Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/382,187

MEMORY STABILITY DETERMINATION APPARATUS, METHOD OF DETERMINING STABILITY OF MEMORY ALLOCATION CODE BY DETECTING ATYPICAL MEMORY ALLOCATION CODE, AND COMPUTER PROGRAM

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Oct 20, 2023
Examiner
HO, ANDY
Art Unit
2194
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
ULSAN NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
91%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 8m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 91% — above average
91%
Career Allow Rate
930 granted / 1017 resolved
+36.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+7.6%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 8m
Avg Prosecution
16 currently pending
Career history
1033
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
14.8%
-25.2% vs TC avg
§103
17.5%
-22.5% vs TC avg
§102
29.6%
-10.4% vs TC avg
§112
25.5%
-14.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1017 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 1. This action is in response to the application filed 10/20/2023. 2. Claims 1-11 have been examined and are pending in the application. Claim Objections 3. Claims 1 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: “(1)” at the end of the claims needs to be deleted. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the second paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112: 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. 4. Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. A. The following terms lack antecedent basis: (i) the second size (lines 3-4 of claim 4; line 4 of claim 9). Correction is required. B. The claim language in the following claims is not clearly understood: (i) As to claim 1, it is unclear whether “a program” (line 9) refers to “a program” (line 3). Correction is required. (ii) As to claim 2, it is unclear whether “a custom memory allocation code” (line 2) refers to “a custom memory allocation code” (line 4 of claim 1). Correction is required. (iii) As to claim 4, it is unclear whether “a memory chunk” (lines 1-2) refers to “a memory chunk” (line 6 of claim 1). Correction is required. (iv) As to claim 4, it is unclear whether “a garbage value” (line 3) refers to “a garbage value” (line 7 of claim 1). Correction is required. (v) As to claim 6, it is unclear whether “a program” (line 9) refers to “a program” (line 5). Correction is required. (vi) As to claim 7, it is unclear whether “a custom memory allocation code” (lines 2-3) refers to “a custom memory allocation code” (line 5 of claim 6). Correction is required. (vii) As to claim 9, it is unclear whether “a memory chunk” (line 2) refers to “a memory chunk” (line 6 of claim 6). Correction is required. (viii) As to claim 9, it is unclear whether “a garbage value” (line 3) refers to “a garbage value” (line 8 of claim 6). Correction is required. Allowable Subject Matter 5. Claims 1-11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objections and rejections set forth in this office action. Reasons for Allowance 6. The following is the examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior arts do not teach or render obvious the invention as recited in the independent claims. More specifically, the prior arts do not teach the limitations of: …inserting first function to increase a memory chunk and a second function to poison an increased region with a garbage value…; runtime executing a program into which the first function and the second function are inserted, to detect an access to a poisoned region poisoned with the garbage value; and determining that security of the custom memory allocation code is weak when the access to the poisoned region is true. …, when taken in the context of the claim as a whole. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S Patent No. 12,189,969 discloses efficiently allocate memory space with low latency overhead by allocating blocks of non-volatile memory on a storage device according to a tree data structure comprising a plurality of counter sets, each counter set including one or a plurality of counters indicating numbers of unallocated blocks of memory space within the non-volatile memory. U.S Patent No. 12,524,160 discloses allocating a data storage space includes detecting one allocation request of an operating system for a continuous storage space for a target program. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andy Ho whose telephone number is (571) 272-3762. A voice mail service is also available for this number. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday, 8:30 am – 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Kevin Young can be reached on (571) 270-3180. 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. Any response to this action should be mailed to: Commissioner for Patents P.O Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 Or fax to: AFTER-FINAL faxes must be signed and sent to (571) 273 - 8300. OFFICAL faxes must be signed and sent to (571) 273 - 8300. NON OFFICAL faxes should not be signed, please send to (571) 273 – 3762 /Andy Ho/ Primary Examiner Art Unit 2194
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 20, 2023
Application Filed
Feb 07, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602350
HOST ENDPOINT ADAPTIVE COMPUTE COMPOSABILITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12585494
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR PERFORMING DOMAIN LEVEL SCHEDULING OF AN APPLICATION IN A DISTRIBUTED MULTI-TIERED COMPUTING ENVIRONMENT USING HEURISTIC SCHEDULING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585513
Data Management Method, Apparatus, and Device, Computer-Readable Storage Medium, and System
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12566628
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR MANAGING A MIGRATION OF A PRODUCTION ENVIRONMENT EXECUTING LOGICAL DEVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12554548
NODE ASSESSMENT IN HCI ENVIRONMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 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
91%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+7.6%)
2y 8m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1017 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