Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 02, 2026
Application No. 19/199,662

HARDWARE COHERENCE FOR MEMORY CONTROLLER

Non-Final OA §DOUBLEPATENT
Filed
May 06, 2025
Priority
May 24, 2019 — provisional 62/852,416 +3 more
Examiner
YU, JAE UN
Art Unit
Tech Center
Assignee
Texas Instruments Incorporated
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
90%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
1y 1m
Est. Remaining
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 90% — above average
90%
Career Allowance Rate
671 granted / 747 resolved
+29.8% vs TC avg
Moderate +10% lift
Without
With
+9.8%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
18 currently pending
Career history
767
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.2%
-34.8% vs TC avg
§103
51.3%
+11.3% vs TC avg
§102
24.6%
-15.4% vs TC avg
§112
8.8%
-31.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 747 resolved cases

Office Action

§DOUBLEPATENT
CTNF 19/199,662 CTNF 81820 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The NPL listed on the IDS dated 5/6/2025 cannot be found. Please file a copy. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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. 08-34 AIA Claim s 15-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 11687457 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application have the substantially the same scope as the parent patent . Claim 15 of the instant application corresponds to claim 1 of the parent patent. Claim 16 of the instant application corresponds to claim 1 of the parent patent. Claim 17 of the instant application corresponds to claim 6 of the parent patent. Claim 18 of the instant application corresponds to claim 6 of the parent patent. Claim 19 of the instant application corresponds to claim 5 of the parent patent. Claim 20 of the instant application corresponds to claims 1 and 5 of the parent patent. Conclusion A. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-14 are allowable. Claims 15-20 would be allowable if the double patenting rejection is overcome. The closest prior art of record, “Guthrie” discloses cache snooping system in paragraph 130. The primary reasons for allowance of claims 1-20 in the instant application is the combination with the inclusion in these claims that “based on determining that the first request is a coherent request, determining, by the cache controller, whether the first request is a hit or a miss in the first shadow cache; and based on determining that the first request is a hit in the first shadow cache, providing, by the cache controller, a snoop request for the first data from the first cache; and providing, by the cache controller, a response to the first request that includes the first data received from the first cache”. The prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the above recited combination. 07-43-03 AIA As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's response must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b) and § 707.07(a) of the MPEP. B. Claims Rejected Claims 15-20 are rejected. C. Direction for Future Remarks Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAE UN YU whose telephone number is (571)272-1133. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5. 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, Tim Vo can be reached on (571)272-3642 . 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. /JAE U YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2138 Application/Control Number: 19/199,662 Page 2 Art Unit: 2138 Application/Control Number: 19/199,662 Page 3 Art Unit: 2138 Application/Control Number: 19/199,662 Page 4 Art Unit: 2138
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

May 06, 2025
Application Filed
May 18, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DOUBLEPATENT (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12737136
MANAGEMENT OF OPERATING SYSTEM SOFTWARE USING READ-ONLY MULTI-ATTACH BLOCK VOLUMES
1y 8m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12737286
INTERLEAVED MEMORY TRANSACTION TRACKING FOR TRANSACTIONS WITH UNRELATED LENGTHS
1y 6m to grant Granted Sep 15, 2026
Patent 12710901
IMPLEMENTING COHERENCY AND PAGE CACHE SUPPORT IN A DISTRIBUTED WAY FOR FILES
1y 6m to grant Granted Aug 18, 2026
Patent 12705182
PROCESSING CACHE EVICTIONS IN A DIRECTORY SNOOP FILTER WITH ECAM
1y 5m to grant Granted Aug 11, 2026
Patent 12699654
PACKET PROCESSING DEVICE TO DETERMINE MEMORY TO STORE DATA IN A SERVER ARCHITECTURE AND COMPUTING SYSTEM INCLUDING SAME
4y 1m to grant Granted Aug 04, 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
90%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+9.8%)
2y 6m (~1y 1m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 747 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