Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/624,870

DATA COMPUTING SYSTEM

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Apr 02, 2024
Examiner
WU, STEPHANIE
Art Unit
2133
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
C-Sky Microsystems Co. Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
82%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 82% — above average
82%
Career Allow Rate
248 granted / 304 resolved
+26.6% vs TC avg
Strong +17% interview lift
Without
With
+17.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
18 currently pending
Career history
322
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.3%
-36.7% vs TC avg
§103
66.2%
+26.2% vs TC avg
§102
9.7%
-30.3% vs TC avg
§112
19.2%
-20.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 304 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claims 1-20 are rejected. 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 § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The applicants amended claim 1 to include the limitation “an indication that the computing enable flag is disabled would cause the accelerator to not read control information”. The remarks filed 10/21/2025 cited at least paragraphs 0022 and 0023 as support. The most applicable portion of paragraph 0022 states “After reading that the computing enable flag is 0, processor 12 can start the next computing or can read the computed result from memory”. This does not provide support for the accelerator not reading control information because the computing enable flag is disabled, but merely describes that the processor (not the accelerator) may access other information. Paragraph 0023 describes example applications for the computing module. Neither paragraph mentions an accelerator, or that the computing enable flag prohibits the accelerator from reading control information. The rest of the specification does not appear to mention this, and the applicant has not identified other paragraphs or drawings that could potentially support the language of the amendment. Claims 2-8 depend from claim 1, and are rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 1. Claims 9 and 16 contain similar limitations to claim 1, and are rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 1. Claims 10-15 and 17-20 depend from claims 9 and 16 respectively, and are rejected for at least the same reasons as claim 9 and 16. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Merrill et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2016/0210550) teaches sending input data into either a MAC circuit or a limiter. 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 mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHANIE WU whose telephone number is (571)272-0257. The examiner can normally be reached 1pm to 6pm, and 10pm to 1am Eastern time (10am to 3pm, and 7pm to 10pm Pacific time). 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, Rocio Del Mar Perez-Velez can be reached at (571) 270-5935. 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. /STEPHANIE WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2133
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Apr 02, 2024
Application Filed
Jul 24, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Oct 21, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 03, 2026
Final Rejection — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12572305
DATA PROCESSING METHOD AND APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12547541
HOST MANAGED HOTNESS DATA UTILIZED FOR CACHE EVICTIONS AND/OR INSERTIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12547523
PAGE ACCESS FREQUENCY TRACKING
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12547349
MEMORY MODULE WITH DOUBLE DATA RATE COMMAND AND DATA INTERFACES SUPPORTING TWO-CHANNEL AND FOUR-CHANNEL MODES
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12547337
MEMORY SUB-SYSTEM FOR MONITORING MIXED MODE BLOCKS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 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
82%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+17.0%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 304 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