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 .
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.
Claim1 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11822377. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim limitation of the instant application is anticipated by the reference patent. Dependent are rejected as mapped.
Instant application
Reference patent11822377
A method comprising: determining respective timestamps of a synchronization pulse simultaneously injected into a plurality of processors, wherein determining the respective timestamps is according to respective reference clocks of the plurality of processors; computing at least one time offset between the determined timestamps; and using the at least one computed time offset as a basis to provide a synchronized timebase for time measurements thereafter made by the plurality of processors.
+
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of processors comprises a first processor and a second processor, wherein the respective reference clocks of the first processor and the second processor operate at a same frequency as each other and are off-phase from each other, wherein the respective timestamps comprise a first timestamp according to a first reference clock of the first processor and a second timestamp according to a second reference clock of the second processor, and wherein the at least one time offset comprises a time offset between the first timestamp and the second timestamp.
1. (Original) A method comprising: simultaneously injecting a synchronization pulse into a plurality of processors, wherein the plurality of processors includes a first processor and a second processor, the first processor having a first reference clock, the second processor having a second reference clock, and the first and second reference clocks being off sync from each other; recording, according to the first reference clock of the first processor, a first timestamp of the simultaneously injected synchronization pulse; recording, according to the second reference clock of the second processor, a second timestamp of the simultaneously injected synchronization pulse; computing a time offset between the first timestamp recorded according to the first reference clock of the first processor and the second timestamp recorded according to the second reference clock of the second processor; and using the computed time offset as a basis to provide a synchronized timebase for time measurements thereafter made by the first and second processors.
2-4
2-4
6
5
8
6
9
7
16-18
16-18
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-20 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Ilnickl [20070286195] teaches packet/frame processing module 340 determines that a particular packet/frame is to be modified by adding a timestamp (through appending or modifying an IP packet header, for example), the packet/frame in elastic buffer 330 is jammed. When idles are transmitted by the elastic buffer 330, the packet/frame processing module 340 modifies the captured packet/frame with timestamp information and updates the IP packet header. The packet/frame processing module 340 injects the modified packet/frame into the output stream by instructing MUX 250 to switch streams.
Kim [20190348988] teaches the pulse generator 420 may generate the selection signal SEL activated in the period including the first pulse and the second pulse. Accordingly, edges due to the first pulse and the second pulse may be periodically injected into the delay clock signal CK_D.
Shah [8521811] teaches “the client device may determine whether an offset has been received from the server. If an offset has been received from the server indicative of a time offset within the time-based media presentation, the process 400 may proceed to step 416 where the client device synchronizes based on the offset. If any offset has not been received, the process 400 may return to step 406 and the client device may receive, sample, and hash additional audio content for forwarding to the server. The server may also or instead respond with an explicit indication of a failure to determine the offset. Where an offset is returned, the offset may be provided as a specific offset within the time-based media presentation as generally described above, or a number of candidate offsets may be returned to the client device for local evaluation…..synchronization indicator may be displayed on the client device indicating that a reliable synchronization has been achieved using, e.g., an icon or symbol on a display of the client device, or another indicator such as an audible tone, a flashing light-emitting diode, an animation, and so forth”
The prior art of record neither individually nor in combination teach:
determining respective timestamps of a synchronization pulse simultaneously injected into a plurality of processors, wherein determining the respective timestamps is according to respective reference clocks of the plurality of processors;
using the at least one computed time offset as a basis to provide a synchronized timebase for time measurements thereafter made by the plurality of processors.
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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KESHAB R PANDEY whose telephone number is (571)270-0176. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00(ET).
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, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached at (571) 270-1640. 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.
/KESHAB R PANDEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2176
Prosecution Insights