Prosecution Insights
Last updated: August 18, 2026
Application No. 18/985,888

DOUBLE DEVICE DATA CORRECTION FOR REDUNDANT- ARRAY-OF-INDEPENDENT-DISKS-BASED SYSTEMS

Final Rejection §101§102
Filed
Dec 18, 2024
Priority
Jan 17, 2024 — provisional 63/621,787
Examiner
LEIBOVICH, YAIR
Art Unit
2114
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Micron Technology Inc.
OA Round
2 (Final)
90%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
10m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 90% — above average
90%
Career Allowance Rate
867 granted / 964 resolved
+34.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +11% lift
Without
With
+10.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
17 currently pending
Career history
983
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
16.5%
-23.5% vs TC avg
§103
34.1%
-5.9% vs TC avg
§102
23.8%
-16.2% vs TC avg
§112
19.4%
-20.6% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 964 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §102
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 § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The components, according to the specification, could be software per se. Software per se does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. It is suggested claim 1 be amended to positively include a processor and/or memory. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4, 8, 13, and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and all 35 USC § 101 rejections are overcome. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-12, 14-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ioannou (US 2019/0171381 A1). For claim 1, Ioannou teaches a memory system, comprising: one or more components configured to: perform a first read procedure associated with a first memory stripe, wherein the first memory stripe includes multiple data storage elements, and wherein the first memory stripe is associated with one or more error correction elements; identify a first read error associated with the first read procedure, wherein the first read error is associated with a first data storage element, of the multiple data storage elements; perform a first read error recovery procedure using the one or more error correction elements; (see [0019], [0030], [0006], and other locations the system is a RAID system having multiple (many) storage elements; it uses parity thus it’s RAID level 3 and above; in normal operation of RAID 3, by definition, errors in stripes are detected and corrected using the parity block of the stripe) perform a second read procedure associated with the first memory stripe; identify a second read error associated with the second read procedure, wherein the second read error is associated with a second data storage element, of the multiple data storage elements, that is a different data storage element than the first data storage element; (see locations pointed to above: this is still standard RAID operation, as reads are performed continuously; a stripe is spread over multiple disks, so a read from a stripe is designed to be a read from different disks. see [0005] and other locations: the number of errors are counted per memory unit/stripe, thus there are multiple reads per stripe) and perform a second read error recovery procedure using the one or more error correction element (see above: standard RAID operations). For claim 2, Ioannou teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons above and further teaches the first read error recovery procedure and the second read error recovery procedure are associated with a redundant-array-of-independent-disks read error recovery procedure (see locations pointed to above). For claim 3, Ioannou teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons above and further teaches the one or more components, to perform the first read error recovery procedure, are configured to use a first payload associated with a first error correction element, of the one or more error correction elements, and wherein the one or more components, to perform the second read error recovery procedure, are configured to use a second payload associated with the first error correction element (see [0030-0031] and other locations: view parity for a stripe as said payload; RAID 6 has two different parities/payloads). For claim 5, Ioannou teaches the limitations of claim 1 for the reasons above and further teaches the one or more components, to perform the first read error recovery procedure, are configured to use a first payload associated with a first error correction element, of the one or more error correction elements, and wherein the one or more components, to perform the second read error recovery procedure, are configured to use a second payload associated with a second error correction element, of the one or more error correction elements (see [0030-0031] and other locations: different parity disks for different stripes; standard RAID). For claim 6, Ioannou teaches the limitations of claim 5 for the reasons above and further teaches the one or more components are further configured to write data associated with the first data storage element to the first error correction element based on identifying the first read error (see [0030-0031] and other locations: standard RAID; this occurs when the read error is from the parity disk; in this case parity disk is corrected/written into based on the other disks, which are non-parity disks in case of RAID 3 to5). For claim 7, Ioannou teaches the limitations of claim 5 for the reasons above and further teaches the first memory stripe includes the first error correction element, and wherein a second memory stripe, different than the first memory stripe, includes the second error correction element (see [0030-0031] and other locations: standard RAID; different stripes, different parity disks). For claim 9, Ioannou teaches the limitations of claim 5 for the reasons above and further teaches the one or more components are further configured to: perform a third read procedure associated with the second memory stripe; identify a third read error associated with the third read procedure; and perform a third read error recovery procedure using the second payload (see locations pointed to above: still standard RAID, reads are continuous, and corrections are continuous). For claims 10-12, 14-16, and 18, the claims recite essentially similar limitationsas claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9 respectively. Claims 10-12, 14-16, and 18 are a method Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Wikipedia “standard RAID levels” page, explains the basics of a RAID system definitions. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAIR LEIBOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-3796. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-5:00pm. 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, Ashish Thomas can be reached at 571-272-0631. 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. /YAIR LEIBOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 18, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §101, §102
Apr 10, 2026
Interview Requested
Apr 30, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Apr 30, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
May 20, 2026
Response Filed
Aug 17, 2026
Final Rejection mailed — §101, §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12705129
PAUSING MEMORY SYSTEM BASED ON CRITICAL EVENT
1y 8m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12699530
MEMORY SYSTEM AND CONTROL METHOD
2y 1m to grant Granted Aug 04, 2026
Patent 12688107
PREDICTIVE MONITORING OF SOFTWARE APPLICATION FRAMEWORKS USING MACHINE-LEARNING-BASED TECHNIQUES
1y 10m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12688082
DETECTING INJECTION OF FAULTS IN PROGRAM COUNTERS ALTERING EXECUTION OF BASIC BLOCKS OF INSTRUCTIONS
1y 8m to grant Granted Jul 21, 2026
Patent 12664055
NETWORK SYSTEM FOR RUNNING DISTRIBUTED ENVIRONMENT APPLICATIONS AND FAULT TOLERANCE METHOD USING THE SAME
2y 3m to grant Granted Jun 23, 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
90%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+10.9%)
2y 6m (~10m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 964 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