Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/005,657

EFFICIENT DATA TRANSMISSIONS BETWEEN STORAGE NODES IN REPLICATION RELATIONSHIPS

Non-Final OA §112§DP
Filed
Dec 30, 2024
Examiner
LIN, KATHERINE Y
Art Unit
2113
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Nvidia Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
91%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 91% — above average
91%
Career Allow Rate
320 granted / 351 resolved
+36.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +7% lift
Without
With
+7.1%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
382
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
23.4%
-16.6% vs TC avg
§103
36.8%
-3.2% vs TC avg
§102
22.1%
-17.9% vs TC avg
§112
6.3%
-33.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 351 resolved cases

Office Action

§112 §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 . Informalities The Specification is objected to because of the following informalities: In [0001], “February 21, 2021" should be “February 24, 2021.” Appropriate correction is required. Double Patenting – Non-statutory 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 §§ 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. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-6 of Patent No. US12222820B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim(s) 1 of US12222820B2 (reference patent) has each element of claim(s) 1 of the examined application. The claim language in the reference patent is narrower than the claim language in the examined application. Therefore the application claim(s) is/are anticipated by the patent claim(s). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claim(s) 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the Spec in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 15 recites "cause the backup storage component to update the copy of the volume using the retained change data based on the metadata." This limitation implies that the metadata is associated with the retained change data, however, the Spec is silent on this subject. 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. Claim(s) 1-7 is/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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim(s) 1 recites the limitation “receive a service request to modify, according to a set of change data, a volume stored in a primary storage component, the backup storage component storing a copy of the volume to the at least one storage medium.” It is not clear the backup storage component’s role with “modify.” Allowable Subject Matter There is no prior art rejection for independent claim(s) 1, 8, 15, and would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the objection(s)/rejection(s) under informalities, double patenting rejection, 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 35 U.S.C. 112(b). The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons: This is a CON of Patent No. US12222820B2. The elements of independent claim(s) 1, 8, 15 were not found through a search of the prior art, nor were they considered obvious by the examiner. In particular, among the prior art of records, US 20240370459 A1 and US 10795786 B1 do/does not teach or suggest, in combination with the remaining limitations: As in claim 1, “A backup storage component, comprising: at least one storage medium; and one or more processing units to: receive a service request to modify, according to a set of change data, a volume stored in a primary storage component, the backup storage component storing a copy of the volume to the at least one storage medium; retain the change data associated with the service request; transmit the service request, including the change data, to the primary storage component for applying the modification to the volume; receive replication instructions from the primary storage component, the replication instructions including metadata associated with the modification but not including the change data; and update the copy of the volume using the retained change data and the metadata included in the replication instructions.” As in claim 8, “receive a service request to modify a volume stored in a primary storage component, the service request indicating change data; cause a backup storage component that stores a copy of the volume to retain the change data associated with the service request; transmit the service request, including the change data, to the primary storage component for applying the modification to the volume; receive replication instructions from the primary storage component, the replication instructions including metadata associated with the modification but not including the change data; and cause the backup storage component to update the copy of the volume using the retained change data and the metadata included in the replication instructions.” As in claim 15, “receive a service request to modify a volume stored in a primary storage component; cause a backup storage component that stores a copy of the volume to retain change data associated with the service request; transmit the service request, including the change data, to the primary storage component; receive, from the primary storage component, replication instructions including metadata associated with the modification but not including the change data; and cause the backup storage component to update the copy of the volume using the retained change data based on the metadata.” Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KATHERINE LIN whose telephone number is (571)431-0706. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. EST. 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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at (571) 272-3655. 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. /KATHERINE LIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Dec 30, 2024
Application Filed
Feb 20, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §112, §DP
Apr 14, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 14, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596953
QUANTUM ERROR CORRECTION USING NEURAL NETWORKS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591476
EMPTY PAGE DETECTION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585556
ACTIVE COMPONENT DRIVEN COMPUTATIONAL SERVER RELIABILITY AND FAILURE PREVENTION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585530
SINGLE SIGNAL DEBUG PORT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12585560
REFINING PARAMETER SETTINGS FOR COPY SERVICES
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 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
91%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+7.1%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 351 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