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.
Claims 1-5,7-11,13-18,20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5,7-11,13-18,20 of U.S. Patent No.12197280. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-5,7-11,13-18,20 of U.S. Patent No.12197280 contain every element of claims 1-5,7-11,13-18,20 of the instant application and thus anticipate the claims of the instant application. Therefore the claims of the instant application are not patentably distinct from the earlier patent claims and as such are unpatentable.
There is no prior art rejection for the claims because of the inclusion of the following limitations: ‘determine that the number of the plurality of interrupts has reached an interrupt threshold and, in response, prevent use of a link to the first PCIe device and prevent the performance of recovery operations to recover the first PCIe device from the error’.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
USPN 20170091013 - paragraph 0026 - Once the interrupt count reaches a threshold amount (e.g., a “reporting threshold”), the interrupt throwing module 112 may disable interrupt signaling for the corresponding root port RP2. For example, if the reporting threshold for the root port RP2 is set to “1,” the interrupt throttling module 112 may prevent the signaling of interrupts 103 to the CPU 120 for any additional errors messages received by the root port RP2 beyond the first error message 101. The worker thread 170 may subsequently re-enable interrupt signaling for the root port RP2 after it has read the AER register of the endpoint device 130 and cleared the error message 101 from the error register associated with the root port RP2.
USPN 20160246739 - paragraph 0032 - Thus, if the counter for a PCI device function is over a threshold number of times, the spurious interrupt detection module may determine that PCI device function generated the spurious interrupt signal. The spurious interrupt detection module may then alert a system administrator of the PCI device function, may eject the associated PCI device, or may reset the associated PCI device.
USPN 20230281080 - paragraph 0017 - Downstream Port Containment (DPC) is a feature defined in the PCle specification that may be supported by CXL and PCle Downstream Ports (e.g., ports that point away from a root complex). DPC halts PCle traffic (e.g., transaction layer packets) below (e.g., downstream of) a root port after an uncorrectable error is detected at the root port or below the root port (e.g., at an I/O device coupled to the root port), avoiding the potential spread of data corruption and supporting further device recovery. DPC also supports usage models in which software or firmware may examine the status of the CXL/PCle devices and trigger DPC when appropriate. Various embodiments of the present disclosure leverage this usage model to provide proactive recovery of a link for an unstable communication device (e.g., a root port or an I/O device).; paragraph 0084 - At 704, an interrupt is generated. In some embodiments, the interrupt may comprise a system management interrupt (SMI). The interrupt may be generated, e.g., by the root port when DPC is triggered at the root port. The interrupt may be provided to firmware 506 (e.g., BIOS).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yolanda L Wilson whose telephone number is (571)272-3653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7:30 am - 4 pm).
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at 571-272-3655. 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.
/Yolanda L Wilson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113