Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 04, 2026
Application No. 18/369,172

INTEGRATED CIRCUIT I/O INTEGRITY AND DEGRADATION MONITORING

Non-Final OA §DOUBLEPATENT
Filed
Sep 17, 2023
Priority
Dec 30, 2018 — provisional 62/786,460 +3 more
Examiner
PEYTON, TAMMARA R
Art Unit
2184
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Proteantecs Ltd.
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
91%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
0m
Est. Remaining
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 91% — above average
91%
Career Allowance Rate
888 granted / 977 resolved
+35.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+5.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
12 currently pending
Career history
986
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
8.8%
-31.2% vs TC avg
§103
60.6%
+20.6% vs TC avg
§102
9.2%
-30.8% vs TC avg
§112
4.2%
-35.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 977 resolved cases

Office Action

§DOUBLEPATENT
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 . DETAILED ACTION Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(1) (1) - 706.02(1) (3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (b). The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer Claim 1 and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable overclaim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,275,700. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are just the broader claims of the Patent No. 11,275,700. Claims 1, 2, and 5-21 of the instant application is rejected. Claim 1 of the instant application is comparing to claim 1 of ‘700 as follows: Instant Application ‘700 An package comprising: a first IC die comprising an I/O buffer; a second IC die comprising an I/O buffer; a communication channel interconnecting the I/O buffers of the first and second IC dies, wherein the I/O buffers of the first and second IC dies are configured to define at least one signal path via the communication channel; and an I/O sensor configured to generate an output signal indicative of an eye pattern parameter of the at least one signal path. A computer comprising: at least one hardware processor; a data interface configured to receive and transmit data over a data network; and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having encoded thereon one or more program code modules that comprise: (i) a data receiver module comprising program instructions which, when executed by said at least one hardware processor, receive an I/O sensor output signal, using said data interface, from a semiconductor integrated circuit (IC), wherein the IC comprises an I/O block that comprises: at least one I/O buffer, configured to define at least one signal path in respect of a connection to a remote I/O block via a communication channel, each signal path causing a respective signal edge slope, and an I/O sensor coupled to the at least one signal path and configured to generate the I/O sensor output signal which is indicative of at least one of: (a) a timing difference between: the signal edge slope for a first signal path of the at least one signal path, and the signal edge slope for a second, distinct signal path of the at least one signal path, and (b) an eye pattern parameter for one or more of the at least one signal path, and (ii) an IC analyzer module comprising program instructions which, when executed by said at least one hardware processor, analyze the I/O sensor output signal to determine an integrity of the at least one I/O buffer. Claim 1 of US Patent 11,275,700 teaches more of all of the elements of claims 1 from the 18/369,172. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are just the broader claims of the Patent No. 11,275,700. Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action. The examiner requests, in response to this office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application. When responding to this office action, applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37 C.F.R.I .Hi(c). In amending in reply to a rejection of claims in an application or patent under reexamination, the applicant or patent owner must clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. The applicant or patent owner must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMMARA R PEYTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4157. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm, EST M-F. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Henry Tsai can be reached on 571-272-4176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /TAMMARA R PEYTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2184 January 25, 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 6 earlier events
Jan 09, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 26, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jun 01, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jun 04, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Sep 14, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Sep 23, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Sep 28, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Oct 01, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DOUBLEPATENT (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12748718
COMMUNICATION METHOD, SYSTEM, AND APPARATUS, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
1y 10m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12743235
HARDWARE MANAGEMENT OF DIRECT MEMORY ACCESS COMMANDS
2y 4m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12737191
SYSTEMS AND METHODS TO PRIORITIZE LOADING OF AGENT AND PLUGINS DURING SUBSEQUENT BOOT TIME OF INFORMATION HANDLING SYSTEM
2y 11m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12717743
ROUND ROBIN BUS ARBITRATION WITH CONTROL VECTORS AND INCREMENT AND DECREMENT FUNCTIONS
1y 7m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Patent 12711030
METHOD TO DETECT BOOT FAILURE OF PEER COMPUTE NODE
2y 7m to grant Granted Aug 18, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
91%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+5.8%)
2y 3m (~0m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 977 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance 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