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 .
Claims 1-47 are presented for the examination.
Double Patenting
3. 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. See 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) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b).
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).
4. Claims 1-10, 21-47 are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-47 of copending Application No. 17/572385. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both computer systems comprise substantially the same elements the Application No. 17/572385 teaches one or more circuits to perform an application programming interface ("API") which of one or more graph code are to be performed ( one or more circuits to perform an application programming interface ("API") which of one or more portions of graph code are to be performed). The difference between claims 1,11, 21, 31, 39 of the copending application and this case is in response to an application programming interface ("API") call, provide an execution status to indicate which of one or more graph nodes of graph code to a memory location specified using the API call, the execution status indicating whether the one or more graph nodes are to be performed enabled or disabled. It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill level in the art to include above feature since it was well known at the time of the invention to allow combining flexibility and speed for execution of a set of functions and allows making an optimal design of the target system as well.
5. Claims 1-47 are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-39 of copending Application No. 17/582850. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both computer systems comprise substantially the same elements the Application No. 17/582850 teaches one or more circuits to perform an application programming interface ("API") which of one or more graph code are to be performed ( one or more circuits to perform an application programming interface ("API") which of one or more portions of graph code are to be performed). The difference between claims 1,12, 21, 30 of the copending application and this case is in response to an application programming interface ("API") call, provide an execution status to indicate which of one or more graph nodes of graph code to a memory location specified using the API call, the execution status indicating whether the one or more graph nodes are to be performed enabled or disabled. It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill level in the art to include above feature since it was well known at the time of the invention to allow combining flexibility and speed for execution of a set of functions and allows making an optimal design of the target system as well.
6. Claims 1-47 are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of copending Application No. 17/720243. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both computer systems comprise substantially the same elements the Application No. 17/582850 teaches one or more circuits to perform an application programming interface ("API") whether one or more portions of graph code are to be performed ( one or more circuits to perform an application programming interface ("API") which of one or more graph code are to be performed). The difference between claims 1, 7, 13, 19 of the copending application and this case is in response to an application programming interface ("API") call, provide an execution status to indicate which of one or more graph nodes of graph code to a memory location specified using the API call, the execution status indicating whether the one or more graph nodes are to be performed enabled or disabled. It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill level in the art to include above feature since it was well known at the time of the invention to allow combining flexibility and speed for execution of a set of functions and allows making an optimal design of the target system as well.
7. Claims 1-47 are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 17/720243. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both computer systems comprise substantially the same elements the Application No. 17986636 teaches one or more circuits to perform an application programming interface ("API") whether one or more portions of graph code ( one or more circuits to perform an application programming interface ("API") which of one or more graph code are to be performed). The difference between claims 1, 8, 15 of the copending application and this case is an application programming interface ("API") to indicate which of whether one or more graph nodes portions of graph code are to be performed by one or more graphics processing units (GPU. It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill level in the art to include above feature since it was well known at the time of the invention to allow combining flexibility and speed for execution of a set of functions and allows making an optimal design of the target system as well.
8. Claims 1-47 are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 17718065. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both computer systems comprise substantially the same elements the Application No. 17986636 teaches one or more circuits to perform an application programming interface ("API") whether one or more portions of graph code ( one or more circuits to perform an application programming interface ("API") which of one or more graph code are to be performed). The difference between claims 1, 7, 13, 19 of the copending application and this case is an application programming interface ("API") to indicate which of whether one or more graph nodes portions of graph code are to be performed by one or more graphics processing units (GPU. It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill level in the art to include above feature since it was well known at the time of the invention to allow combining flexibility and speed for execution of a set of functions and allows making an optimal design of the target system as well.
9. Claims 11-20 are provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-47 of copending Application No. 17/572385. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both computer systems comprise substantially the same elements the Application No. 17/572385 teaches indicate an execution status of at least one graph node wherein the execution status indicates whether the at least one graph node is enabled or disabled. The difference between claims 1,11, 21, 31, 39 of the copending application and this case is providing the execution status of the at least one graph node. It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill level in the art to include above feature since it was well known at the time of the invention to allow combining flexibility and speed for execution of a set of functions and allows making an optimal design of the target system as well.
§ 101 2. 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, 2, 3, 11, 23, 40, 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to Claims 1, 2, 3, 11, 23, 40, 41 have been rejected under 35 USC 101 for abstract idea without significantly more. Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the “ indicating whether the one or more graph nodes are to be performed enabled or disabled for execution ” , “ specifies the graph code, ]the one or more graph nodes of the graph code, and a memory location to receive an execution status of the one or more graph code”, “ indicate an execution status of at least one graph node of graph recite a mental process” since “ indicate”, “ specify” are functions that can be reasonably performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion.
