plurality of switches, wherein each of the plurality of switches comprises a plurality of ports, and the plurality of memory devices in one processor device-memory device group of the plurality of processor device-memory device groups is connected to first subsets of ports of each of the plurality of switches in the one processor device-memory device group and another one processor device-memory device group of the plurality of processor device-memory device groups. [Claim language similar to that of claim 1 and associated citations and included within the scope of claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 as seen in Figure 7 and C5,L29-67]. Regarding claim 23, Purcell et al. teaches wherein the plurality of memory devices in the other one processor device-memory device group is connected to second subsets of ports of each of the plurality of switches in the other one processor device-memory device group and a third processor device-memory device group of the plurality of processor device-memory device groups [fig. 7; memory devices connected to each processor group by way of sharing]. Regarding claim 24, Purcell et al. teaches wherein the plurality of processor devices in the one processor device-memory device group is connected to third subsets of ports of each of the plurality of switches in the one processor device-memory device group and the other one processor device-memory device group [PG0 (not directly) connected to any number of ports in other PGn and R0 as seen in Figure 7]. Regarding claim 25, Purcell et al. teaches wherein each of the plurality of processor device-memory device groups further comprises a plurality of network device connected to fourth subsets of ports of each of the plurality of switches in the one processor device-memory device group [as network devices is not defined, any PGn,PSWn, Pn, SXBn, etc. may be connected to a single port to comprise a subset not previously found within any other subset (although overlapping subsets may exist as the claim language does not prohibit this teaching); Fig. 7]. Regarding claim 26, Purcell et al. teaches wherein the electronic apparatus is a storage device [PG +R includes memory devices; Fig. 7]. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Purcell et al. in view of OFFICIAL NOTICE. Purcell et al. teaches a plurality of switches and crossbar switches in different location of the prior art, but fail to teach what type or protocols the switches may employ. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a crossbar switch incorporated within a CXL fabric would include improved bandwidth allocation within the shared memory system. The Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE of this teaching. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Purcell et al. to include the CXL switch system and fabric because of the benefit disclosed supra. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 8 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brian R. Peugh whose telephone number is (571) 272-4199. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 7:30am to 3:30pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Rocio Del Mar Perez-Velez, phone number 571-270-5935, can be reached. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 703-872-9306. Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is 571-272-2100. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). /BRIAN R PEUGH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2133
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jul 18, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103, §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602181
MEMORY TRAINING FOR POWER STATE CHANGES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596483
INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM AND INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12580024
OPTIMIZING ALLOCATION UNIT SIZES FOR HETEROGENEOUS STORAGE SYSTEMS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12579058
MEMORY DEVICE, MEMORY SYSTEM INCLUDING MEMORY DEVICE, AND OPERATING METHOD OF MEMORY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12566559
MANAGING MEMORY SYSTEM QUALITY OF SERVICE (QOS)
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
92%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+1.0%)
2y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 528 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month