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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to claims 1, 9, and 16, Applicant argues that Desphande does not disclose executing second instructions to process the data in the virtual memory address region. In particular applicant argues that Despandes disclosure of performing read/write operations in response to a page fault does not correspond to “processing” data. Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the claim language is given the broadest reasonable interpretation. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “executing second instructions to process” the data is to execute a series of computer operations that performs some kind of activity on the data. A read or write operation of the data in response to a page fault is a kind of activity that is performed on the data by the computer system and therefore discloses “processing” of the data even though the processing does not generate a computation result. Applicant also argues that claim 9 has been amended to recite, “executing the second instructions to generate a computation result from processing the data in the virtual memory address region…” This is incorrect as claim 9 does not recite that language in the limitations.
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 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,954,042. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims have the same scope in limitations with only minor changes to the phrasing. In particular, the independent claims of the ‘042 correspond directly in scope to claims 2, 10, and 17 respectively of the present application and would thus anticipate claims 1, 9, and 16 of the present application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 7, 9, 14, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPub 2010/0312850 to Deshpande in view of US PGPub 2009/0113422 to Kani.
Regarding claim 1, Deshpande discloses a computing device, comprising:
a communication device (see fig. 1 and paragraph 32, computers 106A-N are connected to a network 128);
a local memory (remote physical memory 102B is the local memory of remote computer 106B); and
at least one microprocessor (although not explicitly shown, computers 106A-N necessarily have microprocessors since they are computers) configured to:
provide access to a portion of the local memory to a remote device, wherein the remote device is configured to map a virtual memory address region used in execution of first instructions in the remote device to the portion of the local memory (see paragraph 33, the remote physical memory 102B is mapped into the virtual address space 116A of local computer 116A);
receive data in the portion of the local memory via the remote device accessing the portion of the local memory via the virtual memory address region (see paragraph 37, local computer 106A can access remote physical memory 102B-N which means data can be read from and written to the remote physical memory 102B);
receive a request to execute second instructions (see paragraph 44, the remote computer 110B receives a page fault to load physical memory); and
execute the second instructions to process the data in the virtual memory address region (see paragraph 59, the remote computer performs the read/write operation for the page fault).
Deshpande does not disclose creating a virtual memory device. Kani discloses creating an allocating a virtual memory device to a virtual machine (see paragraphs 4 and 22 of Kani). It would have been obvious at the time the application as filed to a person of ordinary skill in the art to create a virtual memory device in order to supply memory to a virtual machine.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Deshpande and Kani renders obvious the method performed by the device of claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Deshpande and Kani renders obvious the non-transitory computer storage medium storing instructions which when executed on a computing device having a communication device and a local memory, cause the computing device to perform the method of claim 9.
Regarding claim 7 and 14, the combination of Deshpande and Kani renders obvious the computing device and method wherein the at least one microprocessor is configured to execute the second instructions before termination of the application initiated in the remote device (see paragraphs 44 and 59, the second instructions are for a page fault operation which is a request for memory to be used by the requesting application and would therefore have to be executed before termination of the requesting application).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Deshpande and Kani renders obvious the non-transitory computer storage medium, wherein the method further comprises providing, from the computing device to the remote device over the wired or wireless connection, at least a portion of content in the virtual memory address region updated via execution of the second instructions (see paragraph 59, the second instructions are for a page fault operation for data to be used by the requesting computer).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6, 8, 10-13, 15, 17, 18, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if the double patenting rejection were overcome.
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 14, the prior art does not disclose or suggest creating a virtual memory device usable by the remote device.
Regarding claims 3-6, 11-13, and 18, the prior art does not disclose or suggest the microprocessor is configured via a virtual machine to execute the second instructions. The second instructions disclosed by the prior art are for a page fault operation which would not be performed by a virtual machine.
Regarding claims 8, 15, and 20, the prior art does not disclose or suggest executing the second instructions at least in parallel with execution of the first instructions in the remote device.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DANIEL D TSUI whose telephone number is (571)270-3253. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm.
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, Hosain Alam can be reached at (571)272-3978. 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.
/DANIEL D TSUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2132