DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 have been examined.
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 .
Specification
The title of the invention submitted on November 27, 2025, is not sufficiently descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The examiner recommends --REDUCING A NUMBER OF COMMANDS TRANSMITTED TO A CO-PROCESSOR BY PERFORMING PSEUDO-EXECUTION TO COMBINE REGISTER-SETTING COMMANDS--.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The “generating” paragraph is grammatically incorrect and must be reworded. The examiner suggests replacing “comprise” with --comprising-- in line 6.
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 4, insert a colon after “wherein”.
On page 4, in the 9th to last line, replace the semicolon after “manner” with a comma, for consistency with other paragraphs.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 and 4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,630,672. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 of ‘672 anticipates instant claim 1. Differences are accounted for as follows:
Instant claim 1 includes a setting step. Claim 3 of ‘672 includes “wherein each of the original register setting commands is adapted to set at least one bit of at least one register of a co-processor.”. Setting a bit is setting an operating parameter.
Instant claim 1 includes a controlling step. Claim 3 of ‘672 also performs this step because the CPU generates commands to set a bit/parameter in a coprocessor register. By setting this bit/parameter, the CPU controls the co-processor to perform some function based on the bit/parameter.
Instant claim 1 includes setting targets having address of a same register and converting a same buffer region. Claim 3 of ‘672 includes the converting and previously claims that the setting targets have address continuity. For these limitations to be compatible with each other, address continuity must be interpreted to mean that the setting targets relate to the same register, i.e., the commands continuously address the same register. Thus, claim 3 of ‘672 anticipates these features as well.
Claim 4 is for the apparatus to perform the method of claim 3 of ‘672 and requires no additional structural components beyond that required by claim 3 of ‘672. As such, claim 3 of ‘672 anticipates claim 4 for similar reasoning given above.
Claims 2 and 5 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of ‘672 in view of the examiner’s taking of Official Notice.
Referring to claim 2, claim 3 of ‘672 has taught the method according to claim 1, but has not taught wherein the co-processor comprises a graphic processor, and the at least one register is configured to store at least one drawing parameter. However, Official Notice is taken that a graphics co-processor (GPU) and a register to store a drawing parameter was well known in the art before applicant’s invention. Such allows a CPU to offload graphics work to a specialized coprocessor that more efficiently processes graphics, thereby alleviating the CPU from having to perform this type of workload. The CPU will provide the GPU with what to draw (by setting a drawing parameter) and the GPU may process it efficiently. As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified claim 3 of ‘672 such that the co-processor comprises a graphic processor, and the at least one register is configured to store at least one drawing parameter.
Claim 5 is rejected for similar reasoning.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2 and 4-5 are allowed over the prior art.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 1 and 4, the prior art of record, individually or in combination, has not taught, together with all other claimed features, the limitations of the last three paragraphs.
Response to Arguments
The examiner has considered applicant’s amendments and related arguments with respect to the 101 rejection. The examiner concludes that claims 1 and 4 include additional elements that, when considered in combination, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to significantly more. Thus, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment (e.g. at least the deletion of the “sorting” in claims 1 and 4) necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David J. Huisman whose telephone number is 571-272-4168. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jyoti Mehta, can be reached at 571-270-3995. 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.
/David J. Huisman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2183
Prosecution Insights