DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/7/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 claims 1 - 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,182,398. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are directed towards the same inventive concept. See the comparison of claim 1 of the instant application and claim 1 of the ‘398 patent below.
Claim 1 (Instant application)
Claim 1 (‘398 patent)
Comparison
A device comprising: a first set of communication interfaces configured to receive a set of transactions directed to a set of devices
A device comprising: a set of interfaces configured to receive a set of memory requests that includes a first memory request and a second memory request;
Both have a set of interfaces to receive a set of transactions.
a second set of communication interfaces configured to couple to the set of devices;
and a circuit coupled to the set of interfaces that includes: an interconnect configured to route the set of memory requests
Both have interfaces to route the requests
and an arbitration circuit coupled to the first set of communication interfaces and to the second set of communication interfaces
an arbiter circuit
Both describe a circuit for arbitration
wherein the arbitration circuit is configured to: select a first transaction from among the set of transactions to provide to a first device of the set of devices, wherein the selection is based on a first property of the first transaction;
for each request of the set of memory requests, determine a respective credit cost and a respective credit count; when the respective credit cost of the first memory request is less than or equal to the respective credit count of the first memory request
Selecting a first transaction based on the first property, the first property being credit cost being less than or equal to a credit count of the request.
And prior to the providing of the first transaction to the first device, determine whether to preempt the first transaction based on a second property of the first transaction, wherein the first property and the second property are different.
inhibit selection of the first memory request based on the respective credit count for the first memory request having fallen at or below a lower threshold and having not subsequently met or exceeded an upper threshold
Inhibiting the first transaction based on the count cost having not subsequently met or exceeded an upper threshold anticipates the instant applications preempting based on a second property, the first property being a lower threshold and the second property being a higher threshold.
As shown in the table above, the same inventive concept is present in both claim 1 of the instant application and claim 1 of the ‘398 patent. As such the claims are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting. Independent claim 14 of the instant application contains limitations similar to claim 1, and is rejected for at least the reasons set forth regarding claim 1. Dependent claims 2 – 13 and 15-20 are rejected for at least their dependence upon rejected independent claims above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY K HUSON whose telephone number is (571)270-3430. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 - 3:30 EST.
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, Idriss Alrobaye can be reached at (571) 270-1023. 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.
/ZACHARY K HUSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2181