DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment to the Claims submitted on January 28, 2026 appears to overcome the Objection to the Claims in the previous Office Action. Therefore, the Objection to the Claims is withdrawn.
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 7 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 22 and 26 of U.S. Patent No. 9,703,574. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the invention of the current claim 1 is anticipated by the claims of the ‘574 patent.
Current claims 1 and 7
Claims 22 and 26, ‘574 patent
1. A data analysis system, comprising: a data buffer configured to receive data to be analyzed; a state machine lattice comprising a plurality of configurable elements, wherein the configurable elements are configured to analyze at least a portion of the data as an analysis and to output a result of the analysis; and a buffer interface configured to receive the data from the data buffer and to provide the at least a portion of the data to the state machine lattice for analysis.
22. A state machine engine, comprising an inter-rank (IR) bus control system configured to halt a write operation of data from an IR bus and process buffer interface to a state machine lattice, wherein the state machine lattice comprises a plurality of configurable elements and each of the plurality of configurable elements comprises a plurality of memory cells configured to analyze the data and to output a result of the analysis.
7. The data analysis system of claim 1, wherein each configurable element of the plurality of configurable elements comprises a plurality of memory cells.
26. The state machine engine of claim 24, wherein the storage location comprises a buffer.
Both the current claim 1 and claim 22 of the ‘574 patent disclose a state machine lattice comprising a plurality of configurable elements, wherein the configurable elements are configured to analyze at least a portion of the data as an analysis and to output a result of the analysis; and a buffer interface configured to receive the data from the data buffer and to provide the at least a portion of the data to the state machine lattice for analysis.
Both the current claim 1 and claim 26 of the ‘574 patent disclose a data buffer configured to receive data to be analyzed.
Claim 22 of the ‘574 patent further discloses that each of the plurality of configurable elements comprises a plurality of memory cells, and an inter-rank bus control system configured to halt a write operation of data to a state machine lattice, wherein the IR bus control system is configured to halt the write operation based. This is not disclosed by the current claim 1. Therefore, claims 22 and 26 of the ‘574 patent anticipate the disclosure of the current claim 1.
Based on this, the current claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory anticipation-type double patenting.
Further, both the current claim 7 and claim 22 of the ‘574 patent disclose wherein each configurable element of the plurality of configurable elements comprises a plurality of memory cells.
Based on this, the current claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory anticipation-type double patenting.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-20 are allowed.
Claims 1 and 7 would be allowable if the double patenting rejection were overcome.
Claims 2-6 are objected to as depending on a rejected claim, but would be allowable if the rejection were overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Referring to independent claim 1, the prior art of record does not appear to anticipate, explicitly teach, or fairly suggest a state machine lattice comprising a plurality of configurable elements, wherein the configurable elements are configured to analyze at least a portion of the data as an analysis and to output a result of the analysis.
Further, it would not have been obvious to combine the above limitations with the remaining limitations of the claim.
Casarsa (US 2011/0258499) discloses calculating a scan test digital signature as a function of the at least one output test signal and comparing the calculated value of the scan test digital signature to an expected value; however, this does not appear to anticipate or explicitly teach the subject matter determined to be allowable.
Harrell (US 5,682,554) discloses a buffer for storing data received from a first system at a first transfer rate and then transferred to a second system at a second transfer rate; however, this does not appear to anticipate or explicitly teach the subject matter determined to be allowable.
Brownell et al. (US 2010/0312928) discloses a system of controlling transaction flow including a counter configured to track a delay-reference of packets held in a second buffer of two buffers; however, this does not appear to anticipate or explicitly teach the subject matter determined to be allowable.
Zhao et al. (US 2012/0041901) discloses a cluster profile module, wherein at least a portion of the historical data is grouped and categorized by a context-concept-cluster (CCC) data analysis method; however, this does not appear to anticipate or explicitly teach the subject matter determined to be allowable.
Khan (US 9,286,275) discloses analyzing a structure of a portion of the XML data elements in the initial XML document and generating a data framework that defines a pattern of empty XML data elements based on-the structure of the portion of analyzed XML data elements; however, this does not appear to anticipate or explicitly teach the subject matter determined to be allowable.
Note that independent claims 8 and 14 contain the corresponding limitations of claim 1 as shown above; therefore, they are considered to contain allowable subject matter by the same reasoning accordingly.
Applicant’s arguments, see “Claim Rejections under Doctrine of Obviousness-Type Double Patenting”, filed January 28, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 7 based on claims 22 and 26 of the ‘574 patent have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of claim 22 of the ‘574 patent.
The Applicant argued that claim 24 of the ‘574 patent does not disclose a buffer interface as is disclosed in current claim 1 (page 7, lines 4-19).
The Examiner has provided an updated double patenting rejection, showing claim 22 of the ‘574 patent, which does appear to disclose a buffer interface in a manner similar to that of the current claim 1.
Based on this, the rejection has been updated.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Casarsa (US 2011/0258499) discloses calculating a scan test digital signature as a function of the at least one output test signal and comparing the calculated value of the scan test digital signature to an expected value.
Harrell (US 5,682,554) discloses a buffer for storing data received from a first system at a first transfer rate and then transferred to a second system at a second transfer rate.
Brownell et al. (US 2010/0312928) discloses a system of controlling transaction flow including a counter configured to track a delay-reference of packets held in a second buffer of two buffers.
Zhao et al. (US 2012/0041901) discloses a cluster profile module, wherein at least a portion of the historical data is grouped and categorized by a context-concept-cluster (CCC) data analysis method.
Khan (US 9,286,275) discloses analyzing a structure of a portion of the XML data elements in the initial XML document and generating a data framework that defines a pattern of empty XML data elements based on-the structure of the portion of analyzed XML data elements.
However, these do not appear to anticipate or explicitly teach the subject matter determined to be allowable.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN B ROCHE whose telephone number is (571)270-1721. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:30 - 7.
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, Henry Tsai can be reached at (571)272-4176. 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.
/J.B.R/Examiner, Art Unit 2184
/HENRY TSAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2184
Prosecution Insights