Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 18/777,334

BLOCK DEVICE INTERFACE USING NON-VOLATILE PINNED MEMORY

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Jul 18, 2024
Priority
Aug 31, 2018 — provisional 62/725,691 +4 more
Examiner
ALSIP, MICHAEL
Art Unit
2139
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Daedalus Cloud LLC
OA Round
4 (Final)
75%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
11m
Est. Remaining
80%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 75% — above average
75%
Career Allowance Rate
493 granted / 657 resolved
+20.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +5% lift
Without
With
+5.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
687
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
58.0%
+18.0% vs TC avg
§102
29.9%
-10.1% vs TC avg
§112
9.4%
-30.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 657 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 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 following limitations: “writing the data from the one or more storage devices to a first memory location in pinned memory accessible by a vector processor…”, “copying the data from the first memory location in the pinned memory to a second memory location in main memory…”, “the second location in main memory not being accessible by the vector processor via the data bus, wherein the pinned memory is unified memory which is physically located in the main memory,”. These limitations state that the pinned memory is part of main memory and that the vector processor can access the pinned memory but not the main memory. Further [0029]-[0030] of the specification includes the following: “However, in some cases, the memory location may be in main memory (that is, memory not accessible by a vector processor)” further indicating that main memory is not accessible by the vector processor. If, as now claimed, the pinned memory is part of the main memory and the main memory is not accessible by the vector processor, then the pinned memory is also not accessible by the vector processor. Therefore, the claim limitations are contradicting each other and the vector processor will not be able to perform invertible transforms on the data, as claimed. Thus the scope of the claim language is now unclear. Further claim 1 recites the phrase “the pinned memory is unified memory”. It is unclear what is meant by the term “unified” in this limitation. Paragraph [0100] of the specification states that virtual memory is unified and [0015] states that the pinned memory can be unified memory. But is not clear what it means for the pinned memory to be unified. Claim 6 has the same issues as claim 1 above and the remaining claims are rejected by virtue of their dependence upon 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 MICHAEL ALSIP whose telephone number is (571)270-1182. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5. 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, Reginald G. Bragdon can be reached at (571)272-4204. 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. /MICHAEL ALSIP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2139
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Show 2 earlier events
Sep 12, 2025
Response Filed
Sep 24, 2025
Final Rejection mailed — §112
Nov 14, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Dec 23, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 21, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Apr 24, 2026
Response Filed
Jun 03, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12651151
METHOD OF OPERATING MEMORY-BASED DEVICE
3y 8m to grant Granted Jun 09, 2026
Patent 12645374
METHOD AND DEVICE FOR THE CONCEPTION OF A COMPUTATIONAL MEMORY CIRCUIT
3y 10m to grant Granted Jun 02, 2026
Patent 12645974
DETERMINING LOGICAL STABILIZER INSTRUMENT FOR STABILIZER CIRCUIT
3y 5m to grant Granted Jun 02, 2026
Patent 12645365
MEMORY SYSTEMS AND OPERATION METHODS THEREOF
3y 5m to grant Granted Jun 02, 2026
Patent 12645658
Adaptive Data Storage Management
2y 0m to grant Granted Jun 02, 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
75%
Grant Probability
80%
With Interview (+5.4%)
2y 11m (~11m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 657 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