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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
The IDSes, filed 5/30/25, 6/30/25, and 8/26/25 have been considered.
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 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 5 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,197,324.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 of patent #12,197,324 contain(s) every element of claim(s) 1 and 11 of the instant application and as such anticipate(s) claim(s) 1 and 11 of the instant application.
“A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). “ ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
The following is an example claim mapping between that of the current application and patent:
Current Application
A method comprising:
performing a first object allocation within a private heap associated with a thread;
detecting that the first object allocation violates a speculative state where a garbage collection system operates as if objects in private heap are only reachable by the thread;
responsive to detecting that the first object allocation violates the speculative state,
adding an allocation site context associated with the first object allocation to a record of shared allocation sites; detecting that context information associated with a second object allocation matches
the allocation site context in the record of shared allocation sites; and responsive to detecting that context information associated with a second object allocation matches
the allocation site context in the record of shared allocation sites, performing the second object allocation on a shared heap.
Patent 12,197,324
1.A method comprising:
performing an object allocation within a private heap associated with a thread;
detecting that the object allocation violates a speculative state where a garbage collection system operates as if objects in private heap are only reachable by the thread;
responsive to detecting that the object allocation violates the speculative state, generating an indication that notifies the garbage collection system that the speculative state is violated; detecting a trigger for performing a thread-local garbage collection to reclaim memory from at least one private heap; responsive to detecting the trigger, determining, by the garbage collection system, whether to initiate the thread-local garbage collection based at least in part on the indication.
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising: adding allocation context information associated with the object allocation to a record of shared allocation sites; detecting a subsequent object allocation that has matching
allocation context information stored in the record of shared allocation sites; and responsive to detecting that the subsequent allocation has matching allocation context information, performing the subsequent object allocation on a shared heap area.
As can be seen above, claim 5 (incorporating claim 1) of the patent 12,197,324 includes all of the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application, and further limitations, thereby anticipates claim 1 of the instant application.
Independent claim 11 is similarly mapped to claim 15 (incorporating claim 11) of the patent 12,197,234.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, in conjunction with a terminal disclaimer.
As to claim 2/12, the prior art does not further suggest the invention of claim 1/11, wherein adding the allocation site context associated with the first object allocation to the record of shared allocation sites is further performed responsive to determining that a sample set of object metadata is available for the first object allocation.
As to claim 3/13, the prior art does not further suggest the invention of claim 1/11, wherein the allocation site context includes a bytecode index, a stack trace portion, and a set of program counters.
As to claim 4/6/14/16, the prior art does not further suggest the invention of claim 1/11, wherein the record of shared allocation sites includes a radix tree from an allocation bytecode associated with the first object allocation.
As to claim 7/17, the prior art does not further suggest the invention of claim 1/11, wherein detecting that context information associated with a second object allocation matches the allocation site context in the record of shared allocation sites comprises determining that an execution stack associated with the second object allocation matches a stack trace portion associated with the allocation site context.
As to claim 8/18, the prior art does not further suggest the invention of claim 1/11, wherein detecting that context information associated with a second object allocation matches the allocation site context in the record of shared allocation sites comprises determining that a byte code index and method of a caller context matches metadata associated with the allocation site context.
As to claim 9/19, the prior art does not further suggest the invention of claim 1/11, wherein detecting that context information associated with a second object allocation matches the allocation site context in the record of shared allocation sites comprises comparing one or more program counters associated with the second object allocation with one or more program counters associated with the allocation site context.
As to claim 10/20, the prior art does not further suggest the invention of claim 1/11, wherein the first object allocation within the private heap associated with the thread is performed responsive to detecting that context information associated with the first object allocation does not match one or more other allocation site contexts in the record of shared allocation sites.
As to claim 1/11, the closest prior art (US20210200546) teaches a system and method for enforcing temporal memory safety. This art teaches allocating objects to private and shared heap and performing security checks. Garbage collection is used to release unused objects that are no longer needed. The prior art does not suggest the claimed method/media performing the method in which detecting that the first object allocation violates a speculative state where a garbage collection system operates as if objects in private heap are only reachable by the thread; responsive to detecting that the first object allocation violates the speculative state, adding an allocation site context associated with the first object allocation to a record of shared allocation sites; detecting that context information associated with a second object allocation matches the allocation site context in the record of shared allocation sites; and responsive to detecting that context information associated with a second object allocation matches the allocation site context in the record of shared allocation sites, performing the second object allocation on a shared heap.
Another related art (US20180276120) teaches allocation of private heaps for objects and data structures and reclaiming the private heap when the heap is no longer needed, the heap is unreachable because the paths have been removed, or the heap is destroyed. The prior arts do not teach the same criteria for executing garbage collection as currently claimed. The prior arts do not teach detecting that the first object allocation violates a speculative state where a garbage collection system operates as if objects in private heap are only reachable by the thread; responsive to detecting that the first object allocation violates the speculative state, adding an allocation site context associated with the first object allocation to a record of shared allocation sites; detecting that context information associated with a second object allocation matches the allocation site context in the record of shared allocation sites; and responsive to detecting that context information associated with a second object allocation matches the allocation site context in the record of shared allocation sites, performing the second object allocation on a shared heap.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-4198. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am -4:00pm.
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, Tim Vo can be reached at (571)272-3642. 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.
/THAN NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2138