DETAILED ACTION
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 6-13 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "wherein the checking processing further comprises in case of mismatch at step d) and/or f) and/or i) and/or in case of unsuccessful checks at step l)". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim since Claim 6 is dependent on Claims 1-2 but step ‘f)’ was recited in Claim 3, step ‘i)’ was recited in Claim 4 and step ‘l)’ was recited in Claim 5.
Claim 8 also has antecedent basis issues similar to Claim 6, regarding steps ‘i)’ and ‘l)’.
Claim 10 also has antecedent basis issues similar to Claim 6, regarding step ‘l)’.
Claim 12 also has antecedent basis issues similar to Claim 6, regarding steps ‘f)’ and ‘i)’.
Claims 7, 9, 11, 13 and 19-20 are also rejected since they depend from at least one of rejected Claims 6, 8, 10, 12 and as such inherit the same deficiencies.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 and 14-18 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The above-mentioned claims have been placed in condition for allowance due to the inclusion of a novel method and systems for implementing a software-based lock step execution, particularly with regard to the limitations of Independent Claim 1 which recites:
“-partitioning the application software into a startup software and a first runtime software executing sequentially and iteratively the safety function on a basis of a state machine during a sequence of successive time intervals; …
-making run the startup software and the first runtime software by the first processing unit and making run the second runtime software by the second processing unit; and
-during a current time interval of the sequence, performing a checking processing comprising at least a comparison processing performed at an end of an execution of the second runtime software between first results of an execution of the first runtime software and second results of the execution of the second runtime software.”
The prior art teaches various systems and methods for implementing software-based lock step execution, but nowhere does any of the prior art disclose a system or method which implements a software-based lock step execution in the manner disclosed by the Applicant’s independent claims, particularly with regard to the specific limitations discussed above. The fact that the prior art does not teach or render obvious the instant application as recited in the independent claim has placed the aforementioned claims in condition for allowance.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is as follows:
Morrison et al. (US PGPUB 2014/0101642) discloses a method and system for implementing a decoupled lockstep mechanism on a plurality of cores, wherein critical sections of source code are selected and the execution results, of those sections, from the multiple cores are compared .
Diziol et al. (US PGPUB 2025/0068526) discloses a method and system for implementing a hardware-based software lockstep, wherein the software lockstep means that the program is run twice and the results are compared.
Hayakawa et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0073806) discloses a system comprising first and second CPUs, wherein the first CPU executes a first software for a software lock-step, the second CPU executes a second software for the software lock-step, and the results from the executions are compared.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joanne G. Macasiano whose telephone number is (571)270-7749. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday, 10:30 AM to 6:00 PM Eastern Standard Time.
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, Bradley Teets can be reached at (571) 272-3338. 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.
/JOANNE G MACASIANO/ Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights