DETAILED ACTION
Claims 21 – 40 are currently pending.
Claims 1 – 20 are canceled.
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 statements (IDS) submitted on 2/7/2025, 6/11/2025 and 2/12/2026 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are 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 21 – 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,531,607 in view of Landers et al (US 2008/0155332).
Comparing claim 21 of the instant application with claim 1 of the ‘607 patent, both claims are directed towards system, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable non-transitory storage media comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause one or more components of the system to perform operations comprising: determining, by a primary instance, that a secondary instance is running in parallel with the primary instance, wherein the secondary instance is associated with a plurality of central processing unit (CPU) cores, the plurality of CPU cores comprising a bootstrap core. Claim 1 of the ‘607 patent describes determining whether the secondary instance is in a fault state; however, it does not specifically describe initiating a boot timer, and determining, by the primary instance, whether a shutdown signal was received from the secondary instance prior to expiration of the boot timer as set forth in claim 21 of the instant application.
However, Landers teaches that a fault occurs if a boot timer expires and there is no signal of the boot completing (Landers: paragraphs [0040] and [0044]) as a way to determine if there is a failure to load or the device is hung (Landers: paragraph [0040]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing that the determining of a fault state of claim 1 of the ‘607 patent could be implemented by the determining whether a complete signal is received before a boot timer has expired as taught by Landers as a way to determine if there is a failure to load or the device is hung (Landers: paragraph [0040]).
The combination of claim 1 of the ‘607 patent and Landers teaches the limitations of claim 21 of the instant application. Independent claims 28 and 35 contain similar claim limitations and are rejected for the same reasons as claim 21. Dependent claims 22 – 27, 29 – 34 and 36 -40 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
Prosecution Insights