Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/491,685

MASTER SLAVE MANAGED MEMORY STORAGE

Final Rejection §102
Filed
Oct 20, 2023
Examiner
CYGIEL, GARY W
Art Unit
2137
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Micron Technology, Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 4m
To Grant
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allow Rate
405 granted / 533 resolved
+21.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+9.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
553
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.1%
-34.9% vs TC avg
§103
42.4%
+2.4% vs TC avg
§102
29.2%
-10.8% vs TC avg
§112
17.0%
-23.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 533 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . 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. Claims 1-5 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KLUGHART (US PGPub No. 2013/0073747). Consider Claim 1, KLUGHART teaches a device comprising: memory (KLUGHART, e.g., Fig 10, shows memory/storage elements.); and a controller configured to: receive a command and an address (KLUGHART, e.g., Fig 11(1101); ¶130, receive access request with address.); compare the address to a storage capacity of the memory (KLUGHART, e.g., ¶0131, compare address to size of drive.); and based on the comparison, determine a modified address (KLUGHART, e.g., ¶0132, determine new LBA value.). Consider Claim 2, KLUGHART further teaches wherein the modified address is determined by decrementing the address by the storage capacity (KLUGHART, e.g., ¶0132, decrement address by storage capacity of drive.). Consider Claim 3, KLUGHART further teaches wherein the memory is a first memory, and data is stored in a second memory at the modified address (KLUGHART, e.g., ¶0137, data may be stored in 3rd disk (i.e., a second memory).). Consider Claim 4, KLUGHART further teaches wherein the command is a write command, and data is stored at the modified address (KLUGHART, e.g., ¶0224, write operation.). Consider Claim 5, KLUGHART further teaches a status register configured to indicate whether a slave device is coupled to the memory (KLUGHART, e.g., Fig 22, DEVICE ID contains information about the attached device.). Consider Claim 7, KLUGHART additionally teaches wherein the controller is further configured to send the command and modified address to a slave device (KLUGHART, e.g., ¶0137, send to attached disk (i.e., slave).). Consider Claim 8, KLUGHART further teaches wherein the slave device is configured to write data at the modified address (KLUGHART, e.g., ¶0137, transmit to (i.e., write) modified address.). Consider Claim 9, KLUGHART further teaches wherein the slave device is configured to determine whether the modified address is within a storage capacity of the slave device (KLUGHART, e.g., ¶0131-0137, compare address to see if address is in range of attached (i.e., slave) device.). Consider Claim 10, KLUGHART additionally teaches wherein the slave device is further configured to execute the command in response to determining that the modified address is within the storage capacity (KLUGHART, e.g., ¶0137, transmit (i.e., execute command) in response to determining that modified address is within the capacity of the attached drive.). Consider Claim 11, KLUGHART teaches a system comprising: a master port (KLUGHART, e.g., Fig 10(1014/1012)); a slave port (KLUGHART, e.g., Fig 10 (1011/1013)); and a controller configured to: receive, via the slave port, a request from a host device (KLUGHART, e.g., Fig 11(1101); ¶0131, receive data transfer request.); determine whether a slave device is coupled to the master port (KLUGHART, e.g., Fig 21, determine attached drives.); and in response to determining that the slave device is coupled to the master port, forward the request to the slave device via the master port (KLUGHART, e.g., ¶0136-0138, after identifying device, commands and data may be sent to attached devices.). Consider Claim 12, KLUGHART further teaches wherein determining whether the slave device is coupled to the master port comprises receiving a slave connected signal (KLUGHART, e.g., Fig 22(2205), determine if drive is present (i.e., coupled).). Consider Claim 13, KLUGHART further teaches a status register configured to indicate whether the slave device is coupled to the master port (KLUGHART, e.g., Fig 22, DEVICE_ID signals that a device is coupled.). Consider Claim 14, KLUGHART further teaches wherein the controller is further configured to determine an address in a storage capacity of the slave device (KLUGHART, e.g., ¶0131-0136, determine address within storage capacity of device.). Consider Claim 15, KLUGHART further teaches wherein the request is for a total storage capacity (KLUGHART, e.g., Fig 27, determine MAXLBN; ¶0243, MAXLBN is the size of all drives in the chain.). Consider Claim 16, KLUGHART additionally teaches wherein the controller is further configured to receive a storage capacity from the slave device, and report a total storage capacity to the host device in reply to the request (KLUGHART, e.g., Fig 27; ¶0242, MAXLBN). Consider Claim 17, KLUGHART teaches a method comprising: receiving, by a first storage device, a command from a host device (KLUGHART, e.g., Fig 11(1101); ¶130, receive access request with address.); determining that an address of the command exceeds a first storage capacity of the first storage device (KLUGHART, e.g., ¶0131, compare address to size of drive to see if it exceeds drive capacity.); and determining whether a slave device is coupled to the first storage device (KLUGHART, e.g., Fig 21, determine attached drives.). Consider Claim 18, KLUGHART further teaches, in response to receiving the command, reading or writing data at an address in a second storage capacity of the slave device (KLUGHART, e.g., ¶0137, data may be stored in 3rd disk (i.e., a second memory).). Consider Claim 19, KLUGHART further teaches receiving a result from the slave device from executing the command, and sending the result to the host device (KLUGHART, e.g., ¶0138, return result to host.). Consider Claim 20, KLUGHART further teaches, in response to determining that the slave device is coupled to the first storage device, determining an address in the slave device for reading or writing data associated with the command (KLUGHART, e.g., Fig 11(1102), determine if address is in current drive or another drive.). Allowable Subject Matter Claim 6 is 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. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 05JAN2026 regarding the following have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. [A] Re: storage capacity The applicant argues that the cited art fails to teach the claimed invention because an LBA count is not a capacity. However, the table included in the same column as the provided citation (KLUGHART, e.g., ¶0131) explicitly refers to the LBA count as a capacity. For at least this reason the applicant’s argument is not persuasive. [B] Re: forwarding a request The applicant argues that the cited art fails to teach the limitation wherein in response to determining that the slave device is coupled to the master port, forward the request to the slave device via the master port. However, the cited art (KLUGHART, e.g., Fig 21) explicitly describes determining if a slave device is attached to the master and further teaches forwarding requests to attached devices (KLUGHART, e.g., ¶0136-0138). The applicant appears to be arguing that the determination is not in response to receiving the request, but that feature is not claimed. For at least these reasons the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. [C] Re: exceeds a storage capacity The applicant argues that the cited art fails to teach determining that an address of the command exceeds a first storage capacity of the first storage device because an LBA count is not a storage capacity. However, the table included in the same column as the provided citation (KLUGHART, e.g., ¶0131) explicitly refers to the LBA count as a capacity. For at least this reason the applicant’s argument is not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments relating to the official notice of Claim 6 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of Claim 6 has been withdrawn. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gary W Cygiel whose telephone number is (571)270-1170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 11am-3pm PST. 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, Arpan P Savla can be reached at (571) 272-1077. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /Gary W. Cygiel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2137
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Oct 20, 2023
Application Filed
Sep 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Jan 05, 2026
Response Filed
Mar 12, 2026
Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602176
COMPUTING DEVICE AND METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596505
COMPUTER-READABLE RECORDING MEDIUM HAVING STORED THEREIN INFORMATION PROCESSING PROGRAM, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591519
MEMORY DEVICE AND OPERATING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12591368
VIRTUALIZED-IN-HARDWARE INPUT OUTPUT MEMORY MANAGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12579086
DATA STORAGE WITH LOW COST DIES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
76%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+9.7%)
3y 4m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 533 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