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).
Claim(s) 1-12 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12,249,300
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘302 covers the same scope as ‘300 and corresponding claims are present in corresponding dependent claims of ‘300. ‘302 differs by reciting a non-transitory medium. However, a system such as in claim 1 of ‘300 would necessarily comprise a non-transitory medium.
Table 1 below lists corresponding claims between the present application and U.S. Patent No. 12,249,300
Table 1. Corresponding Claims
19/058302
US Patent 12,249,300
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
12
12
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-7 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 6-10 of U.S. Patent No. 11,756,511
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).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because ‘302 is broader in scope than ‘511 and all limitations a present in a corresponding claim.
Table 1 below shows an example claim mapping between the present application and U.S. Patent No. 11,756,511
Table 2 below lists corresponding claims between the present application and U.S. Patent No. 11,756,511
Table 1. Example Claim Mapping – ‘511
1. A system for rendering an image, the system comprising (‘511, claim 6: 6. A system for rendering an image, comprising:
at least one processor (necessarily included in a system comprising a buffer manager as claimed)
; and
at least one memory storing instructions that when executed by the at least one processor (necessarily included in a system comprising a buffer manager as claimed),
cause the system to perform causing a first drawing program that has a capability to draw in three dimensions to generate a first buffer and a second buffer in the system (‘511, claim 6: “a buffer manager for causing at a buffer manager output a first drawing program that has a capability to draw in three dimensions to generate a first buffer and a second buffer in a computer storage system”);
receiving an identifier of the first buffer from the first drawing program (‘511, claim 6: “for receiving at a buffer manager input an identifier of the first buffer from the first drawing program, and for providing at the buffer manager output the identifier of the first buffer”);
providing the identifier of the first buffer to a second drawing program to cause the second drawing program to generate a bitmap image into the first buffer (‘511, claim 6: “for providing at the buffer manager output the identifier of the first buffer; an image manager having an image manager input coupled to the buffer manager output for receiving the identifier of the first buffer, the image manager for providing at an image manager output the identifier of the first buffer to a second drawing program, that is different from the first drawing program and does not have a capability to draw in three dimensions, to cause the second drawing program to generate a bitmap image into the first buffer, and for providing a signal at the image manager output”)
the second drawing program being different from the first drawing program and not being capable of drawing in three dimensions (‘511, claim 6: “a second drawing program, that is different from the first drawing program and does not have a capability to draw in three dimensions”); and
causing the first drawing program to render the image using the first buffer and the second buffer (‘511, claim 6: “causing via a rendering manager output the first drawing program to render the image using the first buffer and the second buffer, responsive to the signal”)
Table 2. Corresponding Claims
19/058,302
11,756,511
1
6
2
3
7
4
5
8
6
9
7
10
8
9
10
11
12
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 would be allowable upon approval of a terminal disclaimer.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The present claims overlap in scope with ‘300 as referenced above. The same reasons for allowance in ‘300 are appliable.
Additional Prior Art
Additional prior art relevant to Applicant’s disclosure but not relied upon:
Adbo (US 9,235,452) discusses creation of buffers with WPF GDI and DirectX.
PNG
media_image1.png
662
581
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN M GRAY whose telephone number is (571)272-4582. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 9:00am-5:30pm (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, Kee Tung can be reached on (571)272-7794. 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. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/RYAN M GRAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights