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, 11, and 16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 10, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,332,735. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims in the application are broader than the claims of the patent.
Claim 1
Application 19/206,551
Patent 12,332,735
Explanation
following a reload of the device: determining reload indicators associated with the set of monitoring components, wherein each reload indicator associated with a monitoring component comprises a cause for the reload of the device determined by the monitoring component based on the associated monitored hardware component;
following a reload of a computing device: determining a set of reload indicators from each of a set of monitoring components of the computing device, each of the set of reload indicators associated with a monitoring component, wherein:
Limitations are functionally equivalent.
accessing a reload model defining a hierarchy of the set of monitoring components; and determining a reload cause for the reload of the device by evaluating the reload indicators from the set of monitoring components based on the hierarchy of the set of monitoring components defined by the reload model.
a reload indicator comprises a cause for the reload of the computing device determined based on one of a set of hardware components of the computing device being monitored by the monitoring component of the computing device, and a source monitoring component that is a source associated with that reload indicator,
Limitations are functionally equivalent.
the monitoring component that is the source of the reload of the computing device is determined based on a reload model, and
Limitations of the application are broader than limitations of the patent.
the reload model defining a hierarchy of the set of monitoring components, including an alternative source for the reload indicator associated with at least one of the monitoring components; and
Limitations of the application are broader than limitations of the patent.
evaluating the set of reload indicators based on the hierarchy of the set of monitoring components defined by the reload model to determine a reload cause
Limitations of the application are broader than limitations of the patent.
Independent claims 11 and 16 of the application recite similarly and are rejected based on similar rationale given to claim 1 of the application. See in view of claims 10 and 15 of the patent, respectively.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Watanabe et al. US 8,095,819 (FIG. 9, abstract, background, summary)
Cheng et al. US 2023/0069434 (FIG. 9, abstract, background, summary)
Chertov et al. US 2020/0151043 (FIG. 4, abstract, background, summary)
Chang, K., Markov, I. L., & Bertacco, V. (2009). Functional design errors in digital circuits : diagnosis, correction and repair (1st ed. 2009.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9365-4
Examiner’s Comments
No prior art rejections were given in this Office action. The prior arts do not teach nor suggest the limitations of independent claim 1, “[a] device, comprising: a set of hardware components; a set of monitoring components, each of the set of monitoring components adapted to monitor an associated hardware component of the set of hardware components of the device; and a non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising instructions for: following a reload of the device: determining reload indicators associated with the set of monitoring components, wherein each reload indicator associated with a monitoring component comprises a cause for the reload of the device determined by the monitoring component based on the associated monitored hardware component; accessing a reload model defining a hierarchy of the set of monitoring components; and determining a reload cause for the reload of the device by evaluating the reload indicators from the set of monitoring components based on the hierarchy of the set of monitoring components defined by the reload model.” Independent claims 11 and 16 recite similarly.
Generally, the prior arts teach methods for monitoring reboots of a distributed computing system. The claimed invention builds on the prior arts and specifies, in part, “a set of monitoring components, each of the set of monitoring components adapted to monitor an associated hardware component of the set of hardware components of the device… following a reload of the device: determining reload indicators associated with the set of monitoring components… accessing a reload model defining a hierarchy of the set of monitoring components; and determining a reload cause for the reload of the device by evaluating the reload indicators from the set of monitoring components based on the hierarchy of the set of monitoring components defined by the reload model.” Accordingly, the claims are distinguished over the prior arts.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN D GIBSON whose telephone number is (571)431-0699. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 A.M.-4:00 P.M..
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, BRYCE P BONZO can be reached at (571)-272-3655. 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.
/JONATHAN D GIBSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights