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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending, of which all pending claims are rejected.
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 claims at issue 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form 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 http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/ file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U. S. Patent No. 12,242,886. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant application and the patent both claimed task processing fault detection.
The subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the patent and is covered by the patent since the patent and the application are claiming common subject matter, as in the following table (note that only exemplary independent claims are compared for illustration purposes, underlining is used to indicate conflicting limitations).
Instant application
US Patent # US 12,242,886 B2
1. A graphics processing system for operation with a data store, comprising:
one or more processing units for processing tasks;
a check unit operable to form a signature which is characteristic of an output from processing a task; and
a fault detection unit operable to compare signatures formed at the check unit; wherein the graphics processing system is operable to process each task first and second times at the one or more processing units so as to, respectively, generate first and second processed outputs, the graphics processing system being configured to:
write out the first processed output to the data store, read back the first processed output from the data store, form at the check unit a first signature which is characteristic of the first processed output as read back from the data store,
form at the check unit a second signature which is characteristic of the second processed output, wherein the graphics processing system is configured to not write the second processed output to the data store prior to the second signature being formed,
compare the first and second signatures at the fault detection unit, and
raise a fault signal if the first and second signatures do not match.
1. A graphics processing system for operation with a data store, comprising:
one or more processing units for processing tasks;
a check unit operable to form a signature which is characteristic of an output from processing a task; and
a fault detection unit operable to compare signatures formed at the check unit; wherein the graphics processing system is operable to process each task first and second times at the one or more processing units so as to, respectively, generate first and second processed outputs, the graphics processing system being configured to:
write out the first processed output to the data store, read back the first processed output from the data store, form at the check unit a first signature which is characteristic of the first processed output as read back from the data store,
form at the check unit a second signature which is characteristic of the second processed output, wherein the second signature is formed prior to the second processed output being written to the data store,
compare the first and second signatures at the fault detection unit, and
raise a fault signal if the first and second signatures do not match.
15. A method of processing tasks at a graphics processing system having a plurality of processing units each configured to process a task independently from any other processing unit, the method comprising, on receiving a task for processing:
processing the task for a first time at a first processing unit so as to generate a first processed output;
writing out the first processed output to a data store;
reading back the first processed output from the data store and forming a first signature which is characteristic of the first processed output as read back from the data store;
processing the task for a second time at a second processing unit so as to generate a second processed output, and forming a second signature which is characteristic of the second processed output, wherein the second processed output is not written to the data store prior to the second signature being formed;
comparing the first and second signatures; and raising a fault signal if the first and second signatures do not match.
19. A method of processing tasks at a graphics processing system having a plurality of processing units each configured to process a task independently from any other processing unit, the method comprising, on receiving a task for processing:
processing the task for a first time at a first processing unit so as to generate a first processed output;
writing out the first processed output to a data store;
reading back the first processed output from the data store and forming a first signature which is characteristic of the first processed output as read back from the data store;
processing the task for a second time at a second processing unit so as to generate a second processed output, and forming a second signature which is characteristic of the second processed output, wherein the second signature is formed prior to the second processed output being written to the data store;
comparing the first and second signatures; and raising a fault signal if the first and second signatures do not match.
18. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer readable dataset description of an integrated circuit that, when processed in an integrated circuit manufacturing system, causes the integrated circuit manufacturing system to manufacture a graphics processing system for operation with a data store, the graphics processing system comprising:
one or more processing units for processing tasks;
a check unit operable to form a signature which is characteristic of an output from processing a task on a processing unit; and
a fault detection unit operable to compare signatures formed at the check unit; wherein the graphics processing system is operable to process each task first and second times at the one or more processing units so as to, respectively, generate first and second processed outputs, the graphics processing system being configured to:
write out the first processed output to the data store,
read back the first processed output from the data store,
form at the check unit a first signature which is characteristic of the first processed output as read back from the data store,
form at the check unit a second signature which is characteristic of the second processed output, wherein the graphics processing system is configured to not write the second processed output to the data store prior to the second signature being formed,
compare the first and second signatures at the fault detection unit, and
raise a fault signal if the first and second signatures do not match.
20. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having stored thereon a computer readable dataset description of an integrated circuit that, when processed in an integrated circuit manufacturing system, causes the integrated circuit manufacturing system to manufacture a graphics processing system for operation with a data store, the graphics processing system comprising:
one or more processing units for processing tasks;
a check unit operable to form a signature which is characteristic of an output from processing a task on a processing unit; and
a fault detection unit operable to compare signatures formed at the check unit; wherein the graphics processing system is operable to process each task first and second times at the one or more processing units so as to, respectively, generate first and second processed outputs, the graphics processing system being configured to:
write out the first processed output to the data store,
read back the first processed output from the data store,
form at the check unit a first signature which is characteristic of the first processed output as read back from the data store,
form at the check unit a second signature which is characteristic of the second processed output, wherein the second signature is formed prior to the second processed output being written to the data store,
compare the first and second signatures at the fault detection unit, and
raise a fault signal if the first and second signatures do not match.
The non-underlined limitations are merely differing in form that does not change the scope of the invention. Therefore, it is obvious that the ordinary skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify the claims of the instant application by omitting or adding the non-underlined limitation. Omitting or adding the non-underlined elements would not interface with the functionality of the steps claimed of the patent and would perform the same function (see In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963).
Dependent claims 2-14, 16-17 and 19-20 are also rejected under obviousness type double patenting over claims 1-20 of the patent for having obvious variations.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-22 of U.S. Patent No. US 11409557 B2. Similar reasoning applies as above.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 11977913 B2. Similar reasoning applies as above.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12242886 B2. Similar reasoning applies as above.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. US 11288145 B2. Similar reasoning applies as above.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 11782806 B2. Similar reasoning applies as above.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12360864 B2. Similar reasoning applies as above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if the pending obviousness double patenting rejection and all remaining pending objections and rejections (if any) are overcome.
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
Conclusion
The following prior arts made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon, if any, are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sridharan et al. (US 2014/0181594 A1) teaches a system and method for optimizing redundant output verification, are provided. A hardware-based store fingerprint buffer receives multiple instances of output from multiple instances of computation. The store fingerprint buffer generates a signature from the content included in the multiple instances of output. When a barrier is reached, the store fingerprint buffer uses the signature to verify the content is error-free.
When amending the claims, Applicants are respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ENAMUL MD KABIR whose telephone number is (571)270-7256. The examiner can normally be reached on 10:00-6:30 pm.
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, Albert Decady can be reached on 571-272-3819. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/ENAMUL M KABIR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2112
/ALBERT DECADY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2112
Prosecution Insights