Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 27, 2026
Application No. 18/891,094

Data Writing Method and Processing System

Final Rejection §112
Filed
Sep 20, 2024
Priority
Mar 22, 2022 — CN 202210283000.1 +1 more
Examiner
KNAPP, JUSTIN R
Art Unit
2112
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
OA Round
2 (Final)
85%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3m
Est. Remaining
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 85% — above average
85%
Career Allowance Rate
590 granted / 696 resolved
+29.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
19 currently pending
Career history
718
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
12.6%
-27.4% vs TC avg
§103
23.3%
-16.7% vs TC avg
§102
21.6%
-18.4% vs TC avg
§112
28.0%
-12.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 696 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 2, 4, 12, 14, 20, and 21 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. Referring to claim 2, the claim recites “reading the first redundancy ratio…” It is not clear how this fits within claim 1. Is “reading the first redundancy ratio” further limiting the “determining a first redundancy ratio…” step of claim 1? Or is it a separate step that occurs, presumably after the “determining a first redundancy ratio…”, but before the “determining a first codeword length…” steps of claim 1. Referring to claim 4, again as previously rejected, the claim seems to be changing how a “first redundancy ratio” is determined rending the claims unclear. Claim 1 recites “determining a first redundancy ratio corresponding to the first memory based on a size of data memory space and a size of an ECC memory space in the first memory. However, then claim 4 recites that “first redundancy ratio” is determined by using a ratio of a first quantity of data bits….to a second quantity of redundant bits…” It is not clear how a “first redundancy ratio” is supposed to be determined. Referring to claim 12, the claim has the same indefinite issue as explained in the rejection of claim 2 above. Referring to claim 14, the claim has the same indefinite issue as explained in the rejection of claim 4 above. Referring to claim 20, the claim has the same indefinite issue as explained in the rejection of claim 2 above. Referring to claim 21, the claim has the same indefinite issue as explained in the rejection of claim 4 above. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d): (d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph: Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. It is not clear how the claim further limits claim 2 in which it is dependent on. The claim seems to add the word “recorded” before “first redundancy ratio”, however, it is inherent that any data read from a memory address or a register must have been “recorded” prior to a read being possible; therefore, this is not further limiting claim 2. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1, 5-8, 10, 11, 15-17, 19, 22, and 23 are allowed. 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 Justin Knapp whose telephone number is (571)270-3008. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00 am - 4:30 pm (ET). 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, Albert Decady can be reached at (571) 272-3819. 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. Justin R. Knapp Primary Examiner Art Unit 2112 /JUSTIN R KNAPP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2112
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 20, 2024
Application Filed
Apr 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §112
Jul 20, 2026
Response Filed
Oct 06, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §112 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12730716
PROXIMITY BASED PARITY DATA MANAGEMENT
2y 0m to grant Granted Sep 08, 2026
Patent 12706694
GEOLOCATION-AIDED UNIQUE SIGNAL RECOGNITION
1y 11m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12683703
DATA SCRAMBLING FOR REPEAT OPERATIONS
3y 7m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12675363
TECHNIQUES FOR IMPROVED DATA TRANSFER
2y 6m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12668288
OBSTACLE DETECTION SYSTEM USING MULTIPLE PROCESSORS
3y 2m to grant Granted Jun 30, 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
85%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+8.3%)
2y 4m (~3m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 696 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