CTNF 19/248,613 CTNF 81820 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 08-33 AIA 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. 08-34 AIA Claim s 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12346252 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application merely broaden the scope of the invention recited in the parent patent . Claim 21 merely broadens the scope of the invention recited in claim 1 of the parent patent. Claim 22 recites a flag used as a trigger. However, a form of flagging is necessary in order to monitory a trigger. Claim 23 corresponds to claim 3 of the parent patent. Claim 24 corresponds to claim 6 of the parent patent. Claim 25 corresponds to claim 7 of the parent patent. Claim 26 corresponds to claim 1 of the parent patent. Claim 27 corresponds to claim 1 of the parent patent. Claim 28 corresponds to claim 2 of the parent patent. Claim 29 corresponds to claim 1 of the parent patent. Claim 30 corresponds to claim 9 of the parent patent. Claim 31 corresponds to claim 10 of the parent patent. Claims 32-38 correspond to claims 11-19 of the parent patent. The claims are system embodiment of claims 21-31, and rejected by the same reasons. Claim 39 corresponds to claim 20 of the parent patent. Claim 40 recites a flag used as a trigger. However, a form of flagging is necessary in order to monitory a trigger. Examiner’s Note The claims would be allowable if the double patenting rejection is overcome. The closest prior art of record, “Li” discloses a key-value data structure in figure 1. The primary reasons for allowance of claims 21-40 in the instant application is the combination with the inclusion in these claims that “monitoring, by a first network interface controller (NIC), a trigger indicative of an update associated with a key-value cache associated with a large language model (LLM) being executed by a compute node, the compute node comprising the first NIC and an accelerator, and the key-value cache being stored in a memory associated with the accelerator; and in response to detecting, based on the trigger, that the key-value cache is updated by the accelerator, transferring, by the first NIC on behalf of the accelerator, a copy of a key-value cache update to a remote storage node without involving a central processing unit of the compute node in transferring the key-value cache update to the remote storage node”. The prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the above recited combination. As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's response must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b) and § 707.07(a) of the MPEP. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAE UN YU whose telephone number is (571)272-1133. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5. 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, Tim Vo can be reached on (571)272-3642 . 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. /JAE U YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2138 Application/Control Number: 19/248,613 Page 2 Art Unit: 2138 Application/Control Number: 19/248,613 Page 3 Art Unit: 2138 Application/Control Number: 19/248,613 Page 4 Art Unit: 2138 Application/Control Number: 19/248,613 Page 5 Art Unit: 2138 Application/Control Number: 19/248,613 Page 6 Art Unit: 2138
Prosecution Insights