DETAILED ACTION
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 claims because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claims.
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).
Claims 1, 10 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3, 5, 11 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 12,223,351. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed invention claims a broader scope from the ‘351 patent.
‘589 Application
‘351 Patent
(claim 1) receiving a plurality of tasks that are ready to be executed;
(claim 1)
determining that an additional task can be executed by the processor;
in response to determine that an additional task can be executed by the processor;
comparing, for each individual task of the plurality of received tasks,
an indication of resources used by the individual task to both an indication of resources used by a set of tasks being executed, and
an indication of resources used by a set of tasks likely to be executed in the future;
selecting a task from a plurality of received tasks that are ready to be executed base at least in part on a comparison of
indications of resources used by tasks being executed and
indications of resources used by individual tasks in the plurality of received tasks; and
determining that none of the plurality of received tasks share the same or similar indications of resources with the tasks being executed;
(claims 2 and 4) wherein each task has an associated processing state which is an is an indication of resources used by that task,
wherein tasks in an identical processing state execute the same program using the same resources and
selecting the individual task from the plurality of received tasks that is least similar to the set of tasks likely to be executed in the future; and
(claims 2 and 4) wherein selecting a task from the plurality of received tasks based at least in part on a comparison of
indicators of resources used by tasks being executed and
indications of resources used by individual tasks in the plurality of received tasks comprises:
selecting a task from the plurality of received tasks having an associated processing state that matches the associated processing state of at least one of the tasks being executed.
executing the selected task.
executing the selected task.
Claims 1, 10 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3, 5, 11, 13 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11,755,365. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claimed invention claims a broader scope from the ‘365 patent.
‘589 Application
‘351 Patent
(claim 1) receiving a plurality of tasks that are ready to be executed;
(claim 1) receiving, at a scheduler, a plurality of tasks that are ready to be executed;
determining that an additional task can be executed by the processor;
adding the received tasks to a task pool; and in response to
determining that an additional task can be executed by the processor,
comparing, for each individual task of the plurality of received tasks,
an indication of resources used by the individual task to both an indication of resources used by a set of tasks being executed, and
an indication of resources used by a set of tasks likely to be executed in the future;
selecting a task from the task pool based at least in part on a comparison of
indications of resources used by tasks being executed and
indications of resources used by individual tasks in the task pool; and
determining that none of the plurality of received tasks share the same or similar indications of resources with the tasks being executed;
(claims 2 and 4) wherein each task has an associated processing state which is an indication of resources used by that task,
wherein tasks in an identical processing state execute the same program using the same resources and
wherein selecting a task from the task pool based at least in part on a comparison of indications of resources used by tasks being executed and indications of resources used by individual tasks in the task pool comprises:
selecting the individual task from the plurality of received tasks that is least similar to the set of tasks likely to be executed in the future; and
(claims 2 and 4) selecting a task from the task pool having an associated processing state that matches the associated processing state of at least one of the tasks being executed.
executing the selected task.
executing the selected task.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The term “likely” in independent claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “likely” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The term “similar” and “least similar” in independent claim 1 are relative terms which render the claim indefinite. The term “similar” and “least similar” not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Independent claims 10 and 20 have the same issue. Dependent claims 2-9 and 11-19 are rejected for the same reason as in their preceding claims.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner Cheng-Yuan Tseng whose telephone number is (571)272-9772, and fax number is (571)273-9772. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 09:00 to 17:30 Eastern Time. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alicia Harrington can be reached on (571)272-2330. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866)217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800)786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571)272-1000.
/CHENG YUAN TSENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights