DETAILED ACTION
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).
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 1-17 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,121,933. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because applicants claims of the instant application are covered by the claims of the patent.
For instance, “generating a network description for a network-on-chip (NoC) using a plurality of constraints for the NoC, wherein the network description includes connectivity between initiators and targets that satisfies the plurality of constraints; generating a global roadmap between the initiators and the targets; merging at least two nodes, which are part of the global roadmap, using performance-aware node clustering; clustering at least two edges, which are part of the global roadmap and connect at least two merged nodes, using performance-aware edge clustering; and updating the network description using merging and clustering resulting in an updated NoC” as found in claim 1 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from “generating a network description for the NoC network using the plurality of physical constraints and the plurality of performance constraints, wherein the network description satisfies the plurality of physical constraints and the plurality of performance constraints; generating a global consolidation roadmap including connectivity between a plurality of initiators and a plurality of targets; … merging at least two nodes, which are selected from a plurality of nodes, using performance-aware node clustering; and clustering using performance aware edge clustering” as found in the claim 1 and “optimizing the network description; and re-structuring the network description” as found in claim 7 of the patent.
Furthermore all of the limitations as found in dependent claims 2-17 of the instant application can be found in or are obvious variants of the limitations as found in claims 1-11 of the patent.
Claims 1-17 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,237,980. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because applicants claims of the instant application are covered by the claims of the patent.
For instance, “generating a network description for a network-on-chip (NoC) using a plurality of constraints for the NoC, wherein the network description includes connectivity between initiators and targets that satisfies the plurality of constraints; generating a global roadmap between the initiators and the targets; merging at least two nodes, which are part of the global roadmap, using performance-aware node clustering; clustering at least two edges, which are part of the global roadmap and connect at least two merged nodes, using performance-aware edge clustering; and updating the network description using merging and clustering resulting in an updated NoC” as found in claim 1 of the instant application is not patentably distinct from “receiving a plurality of constraints for a network-on-chip (NoC); generating a network description for the NoC using the plurality of constraints, wherein the network description handles a plurality of traffic classes and satisfies the plurality of constraints; generating a global consolidation roadmap including nodes and edges between a plurality of initiators and a plurality of targets; merging at least two nodes using performance-aware node clustering; clustering edges using performance aware edge clustering; and generating a synthesis of the NoC” as found in claim 1 of the patent.
Furthermore all of the limitations as found in dependent claims 2-17 of the instant application can be found in or are obvious variants of the limitations as found in claims 1-15 of the patent.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Prior art of record does not teach or clearly suggest generating a network description for a network-on-chip (NoC) using a plurality of constraints for the NoC, wherein the network description includes connectivity between initiators and targets that satisfies the plurality of constraints; generating a global roadmap between the initiators and the targets; merging at least two nodes, which are part of the global roadmap, using performance-aware node clustering; clustering at least two edges, which are part of the global roadmap and connect at least two merged nodes, using performance-aware edge clustering; and updating the network description using merging and clustering resulting in an updated NoC.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON BOWERS whose telephone number is (571)272-1888. The examiner can normally be reached Flex M-F 7am-6pm.
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, Jack Chiang can be reached at (571) 272-7483. 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.
/B.B/Examiner, Art Unit 2851
/JACK CHIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2851
Prosecution Insights