Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 18/807,757

MEMORY DEVICE WITH SECURE BOOT UPDATES AND SELF RECOVERY

Final Rejection §DP
Filed
Aug 16, 2024
Priority
Dec 17, 2021 — continuation of 12/069,184
Examiner
PEYTON, TAMMARA R
Art Unit
2184
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Micron Technology Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
91%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
1m
Est. Remaining
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 91% — above average
91%
Career Allowance Rate
888 granted / 977 resolved
+35.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+5.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 3m
Avg Prosecution
11 currently pending
Career history
986
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
8.8%
-31.2% vs TC avg
§103
60.6%
+20.6% vs TC avg
§102
9.2%
-30.8% vs TC avg
§112
4.2%
-35.8% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 977 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . DETAILED ACTION Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper time wise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Claims 1-7 and 21-33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,197,923. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both disclose “..the storage array comprising a first partition and a second partition, wherein the first partition comprises a writeable partition and the second partition comprises a write-protected partition; and a processor configured to: load a golden boot image from the second partition, display a boot prompt after loading the golden boot image, receive an update boot image..” Claims 1-7 and 21-33 are rejected on the ground of provisional nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent 12,197,923. Specifically, claims 1-5 of 18/975,742. Instant Application Claim 1, 18/807,757 Claim 1, US Patent 12,069,184 CLAIM 1. A device comprising: a memory device including a storage array with at least two partitions; and a processor configured to: load a boot image from a protected partition in the at least two partitions, receive an update boot image, validate the update boot image, and store the update boot image in a writeable partition in the at least two partitions. 2. (Original) The device of claim 1, wherein the protected partition is write-protected. 3. (Original) The device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to display a boot prompt after loading the boot image. 4. (Original) The device of claim 1, wherein validating the update boot image comprises verifying a signature associated with the update boot image. 5. (Original) The device of claim 4, wherein verifying the signature comprises using a public key stored in the protected partition. CLAIM 1. A device comprising: a memory device, the memory device including a storage array, the storage array comprising a first partition and a second partition, wherein the first partition comprises a writeable partition and the second partition comprises a write-protected partition; and a processor configured to: load a golden boot image from the second partition, display a boot prompt after loading the golden boot image, receive an update boot image, the update boot image including a signature, read a public key from the second partition, validate the signature using the public key, and replace a current boot image stored in the first partition with the update boot image. 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. The examiner requests, in response to this office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application. When responding to this office action, applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37 C.F.R.I .Hi(c). In amending in reply to a rejection of claims in an application or patent under reexamination, the applicant or patent owner must clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. The applicant or patent owner must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tammara Peyton whose telephone number is (571) 272-4157. The examiner can normally be reached between 8:30- 6:00 from Monday to Thursday, (I am off every first Friday), and 7:30- 4:00 every second Friday. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor Henry Tsai can be reached on (571)272-4176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Any inquiry of a general nature of relating to the status of this application should be directed to the Group receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272- 2100. /Tammara R Peyton/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2184 September 19, 2026
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Aug 16, 2024
Application Filed
Oct 02, 2025
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP
Jan 02, 2026
Response Filed
Sep 23, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12748718
COMMUNICATION METHOD, SYSTEM, AND APPARATUS, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
1y 10m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Patent 12743235
HARDWARE MANAGEMENT OF DIRECT MEMORY ACCESS COMMANDS
2y 4m to grant Granted Sep 22, 2026
Patent 12737191
SYSTEMS AND METHODS TO PRIORITIZE LOADING OF AGENT AND PLUGINS DURING SUBSEQUENT BOOT TIME OF INFORMATION HANDLING SYSTEM
2y 11m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12717743
ROUND ROBIN BUS ARBITRATION WITH CONTROL VECTORS AND INCREMENT AND DECREMENT FUNCTIONS
1y 7m to grant Granted Aug 25, 2026
Patent 12711030
METHOD TO DETECT BOOT FAILURE OF PEER COMPUTE NODE
2y 7m to grant Granted Aug 18, 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
91%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+5.8%)
2y 3m (~1m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 977 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