Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 17, 2026
Application No. 18/751,604

SYSTEM, APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR FINE-GRAIN ADDRESS SPACE SELECTION IN A PROCESSOR

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Jun 24, 2024
Priority
Jun 25, 2020 — continuation of 11/461,099 +1 more
Examiner
CYGIEL, GARY W
Art Unit
2137
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Intel Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
76%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
1y 2m
Est. Remaining
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 76% — above average
76%
Career Allowance Rate
414 granted / 542 resolved
+21.4% vs TC avg
Moderate +9% lift
Without
With
+9.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 4m
Avg Prosecution
13 currently pending
Career history
563
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.5%
-34.5% vs TC avg
§103
44.0%
+4.0% vs TC avg
§102
27.6%
-12.4% vs TC avg
§112
16.7%
-23.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 542 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a) 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 1-9 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) contain 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 applicant’s amendment includes language that describes executing the command to access multiple address spaces. However, the applicant’s originally filed specification appears to only describe accessing a single address space in response to a command. For example, applicant’s ¶0037 describes using a single PASID value from a given enqueue instruction and ¶0030 details wherein with multiple such write requests, this first address space may issue write requests to multiple address spaces. Although there is a description of issuing multiple requests to multiple address spaces ,there does not appear to be support for accessing multiple address spaces with a single command and, therefore, the amendment is considered to include new matter. Claims 2-9 are rejected as being dependent from, but failing to cure the deficiencies of, a rejected base claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 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 1-9 are 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. Claim 1 recites the limitation "the command to access multiple address spaces" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Additionally, the claim previously refers to “the command,” (see, e.g., line 16) but the claim recites two prior instances of a command: an enqueue command and a command identified from a source memory location. It is unclear whether the command to access multiple address spaces refers to a new command, the enqueue command, or a command identified from a source memory location. Finally, as noted above, the specification does not describe a command to access multiple address spaces. For at least these reasons, the applicant’s amendment is considered to indefinite. Claims 2-9 are rejected as being dependent from, but failing to cure the deficiencies of, a rejected base claim. 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

Jun 24, 2024
Application Filed
Sep 25, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Dec 19, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 19, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Apr 10, 2026
Response Filed
Jul 22, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12705177
PROVIDING LOCATION-BASED PREFETCHING IN PROCESSOR-BASED DEVICES
3y 8m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12693784
STORAGE DEVICE, COMPUTING SYSTEM AND PROXIMITY DATA PROCESSING MODULE WITH IMPROVED EFFICIENCY OF MEMORY BANDWIDTH
3y 4m to grant Granted Jul 28, 2026
Patent 12681638
HARDWARE ACCESSIBLE MEMORY FABRIC
2y 9m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12675400
WEAR LEVELING METHOD, SOLID-STATE DRIVE AND STORAGE MEDIUM
1y 6m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12656966
COORDINATED ALLOCATION OF EXTERNAL MEMORY
4y 0m to grant Granted Jun 16, 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
76%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+9.2%)
3y 4m (~1y 2m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 542 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