Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 19/008,481

MANAGING ACCESS OF MULTIPLE EXECUTING PROGRAMS TO NON-LOCAL BLOCK DATA STORAGE

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Jan 02, 2025
Examiner
TSUI, DANIEL D
Art Unit
2132
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Amazon Technologies, Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
92%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 5m
To Grant
91%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 92% — above average
92%
Career Allow Rate
465 granted / 507 resolved
+36.7% vs TC avg
Minimal -0% lift
Without
With
+-0.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 5m
Avg Prosecution
10 currently pending
Career history
517
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
6.8%
-33.2% vs TC avg
§103
47.9%
+7.9% vs TC avg
§102
19.0%
-21.0% vs TC avg
§112
12.5%
-27.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 507 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions. Drawings The drawings have been considered and accepted by the examiner. Specification The title, abstract, and specification have been considered and accepted by the examiner. 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 26, 35, and 41 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,768,609. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the present application are a combination of limitations of the claims of the ‘609 patent and would therefore be obvious over the claims of the ’609 patent. Claim 26 corresponds to independent claim 1 of the ‘609 patent. Claim 26 of the present application is directed to a first virtual machine attached to and accessing a primary copy of a block-level storage volume and, responsive to unavailability of the first virtual machine, attaching the primary copy of the block-level storage volume to a second virtual machine for access. Claim 1 of the ‘609 patent is directed to executing a first program copy of a program to attach and access a data storage volume on a storage system and when the first program copy is unavailable, the data storage volume is attached to a second program copy for access. Claim 5 of the ‘609 patent recites that the first and second program copies are virtual machine images. Therefore, claim 26 of the present application would be obvious over the claims of the ‘609 patent since the claimed program copies attaching to the storage volume can be virtual machines. Claim 35 of the present application is directed to the method performed by the system of claim 26 and would thus be obvious over the claims of the ‘609 patent for the same reasons above as well as corresponding to method claim 13 of the ‘609 patent. Claim 41 of the present application is directed to a computer readable storage medium causing a processor to perform the method of claim 35 and would thus be obvious over the claims of ‘609 for the same reasons above. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 27-34, 36-40, and 42-45 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. Claims 26, 35, and 41 would be allowable if the double patenting rejection were overcome for the same reasons presented in the parent applications. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL D TSUI whose telephone number is (571)270-3253. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm. 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, Hosain Alam can be reached at (571)272-3978. 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. /DANIEL D TSUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2132
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 02, 2025
Application Filed
Mar 30, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12596478
SHARED MEMORY AUTONOMIC SEGMENT SIZE PROMOTION IN A PAGED-SEGMENTED OPERATING SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12596486
STORAGE DEVICE AND STORAGE ADAPTER INCLUDING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12591372
MEMORY CONTROLLER, STORAGE DEVICE INCLUDING MEMORY CONTROLLER, AND OPERATING METHOD OF MEMORY CONTROLLER
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12591385
ENVOY FOR MULTI-TENANT COMPUTE INFRASTRUCTURE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585392
NON-VOLATILE MEMORY DATA RETENTION USING SYSTEM RAM AND SSD
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
92%
Grant Probability
91%
With Interview (-0.5%)
2y 5m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 507 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