Under Prong 2, the additional element “ in response to an application programming interface ("API") call, provide an execution status to indicate which of one or more graph nodes of graph code to a memory location specified using the API call “, “ graph code are to be performed by one or more graphics processing units (GPU)” , “ the execution status indicates whether the at least one graph node is enabled or disabled; and in response to the API call, providing the execution status of the at least one graph node” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, or merely a generic computer or generic computer components to perform the judicial exception, Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under Step 2B, the additional elements “ graph code are to be performed by one or more graphics processing units (GPU)” - this generally have been a mental process although the graph code could be a generic computer component in actual computer hardware.
“ in response to an application programming interface ("API") call, provide an execution status of one or more graph nodes of graph code to a memory location specified using the API call,”- this is mere instructions to apply the mental process under mpep 2106.05(f), amounts to merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field or use, and is merely applying the judicial exception, therefore, does not amount to significantly more, hence, cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
14. Claim(s) 1, 21, 31, 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suryanarayana( US 20210089325 A1) in view of NORDLUND( ES 2614716 T3).
As to claim 1, Suryanarayana teaches One or more processors comprising: circuitry to, in response to an application programming interface ("API") call, provide an execution status of one or more graph nodes of graph code to a memory location specified using the API call( hardware (e.g., fixed logic circuitry)… .g., CPUs or processors, the script may include BIOS procedure calls (BPCs), para[0016], ln 6-9/ para[0071], ln 11-25/ The UEFI 122[API] may retrieve the script 164 from the namespace 150 and execute the script 164 (e.g., execute the BIOS procedure calls[API]166 in the script 164), para[0057], ln 16-21/ the script 164 may be saved to the namespace 150[memory location] in the non-volatile memory 124 ….the UEFI 122[API] checks[specified] the namespace 150[memory location] to determine if a script is present., para[0036], ln 2-10/ The script 164 may include a sequence of actions[node] to be performed on the UEFI (BIOS) 122 to update the BIOS settings, para[0036], ln 1-5/ The action tree 146 enables the actions in the script 164 to be translated into virtual mouse actions and virtual keyboard actions to modify a configuration of the UEFI 122. After the action tree 146 has been executed, the UEFI 122 may save the results of performing the actions[node] in the action tree 146[graph code] into the namespace 150 and perform a reboot. After the reboot, the chat application 134 may regain control and read the script status 152 indicating a result of executing the script 164. The chat application 134 may send a message to the server 104 indicating whether or not the script 164 was successfully executed (e.g., the script status 152[execution status]), para[0036], ln 12-20).
the execution status indicating whether the one or more graph nodes are enabled or disabled( the script status 152 indicating a result of executing the script 164. The chat application 134 may send a message to the server 104 indicating whether or not the script 164 was successfully executed (e.g., the script status 152[execution status]), para[0036], ln 12-20)
wherein the API call at least specifies the graph code, the one or more graph nodes of the graph code( the UEFI 122 may use the BIOS procedure calls 166 in the script 164 to construct the action tree 146[graph code] that includes actions[graph code] to be performed by a virtual mouse and/or a virtual keyboard. The UEFI 122 may execute the script 164 by executing the actions in the action tree 146, para[0070], ln 27-32)
and the memory location to receive the execution status of the one or more graph nodes( the UEFI 122 may save the results of performing the actions in the action tree 146 into the namespace 150 (e.g., the script status 152) and perform a reboot. After the reboot, the chat application 134 may regain control and read the script status 152 indicating a result of executing the script 164. The chat application 134 may send a message to the server 104 indicating whether or not the script 164 was successfully executed, para[0036], ln 17-36/ Fig.1).
NORDLUND teaches the execution status indicating whether the one or more graph nodes are enabled or disabled for execution by one or more graphics processing units( processor 24 may generate a flow of commands that includes one or more tasks to be performed by the GPU 48, Sec: In operation, according to aspects of this disclosure, ln 1-5/ a graphics processing unit comprises a shader processor, one or more fixed function hardware units and a command processor. The shader processor is configured 40 to execute a plurality of instructions in parallel. The one or more fixed function hardware units are configured to represent graph data. The command processing unit is configured to receive one or more tasks from a main processor and independently plan the one or more tasks to be selectively executed by the shader processor and the one or more fixed function hardware units, Sec: In one example, a graphics processing unit comprises a shader processor, ln 1-19/ For example, according to the aspects of this disclosure, the command processor 56 of the GPU 48 may receive one or more "tasks" from the host processor 24. The command processor 56 can independently plan the tasks to be executed by means of resources of the GPU 48, including, for example, the shader processor 20 and the fixed function units 54, Sec: As indicated above, with respect to FIG. 1, ln 3-14/ the command processor 56 can plan a graphing task, to be executed by the fixed function units 54 of the GPU 48, Sec: execution of the tasks without the intervention of the host processor 24, ln 5-9/ The command processor 56 of the GPU 48 can receive the command flow and 20 facilitate the execution of each of the tasks included in the command flow, Sec: In operation, according to aspects , ln 1-6/ the command processor 56 can also maintain a list of active tasks that are being executed by the components of the GPU 48, as well as track the component responsible for the execution of the tasks. The list of active tasks can be used, for example, to track the status of tasks. By tracking the status of the tasks, the command processor 56 can determine which resources of the GPU 48 are available for task planning. That is, if a task is currently being executed by a GPU resource (for example, the task is "active"), Sec: In some examples, the command processor 56, ln 1-9/ When planning a task, the command processor 56 can update a list of active tasks (112), that is, a list of active tasks. For example, the command processor 56 can maintain a list of active tasks that are being executed by the components of the GPU 48, as well as track the component 50 responsible for the execution of the task. The list of active tasks can be used, for example, to track the status of tasks. By tracking the status of the tasks, the command processor 56 can determine which resources of the GPU 48 are available for task planning, and which resources of the GPU 48 are busy executing tasks. That is, if a task is currently being executed by a GPU resource (for example, the task is "active"), Sec: When planning a task, the command processor 56, ln 1-23/ the status of the impersonated task may be stored (for example, stored in the memory of GPU 58), Sec: If the resources for the execution of the current task are not available, ln 15-17).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention was made to modify the above teaching to incorporate the above feature because this provides the integrated processing unit of the GPU can receive a task and independently plan the task for a specific GPU resource, thereby controlling the GPU resource executing the task
As to claim 21, it is rejected for the same reason as to claim 1 above. In additional, Suryanarayana teaches more processors and memory ( devices (e.g., CPUs or processors). The program code can be stored in one or more computer-readable memory devices or other computer storage devices, para[0071], ln 15-24).
As to claims 31, 39, they are rejected for the same reason as to claim 1 above. In additional, Suryanarayana teaches non-transitory machine-readable medium( non-transitory media, para[0067], ln 14-16).
Claim(s) 17, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suryanarayana( US 20210089325 A1) in view of NORDLUND( ES 2614716 T3) and further in view of Lange( US 20230259714 A1).
As to claim 27, Lange teaches one or more processors is a central processing unit ("CPU")( para[0149], ln 9-14).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective of claimed invention was made to modify the above teaching to incorporate the above feature because this enables the agent to more accurately and efficiently execute tasks to assist users in a variety of different use cases.
As to claim 28, Lange teaches least one of the one or more processors is a graphics processing unit ("GPU")(para[0149], ln 9-14) for the same reason as to claim 27 above .
Claim(s) 2, 22, 32, 40, 41, 46, 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Suryanarayana( US 20210089325 A1) in view of NORDLUND( ES 2614716 T3) and further in view of Wells(US 20170344605 A1).
As to claim 2, Wells teaches the API at least specifies the graph code, a graph node of the graph code, and an execution status for the graph node( allows API service 132 to respond to requests by identifying nodes in the graph projection of the API , para[0030], ln 6-10, API service 132 can generate a graph projection of the API including any extensions usable by the specific client device, para[0053], ln 11-15/ API service 132 can generate a graph projection of the API including any extensions usable by the specific client device. If an application executing on client device 120 attempts to use an API extension that is not included in the graph projection (e.g., an API extension that is not available for use by client device 120), API service 132 can generate an error to indicate that the requested API extension is not available for use by client device 120, para[0053], ln 10-17).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention was made to modify the above teaching of above references to incorporate the above feature because this facilitates the emulation of other instruction sets.
As to claim 22, Wells teaches wherein the API includes one or more parameters that at least indicate the graph code, a graph node of the graph code, and an execution status for the graph node( para[0053]) .
As to claim 32, Wells teaches the API at least indicates the graph code, a graph node of the graph code, and an execution status for the graph node( para[0053]).
As to claim 40, Wells teaches wherein the API includes one or more parameters that at least indicate the graph code, a graph node of the graph code, and an execution status for the graph node( para[0053]) .
