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 obviousness-type 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); 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 conflicting 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.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Initially it should be noted that this application is a continuation of Application Number 18/105,777, filed February 3, 2023, now US Patent 12,287,702, having the same Assignee and inventor.
Claims 1-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 15-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,287,702, respectively. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because of the following:
For claim 1, U.S. 12,287,702 claim 15 recites essentially similar limitations as demonstrated by the following table:
Instant Application
U.S. 12,287,702
comments
1. A fault management system, executed by one or more coarse grained reconfigurable processors (CGRPs), to perform operations including:
15. A method comprising:
Obvious: difference is merely a matter of claim format
before an application begins executing: receiving, by the one or more CGRPs,
before an application begins executing: receiving, by one or more coarse grained reconfigurable processors,
same
resource data from the application: determining, by the one or more CGRPs
resource data from the application; determining, by the one or more coarse grained reconfigurable processors
same
and based on the resource data, a set of resources assigned to the application; adding, by the one or more CGRPs,
and based on the resource data, a set of resources assigned to the application; adding, by the one or more coarse grained reconfigurable processors,
same
an entry to a resource table indicating that the set of resources has been assigned to the application: determining, by the one or more CGRPs
an entry to a resource table indicating that the set of resources has been assigned to the application; determining, by the one or more coarse grained reconfigurable processors
same
and based on the resource data, an event associated with a particular resource of the set of resources; and registering, by the one or more CGRPs,
and based on the resource data, an event associated with a particular resource of the set of resources; and registering, by the one or more coarse grained reconfigurable processors,
same
the application to receive a notification of an occurrence of the event associated with the particular resource of the set of resources; and
the application to receive a notification of an occurrence of the event associated with the particular resource of the set of resources;
same
after the application begins executing: receiving, by the one or more CGRPs,
after the application begins executing: receiving, by the one or more coarse grained reconfigurable processors,
same
an event notification indicating the occurrence of the event; determining, by the one or more CGRPs,
an event notification indicating the occurrence of the event; determining, by the one or more coarse grained reconfigurable processors,
same
that the event is associated with the particular resource of the set of resources; and providing a notification to the application of the occurrence of the event associated with the particular resource
that the event is associated with the particular resource of the set of resources; and providing a notification to the application of the occurrence of the event associated with the particular resource.
same
For claims 2-6, the claims recite essentially similar limitations as or from claims 16-20 of the patent, respectively, and thus are also obvious for same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
For claim 1, the fault management system does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. For example, the system is not necessarily a machine or composition of matter because it does not positively claim the CGRPs: it could be software per se executed by a CGRP. It is suggested the claim be amended to “A fault management system, including and executed by one or more…”.
Dependent claims inherit rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—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.
Claim 1-6 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.
For claim 1, the term “the occurrence of the event” lacks sufficient antecedent basis in the claim, or is unclear and thus indefinite. The “event”, is not necessarily the same even as the event associated with the particular resource (because later, a determination is made for the association), as it was not uniquely declared earlier, nor its occurrence. It is suggested the claim be amended to “indicating [[the]] an occurrence of [[the]] an event”.
For claim 5, the claim includes the fragment “; or a fault management system”, causing the claim to be syntactically incorrect and thus indefinite. It is suggested the semicolon be changed to comma.
Dependent claims inherit rejections.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-6 would be allowable if all 35 USC § 112, Double Patenting, and 35 USC § 101 rejections are overcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YAIR LEIBOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-3796. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Ashish Thomas can be reached at 571-272-0631. 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.
/YAIR LEIBOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2114
Prosecution Insights