CTFR 18/747,956 CTFR 79455 DETAILED ACTION 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. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. This action is in response to the Claims/Remarks on 2/17/26. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but were not found to be persuasive. 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. 08-36 AIA Claim s 1, 8, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,045,670 B2 in view of Agesen et al. (hereinafter Agesen) (US 6,173,442 B1) . U.S. Patent No. 12,045,670 B2 was cited in a previous PTO-892. The following table illustrates how the limitations of instant claim 1 are similar and are taught/suggested in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,045,670 B2: INSTANT CLAIM 1 CLAIM 1 OF US 12,045,670 B2 1. A method, comprising: granting a lock request for an object, the object comprising a multi-function word and the lock request comprising an address of synchronization structure; and receiving a request to release the lock for the object, and responsive to receiving the request: atomically exchanging a value stored in the multi-function word with an identifier of the object , and responsive to a failure of atomically exchanging the value: obtaining an address of a second synchronization structure based at least in part on a current value stored in the multi-function word of the object; and passing control of the lock to a waiting thread identified by the second synchronization structure. 1. A computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving a request to hold a lock for an object, the object comprising a multi-function word and the request comprising an address of a synchronization structure; and responsive to receiving the request: atomically exchanging a value stored in the multi-function word with the address of the synchronization structure ; responsive to determining that the value is an identifier of the object , recording the identifier of the object in the synchronization structure; responsive to determining that the value is an address of another synchronization structure waiting to hold the lock, waiting for transfer of the lock, the waiting for transfer of the lock comprising: obtaining the identifier of the object from the other synchronization structure; recording the obtained identifier of the object in the synchronization structure; recording the address of the synchronization structure in the other synchronization structure; and waiting for hold of the lock to be transferred to the synchronization structure ; and returning an indicator of a held state for the requested lock. Although the claims at issue are not explicitly identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of the instant claim are taught are suggested in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,045,670 B2, except for the instant claim granting a request, while the claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,045,670 B2 discloses receiving a request. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the request is granted when the passing/transferring control of the lock occurs. Because the claimed method of the instant application is merely a rearranged and streamlined presentation of the same lock-transfer routine claimed in claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,045,670 B2, the subject matter is obvious in view of, and not patentably distinct. In addition, claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,045,670 B2 does not teach a multi-function word. However, Agesen teaches obtaining an address of another synchronization structure based at least in part on a current value stored in the multi-function word, wherein the claimed multi-function word maps to the object-header lock word (col. 15, lines 30-48) . Specifically, Agesen discloses that the object structure's header 40 includes two words. The first word is a pointer to an object representing the class to which the object belongs. The second word includes a hash field and an age field (Abstract; col. 9, lines 11-25; col. 10, lines 35-55) . Agesen's object structure's header's lock word stores a pointer or truncated pointer to monitor resources in the form of a linked list of lock records (Abstract; col. 12, lines 7-12; Figs 7D-E) . Thus, under the BRI, Agesen's object structure's header 40 or its lock word teaches the claimed multi-function word. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the application to modify claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,045,670 B2 to include the teaching of a multi-function word because it would improve efficiency by minimizing synchronization-state code and give little performance penalty, therefore, minimizing storage cost of implementing a monitor for a variety of synchronization operations (Agesen – col. 9, lines 26-44) . Therefore, claim 1 of the instant application stands rejected on the ground of obviousness-type non-statutory double patenting. As to independent claims 8 and 15, they are rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 1 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agesen et al. (hereinafter Agesen) (US 6,173,442 B1) . Ageson was cited in a previous PTO-892. As to claim 1, Agesen teaches a method, comprising: granting a lock request for an object (object structure’s header 40 containing a synchronization-state field 42) , the object comprising a multi-function word (object structure header 40) and the lock request comprising an address (LR Pointer or lock record pointer is an address of a synchronization structure such as a lock record) of a synchronization structure (pointers to synchronization structures (lock records 50, 52, 54 in linked list) associated with threads) (Abstract; col. 18, lines 50-67; Fig. 7) ; and receiving a request to release the lock for the object (calling monitor-access operation to release the lock) , involving the atomic exchange operation (atomic compare-and-swap (CAS) operations for synchronization) for releasing locks, and responsive to receiving the request (Abstract; col. 17, line 49 through col. 18, line 8; col. 6, lines 37-51) ; atomically exchanging (CAS, replacing, swap operation) a value stored in the multi-function word with an identifier of the object (identifiers such as lock word, hash/age values, thread identifiers, or lock-state representation and field, etc.) , and responsive to a failure (failure when BUSY) of atomically exchanging the value (atomic swap and compare-and swap operations to place identifiers in an object header to maintain synchronization) (Abstract; col. 7, lines 44-59; col. 10, lines 34-55; col. 16, lines 4-15; col. 20, lines 61-67) : obtaining an address (header’s previous contents include a pointer to the first lock record) of a another synchronization structure (the next lock record in the linked list of lock records; the lock record referenced through the “next-LR field” of the current lock record) based at least in part on a current value (value from lock word; The thread that is first will read the original (unlocked) lock-word contents. The second thread will read the lock word written by the first thread, etc.) stored in the multi-function word (value stored in the object’s header is the multi-function word) of the object (threads reading synchronization states and addresses of synchronization structures from object headers or execution environments) (Abstract; col. 9, lines 11-26; col. 11, line 60 through col. 12, line 12; col. 13, lines 6-17; Fig. 7) ; and passing control of the lock to a waiting thread (successor thread that is identified via the lock-record list and/or owner field) identified by the other (placing a pointer to lock record 50 in lock record’s 52’s next-LR field, etc.) synchronization structure (“hand off” the meta-lock to its successor, passing through their execution environments the data that would otherwise have written into the object header’s lock word) (Abstract; col. 9, lines 8-25; col. 13, lines 6-17; Fig. 7D, E, F) . Although Ageson does not explicitly recite the term “granting” the lock, Ageson’s explicit teachings of passing control of the lock through the “hand off,” clearly implies that the lock request has been granted. