DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Obvious-type Double Patenting (ODP) Rejections
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).
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented. (Do not use against patented applications).
Claims 1, 23-25, and 29-30 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 3-4, 7, 10, and 14-15 of copending Application No. 19/576,413, hereinafter ‘413. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. For example, Claims 1, 23-25, and 29-30 of instant Application, respectively contain elements of claims 1, 3-4, 7, 10, and 14-15 of the ‘413 as follows:
Claims
Instant
Claims
‘413
1
IC package
processing cores
memory channels
memory
memory controller
physical layer
IEEE 802.3 PMA
external entity
RPU
CXL device
translate between
CXL-based protocol data
carrier protocol
PDU’s encapsulating data
CXL opcodes
physical address
transmitted/received
1
4
3
3
1
10
1
1
1
*implicit
processing cores
Memory … interconnect
memory
memory controllers
physical layer
IEEE 802.3 PMA
external entity
RPU
CXL device
translate between
CXL transactions
carrier protocol
PDU’s encapsulating data
CXL opcodes*
physical address*
transaction
23
physical layer
PMA
external entity
translating
RPU
CXL device
carrier protocol
PDU
CXL opcodes
1
10
1
physical layer
PMA
external entity
translating
RPU
CXL device
carrier protocol
PDU
CXL opcodes*
24
carrier protocol
PDU
IEEE 802.3 PMA
CXL request
translating
memory
memory controller
memory channel
10
1
7
1
4
3
3
carrier protocol
PDU
IEEE 802.3 PMA
CXL.mem request
translating
memory
memory controller
memory channel
25
CXL request
carrier protocol
PDU
IEEE 802.3 PMA
resource
7
10
1
CXL request
carrier protocol
PDU
IEEE 802.3 PMA
resource
29
active cable
physical medium
hardware circuitry
14
active cable
physical medium
hardware circuitry
30
switching circuitry
15
switching circuitry
Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 10, and 14-15 of ‘413 does not expressly disclose IC package, opcodes, and/or physical address. However, it is well known that computer chips are IC packages, opcodes are needed/used in Compute Express Link, and memory addresses are physical addresses. At the time of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate IC package, opcodes, and physical address in ‘413. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to adhere to the standard of the time.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-30 would be allowable if rewritten or amended; or with a submission of proper TD to overcome the rejection(s) under ODP, set forth in this Office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not deemed to be persuasive.
Examiner withdraws 103 rejections; however, ODP rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hyun Nam whose telephone number is (571) 270-1725 and fax number is (571) 270-2725. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jyoti Mehta can be reached on (571) 270-3995. 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.
/HYUN NAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2183
