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, see Remark, filed March 17, 2026, with respect to claims 1, 8 and 15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The January 12, 2026 has been withdrawn. Therefore, claims 1-20 are distinct from the cited prior arts. However, they are not allowable due to the Double Patent rejections.
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 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over respective claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12026799 in view of Kanto et al. Kanto et al. (US 20130088613 A1, hereinafter Kanto).
An illustration of the claim correspondence is as follows:
Present Application
Patent Number 12026799
Claim 1.
Claim 1.
A graphics processing unit (GPU), comprising:
A graphics processing unit (GPU), comprising:
a graphics pipeline circuit that processes tiles of a first job during execution of an instruction to draw, the first job comprising a first priority; and
a graphics pipeline circuit that processes tiles of a first job during a draw call, the first job comprising a first priority; and
a controller circuit coupled to the graphics pipeline circuit, the controller circuit configured to:
a controller circuit coupled to the graphics pipeline circuit, the controller circuit configured to:
set a preemption timer;
stop the first job, to process a second job comprising a second priority that is greater than the first priority; and
stop the first job by resetting the GPU to preempt the first job with a second job comprising a second priority that is greater than the first priority, determine whether the first job has been previously preempted one or more times, and
adjust at least one of a batch-binning parameter or an image quality parameter to reduce preemption granularity and to increase a likelihood that the first job will run to completion.
adjust at least one of a batch-binning parameter and an image quality parameter to reduce preemption granularity and to reduce a likelihood that the first job will not be preempted, wherein the resetting comprises discarding current results in a software reset or reinitializing the GPU in a hardware reset after the preemption timer has reached a threshold.
Although the claims at issued are not identical, they are patentably distinct for each other because:
Comparing of table above shows the claim 1 of U.S Patent 12026799 discloses claim 1 of Present Application, but does not explicitly teaches adjust at least one of a batch-binning parameter and an image quality parameter to reduce preemption granularity and to increase a likelihood that the first job will to run to completion. However,
Kanto discloses:
adjust at least one of a batch-binning parameter and an image quality parameter to reduce preemption granularity and to increase a likelihood that the first job will to run to completion (Kanto, see at least par. [0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system and method of Acharya 895, the modification of processing high quality image with adjust at least one of a batch-binning parameter and an image quality parameter to reduce preemption granularity and to increase a likelihood that the first job will to run to completion, as provided by Kanto. The modification provides an improved system and method to apply color correction by signal processing to image signals obtained by the image pickup device. Compared to disposing an infrared cut filter, the color correction by signal processing has an advantage in allowing the size of an image pickup apparatus to be reduced, and, in general, has an advantage also in terms of the manufacturing cost. Further, the color correction method facilitates switching between color imaging and highly sensitive imaging (Kanto, see par. [0004]).
Claims 8 and 15 of present Applicant are substantially similar to those of claim 1 of the present Application, therefore they are rejected for the same rationale of claim 1 set forth above and incorporated herein.
A summary of all conflicting claims, including dependent claims, is as follows:
Present Application
1, 8 and 15
2 and 9
3, 10 and 16
4, 11 and 17
5, 12 and 18
6, 13 and 19
7, 14 and 20
Patent Number 12026799
1, 8 and 15
2 and 9
3, 10 and 16
4, 11 and 17
5, 12 and 18
6, 13 and 19
7, 14 and 20
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are distinct from the cited prior arts. However, they are not allowable due to the Double Patent rejections.
Regarding independent claims 1 the closest prior arts that the Examiner found is Acharya et al. (US 20170091895 A1) has been make of record as teaching:
A graphics processing unit (GPU) (Acharya 895, see FIG. 1 and par. [0029]), comprising:
a graphics pipeline circuit (Acharya 895, see par. [0044]) that processes tiles of a first job during execution of an instruction to draw, the first job comprising a first priority (Acharya 895, see par. [0040]; and
a controller circuit (Acharya 895, see par. FIGs. 2-4 and par. [0063]) coupled to the graphics pipeline circuit (Acharya 895, see par. [0067]), the controller circuit configured to:
stop the first job (Acharya 895, see par. [0107])), to process a second job comprising a second priority that is greater than the first priority (Acharya 895, see par. [0018]);
However, the limitation:
“adjust at least one of a batch-binning parameter or an image quality parameter to reduce preemption granularity and to increase a likelihood that the first job will run to completion.”, taken as a whole, render the claims patentably distinct over the prior art.
Claims 8 and 15 each distinguish over the prior art for the reasons set forth
above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 each distinguish over the prior art at least due to their respective dependencies.
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 KIM THANH THI TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1408. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, ALICIA HARRINGTON can be reached at 5712722330. 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.
/KIM THANH T TRAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2615
/JAMES A THOMPSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights