Prosecution Insights
Last updated: July 17, 2026
Application No. 19/014,578

Notification of an Unfavorable Access Pattern in a Storage Network

Non-Final OA §101§DP
Filed
Jan 09, 2025
Priority
Mar 31, 2015 — provisional 62/140,861 +7 more
Examiner
KNAPP, JUSTIN R
Art Unit
2112
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
Pure Storage Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
10m
Est. Remaining
93%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allowance Rate
576 granted / 682 resolved
+29.5% vs TC avg
Moderate +8% lift
Without
With
+8.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 4m
Avg Prosecution
21 currently pending
Career history
704
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
8.7%
-31.3% vs TC avg
§103
32.6%
-7.4% vs TC avg
§102
21.4%
-18.6% vs TC avg
§112
17.1%
-22.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 682 resolved cases

Office Action

§101 §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 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 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed "memory" (claim 11, line 3) can be reasonably interpreted to include both transitory and non-transitory embodiments. Transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007). A claim drawn to such a “memory” that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. 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. 12,204,798;claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,822,824;claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,567,702;claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 10,713,374. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of this application are clearly encompassed within and, therefore, anticipated by the claims of the above patents. 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

Jan 09, 2025
Application Filed
Jul 01, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §101, §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12683703
DATA SCRAMBLING FOR REPEAT OPERATIONS
3y 7m to grant Granted Jul 14, 2026
Patent 12675363
TECHNIQUES FOR IMPROVED DATA TRANSFER
2y 6m to grant Granted Jul 07, 2026
Patent 12668288
OBSTACLE DETECTION SYSTEM USING MULTIPLE PROCESSORS
3y 2m to grant Granted Jun 30, 2026
Patent 12665615
SUBBLOCK ALLOCATION SEQUENCE
2y 4m to grant Granted Jun 23, 2026
Patent 12665616
COMMUNICATION DEVICE AND COMMUNICATION METHOD FOR REALIZING HIGH FREQUENCY UTILISATION EFFICIENCY
2y 6m 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

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
93%
With Interview (+8.3%)
2y 4m (~10m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 682 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