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that explicitly passing, transferring, or handing off control of a lock includes the explicit step of granting the request. Therefore, “granting” is merely a clarification of the existing synchronization process and does not impart patentable distinction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the application to explicitly characterize the act of transferring lock control as “granting” the request. Such terminology clarifies and highlights a step already present in Ageson’s synchronization management, and enhances clarity and transparency without altering its existing system. The Examiner notes that Agesen teaches obtaining an address of another synchronization structure based at least in part on a current value stored in the multi-function word, wherein the claimed multi-function word maps to the object-header lock word (col. 15, lines 30-48) . Specifically, Agesen discloses that the object structure's header 40 includes two words. The first word is a pointer to an object representing the class to which the object belongs. The second word includes a hash field and an age field (Abstract; col. 9, lines 11-25; col. 10, lines 35-55) . Agesen's object structure's header's lock word stores a pointer or truncated pointer to monitor resources in the form of a linked list of lock records (Abstract; col. 12, lines 7-12; Figs 7D-E) . Thus, under the BRI, Agesen's object structure's header 40 or its lock word teaches the claimed multi-function word. As to claim 2, Agesen teaches wherein atomically exchanging the value stored in the multi-function word is performed responsive to determining that no threads are waiting (via the setting of WaitingForNotify field) to allocate the lock, and wherein atomically exchanging the value stored in the multi-function word comprises executing an atomic compare-and-swap (CAS) instruction (atomic compare-and-swap operations for synchronization) (Abstract; col. 12, lines 46-67; col. 23, lines 49-64) . As to claim 3, Agesen teaches further comprising: determining, responsive to receiving another request to release the lock for the object, that lock is nested (nested and recursive) ; and decrementing (decrementing the lock count) , responsive to the determining, a nesting count for the lock (col. 13, lines 26-38) . As to claim 4, Ageson teaches further comprising: executing, responsive to receiving another request to release the lock for the object, another CAS instruction to atomically exchange another value stored in the multi-function word of the object with an address of a waiting synchronization structure (lock record 52) , and responsive to a failure executing the other atomic CAS instruction: obtaining an address of another waiting synchronization structure (lock record 54) based at least in part on a current value stored in a multi-function word of the object; and passing control of the lock to a other thread (thread T3) identified by the other waiting synchronization structure (Abstract; Figs. 7A-K) . As to claim 5, Ageson teaches wherein the atomic CAS instruction is executed responsive to determining that a second thread (thread T2) is waiting to allocate the lock, the second thread identified by the other synchronization structure (lock record 52) (Abstract; Figs. 7) . As to claim 6, Ageson teaches further comprising: controlling access to the lock according to the third synchronization structure (another of lock records 50, 52, or 54 in linked list) responsive to successfully executing the other atomic CAS instruction (Abstract; Figs. 7) . As to claim 7, Ageson teaches further comprising: identifying, responsive to receiving another request to release the lock for the object, another thread (Thread T3) waiting for the lock according to a controlling synchronization structure for the lock, and responsive to the identifying: obtaining an address (via pointer) of a third synchronization structure (lock record 54) from the controlling synchronization structure; and passing control of the lock to the other thread identified by the third synchronization structure (Abstract; Figs 7) . As to claim 8, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 1. As to claim 9, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 2. As to claim 10, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 3. As to claim 11, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 4. As to claim 12, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 5. As to claim 13, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 6. As to claim 14, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 7. As to claim 15, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 1. As to claim 16, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 2. As to claim 17, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 3. As to claim 18, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 4. As to claim 19, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 5. As to claim 20, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 7. Response to Arguments Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Ageson does not disclose obtaining an address of another synchronization structure based at least in part on a current value stored in a multi-function word . In response, Agesen teaches obtaining an address of another synchronization structure based at least in part on a current value stored in the multi-function word, wherein the claimed multi-function word maps to the object-header lock word (col. 15, lines 30-48) . Specifically, Agesen discloses that the object structure's header 40 includes two words. The first word is a pointer to an object representing the class to which the object belongs. The second word includes a hash field and an age field (Abstract; col. 9, lines 11-25; col. 10, lines 35-55) . Agesen's object structure's header's lock word stores a pointer or truncated pointer to monitor resources in the form of a linked list of lock records (Abstract; col. 12, lines 7-12; Figs 7D-E) . Thus, under the BRI, Agesen's object structure's header 40 or its lock word teaches the claimed multi-function word. Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Agesen doesn't teach that responsive to a failure executing the instruction obtaining an address of a second synchronization structure based at least in part on a current value stored in the multi-function word of the object. In response, Agesen teaches that in response to a compare-and-swap operation failure, the lock-release operation will involve access to another thread's lock record in the linked list of lock records (Abstract; col. 23, lines 29-33) . Conclusion 07-39 AIA 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 KENNETH TANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3772. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-3PM. 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. /KENNETH TANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/747,956 Page 2 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/747,956 Page 3 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/747,956 Page 4 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/747,956 Page 6 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/747,956 Page 7 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/747,956 Page 8 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/747,956 Page 9 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/747,956 Page 10 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/747,956 Page 13 Art Unit: 2197
Prosecution Insights