Office Action Predictor
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 19/027,950

DEBUG OPERATIONS ON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Jan 17, 2025
Examiner
RIAD, AMINE
Art Unit
2113
Tech Center
2100 — Computer Architecture & Software
Assignee
lodestar licensing group LLC
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
94%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
691 granted / 789 resolved
+32.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+6.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
13 currently pending
Career history
802
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
16.2%
-23.8% vs TC avg
§103
14.3%
-25.7% vs TC avg
§102
45.8%
+5.8% vs TC avg
§112
12.8%
-27.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 789 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Detailed Action Claims 1-20 have been submitted for examination. Claims 1-20 have been rejected. Double Patenting The non-statutory 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 non-statutory obviousness-type 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); and 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 a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,216,566 and claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. 11,455,232. In regard to claims 1 5 The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patents, and is covered by the patents since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: A memory A controller coupled to the memory An artificial intelligence accelerator activation function/data Perform AI operation A register In regard to claim 16 The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patents, and is covered by the patents since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as follows: Perform AI operation AI artificial intelligence Activation function/data accelerator Debug operation The present application is anticipated by both patents because both patents are specific and the present application is broad. “A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). “ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001). Contact Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMINE RIAD whose telephone number is (571)272-8185. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bonzo Bryce can be reached 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /A.R./ /Amine Riad/ Primary Examiner
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jan 17, 2025
Application Filed
Apr 04, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12579045
DATA COMMUNICATION USING OPTICAL UART LINKS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12579036
METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR RECOVERING DATA ASSOCIATED WITH ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE CALCULATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12579018
INTELLIGENT ALERT AUTOMATION (IAA)
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12561436
STORAGE SYSTEM WITH CLOUD ASSISTED RECOVERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12554572
INTER-INTEGRATED CIRCUIT (I2C) DEVICE WITH INTERNAL BUS STUCK RECOVERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 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
88%
Grant Probability
94%
With Interview (+6.5%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 789 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month