Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/966,252

METHODS AND APPARATUS TO REDUCE BANK PRESSURE USING AGGRESSIVE WRITE MERGING

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Dec 03, 2024
Examiner
SADLER, NATHAN
Art Unit
2139
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Texas Instruments Incorporated
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
70%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 11m
To Grant
97%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 70% — above average
70%
Career Allow Rate
468 granted / 665 resolved
+15.4% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+27.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 11m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
696
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.0%
-34.0% vs TC avg
§103
49.5%
+9.5% vs TC avg
§102
21.6%
-18.4% vs TC avg
§112
17.9%
-22.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 665 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
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 . In the event a determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102, 103, and 112 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102, 103, and 112) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for a rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon and/or the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. Notice of Claim Interpretation Claims in this application are not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) unless otherwise noted in an office action. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3 December 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “laches” should be --latches-- in paragraph 00211, “COMLETE” should be --COMPLETE-- in paragraphs 00574 and 00591, “bene” should be --been-- in paragraph 00577, “byes” should be --bytes-- in paragraph 00623, and “int he" should be --in the-- in paragraph 00680. Appropriate correction is required. 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 16-20 and 1-15, respectively, of U.S. Patent No. 12,197,347. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the elements in this application’s claims are found in the patent’s claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATHAN SADLER whose telephone number is (571)270-7699. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8am - 5pm. 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 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. /Nathan Sadler/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2139 12 December 2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 03, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12566573
FLASH REGISTRY WITH WRITE LEVELING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12561277
MEMORY CONTROLLER MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES FOR MANAGING DATA TRANSFER FOR MEMORY ACCESS OPERATIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12547339
MEMORY WITH EFFICIENT STORAGE OF EVENT LOG DATA
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12547346
BLOCK CACHING WITH QUEUE IDENTIFIERS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Patent 12541301
Shortened Commands To Reduce Data Transmission
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 03, 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
70%
Grant Probability
97%
With Interview (+27.0%)
2y 11m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 665 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