Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/936,254

MEMORY ADDRESS PROTECTION CIRCUIT AND METHOD OF OPERATING SAME

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Nov 04, 2024
Examiner
KNAPP, JUSTIN R
Art Unit
2112
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
574 granted / 679 resolved
+29.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
11 currently pending
Career history
690
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
12.7%
-27.3% vs TC avg
§103
21.0%
-19.0% vs TC avg
§102
22.9%
-17.1% vs TC avg
§112
27.6%
-12.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 679 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 . Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: the “receiving a read address…”, “receiving a first code…”, “generating a second code…”, “generating a decoded…”, “determining an address fault…”, “generating an error signal…” (claim 16), “generating the first code…” (claim 19), and “generating parity bits…” (claim 20) in claims 16-20. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. 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 timewise 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 § 2146 et seq. 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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over:claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,135,608;claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,714,705;claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,379,298;claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,740,174. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of this application are encompassed within the claims of the listed patents and, therefore, anticipated by or obvious variations of the patented claims. For example, claim 1 of this application maps to claim 1 of the ‘608 patent as follows: Claims Mapping Claim # This Application Claim # US 12,135,608 1 A memory circuit comprising: 1 A memory circuit comprising: 1 a memory configured to store a data unit and a corresponding first code; 19 a memory configured to store a data unit and a set of information,the memory is further configured to store the data unit, the set of information, and the data parity bits 1 a decoding circuit configured to do as follows including, generate a second code based on a read address associated with the stored data unit, 1 a first decoding circuit configured to generate a decoded write address from the read address and the set of information; 1 and generate a decoded write address based on the second code 1 a first decoding circuit configured to generate a decoded write address from the read address and the set of information; 1 a first error detecting circuit configured to do as follows including, determine an address fault by performing a first comparison between the read address and the decoded write address, and generate an error signal indicative of a result of the first comparison. 1 an error detecting circuit configured to determine when an address error exists based on a comparison of the decoded write address to the read address. Conclusion 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

Nov 04, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 24, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12579026
APPARATUSES, SYSTEMS, AND METHODS FOR STORING MEMORY METADATA IN A GLOBAL COLUMN REDUNDANCY PLANE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12580593
MEMORY SYSTEM AND NONVOLATILE MEMORY DEVICE CAPABLE OF COMPRESSING DATA FROM A MEMORY PLANE AND OUTPUTTING DATA IN PARALLEL
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571781
VERIFICATION METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR A SAMPLE INTRODUCTION DEVICE DEDICATED TO GAS CHROMATOGRAPHY FOR PRECISELY MEASURING A CONCENTRATION OF ATMOSPHERIC GREENHOUSE GAS CONTAINED IN A TEDLAR BAG
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12572416
ERROR CORRECTING CODES FOR MULTI-MASTER MEMORY CONTROLLER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12574146
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR FAST DECODING OF POLAR CODES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+8.3%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 679 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow 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