Prosecution Insights
Last updated: May 29, 2026
Application No. 18/668,095

IDENTIFYING THREAD ERRORS

Final Rejection §112
Filed
May 17, 2024
Examiner
CHU, GABRIEL L
Art Unit
2114
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Nvidia Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
79%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
8m
Est. Remaining
78%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 79% — above average
79%
Career Allowance Rate
366 granted / 461 resolved
+24.4% vs TC avg
Minimal -1% lift
Without
With
+-1.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
7 currently pending
Career history
473
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
10.6%
-29.4% vs TC avg
§103
61.1%
+21.1% vs TC avg
§102
5.9%
-34.1% vs TC avg
§112
8.6%
-31.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 461 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Claim Objections Claim 21 objected to because of the following informalities: The period is missing. Appropriate correction is required. 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 1-6, 8-18, 20-22 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. Referring to claims 1 and 15, and consequently their dependent claims, it is unclear where original support lies for by maintaining tracking data associating each of the one or more threads with a respective kernel of the one or more respective kernels; receiving an indication of a thread error; identifying at least one or more threads of a kernel associated with the thread error based on the tracking data; and to be selectively stopping the identified at least one or more threads. From the specification, examiner has only been able to determine “tracking” that is done for SM assignments. Referring to claims 9-14, 20, and 22, it is unclear where original support lies for maintaining an application assignment table that records SM to kernel and thread to kernel assignments; detecting that at least one of the one or more threads has encountered an error; identifying the kernel and SM assigned to the thread based, at least in part, on the application assignment table; and stopping only the one or more threads performing the identified kernel on the identified SMs. Similar to above, examiner has only been able to determine a table that is done for SM assignments, not to the specificity of what is claimed. As promised from the interview, Attorney may provide “pinpoint” citations to support these amendments. 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 2, 6, 16 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. Referring to claim 2, “the one or more threads encountering a thread error” lacks antecedent basis. It appears to be attempting to at least partially refer to cancelled matter from claim 1. Referring to claim 6, 16, see claim 2. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6, 8-18, 20-22 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 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 GABRIEL L CHU whose telephone number is (571)272-3656. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays 8 am to 5 pm. 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, Ashish Thomas can be reached at (571)272-0631. 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. /GABRIEL CHU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 17, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 17, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Feb 19, 2026
Interview Requested
Feb 27, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Feb 27, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Mar 17, 2026
Response Filed
Apr 13, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12639179
MEDIATOR ASSISTED SWITCHOVER BETWEEN CLUSTERS
1y 10m to grant Granted May 26, 2026
Patent 12625782
TECHNIQUES FOR REPLICATING STATE INFORMATION FOR HIGH AVAILABILITY
1y 5m to grant Granted May 12, 2026
Patent 12566682
RESILIENT FULLY SHARDED DATA PARALLEL
1y 10m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12524289
Determining A Performance Error For A Storage Device
2y 10m to grant Granted Jan 13, 2026
Patent 12524319
RESILIENT OPTIMIZER STATES FOR FULLY SHARDED DATA PARALLEL
1y 8m to grant Granted Jan 13, 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
79%
Grant Probability
78%
With Interview (-1.0%)
2y 9m (~8m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 461 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