As to claim 41,it is rejected for the same reason as to claim 3 above. In additional, Wells teaches the API includes one or more parameters that at least indicate the graph code, a graph node of the graph code( para[0022]).
As to claim 46, Well teaches the API returns an indication of failure( para[0053], ln 10-17).
As to claim 47, Wells teaches the API returns an error status( para[0053], ln 10-17).
17. Claim(s) 3, 23, 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suryanarayana( US 20210089325 A1) in view of NORDLUND( ES 2614716 T3) in view of Wells(US 20170344605 A1) further in view of VENKATESH( US 20210382765 A1).
As to claim 3, Wells teaches the API at least specifies the graph code, a graph node of the graph code(allows API service 132 to respond to requests by identifying nodes in the graph projection of the API , para[0030], ln 6-10, API service 132 can generate a graph projection of the API including any extensions usable by the specific client device, para[0053], ln 11-15) for the same reason as to claim 2 above .
VENKATESH teaches memory location to receive an execution status of the graph node( Application 1608A can submit APIs in a graphics stream for processing by driver 1606, para[0192], ln 1-3/ application 1608A can insert DDIs to record a pipeline 3D state of a graphics pipeline in a state buffer 1614 in memory 1610 and can mark a current location of an API command added by application 1608A in queue 1612 as a potential queue split point with driver 1606, para[0194], ln 4-12).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention was made to modify the teaching of above references to incorporate the feature of memory location to receive an execution status of the graph node because this facilitates the emulation of other instruction sets.
As to claim 23, it is rejected for the same reason as to claim 3 above. In additional, Wells teaches the API includes one or more parameters that at least indicate the graph code, a graph node of the graph code( para[0022]).
As to claim 33, it is rejected for the same reason as to claims 3, 23 above.
18. Claim(s) 4, 24, 34, 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suryanarayana( US 20210089325 A1) in view of NORDLUND( ES 2614716 T3) and further in view of Manion(US 20040111469 A1).
As to claim 4, Manion teaches the API returns an indication of success( o initiate shut down, the application calls the Peer Graph Shutdown function. This function cleans up any resources allocated by the call to the API Peer Graph Startup. As indicated above, there is preferably one call to Peer Graph Shutdown for each call to Peer Graph Startup. There are no required parameters for this function. This function returns an indication of success or failure of the shutdown function. In the case of error, the function returns an appropriate error code, para[0046]/ The graphing APIs of the present invention also allow the management and communication of presence information related to the node. The peer graph set presence API is used to inform other graph members that a node is actively connected and listening to the graph. The parameters of this API are the graph handle, and a flag that, if true, floods information to that graph that the node is "present." This API returns an indication of success or failure. The error indications include an indication of an error due to an invalid argument, and if not initialized, para[0092]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention was made to modify the teaching of above references to incorporate the above feature because this allows the management and communication of presence information related to the node .
As to claims 24, 34, 45, they are rejected for the same reason as to claim 4 above.
19. Claim(s) 5, 6, 25, 26, 35, 36, 42, 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suryanarayana( US 20210089325 A1) in view of NORDLUND( ES 2614716 T3) and further in view of EVANS(US 20200053025 A1).
As to claim 5, EVANS teaches the one or more circuits further perform instructions to enable a graph node of the graph code(The first request is received from the controller component via the application programming interface, and causes the graph configuration component to generate a plurality of second requests, and each respective one of said second requests is to at least one of create, read, update and delete a respective different node in the graph structure, para[0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention was made to modify the teaching of above references to incorporate the feature of the one or more circuits further perform instructions to enable a graph node of the graph code because this provides a more flexible and scalable environment within which to build data plane solutions than is possible with known programmable data plane technologies.
As to claim 6, EVANS teaches the one or more circuits further perform instructions to disable a graph node of the graph code( para[0022]) for the same reason as to claim 5 above.
As to claims 25, 26, 35, 36, they are rejected for the same reasons as to claims 14, 15, 5 above.
As to claim 42, EVANS teaches the one or more parameters at least include a parameter indicating a graph node of the graph code to enable(The API provided by processing application API component 309 may be RESTful and is comprised of a set of operations to be performed on a set of application-specific resources, such as interfaces, switch forwarding tables and forwarding entries, or routing tables and individual routes. Application resources typically have a set of configuration parameters which are unique for each instance of the resource, and the operations that can be performed may include create, read, update and/or delete (“CRUD”). As shown, the controller component 303 sends application resource requests, specifying the above- mentioned operations to be performed by the processing application API component 309 via data connection 311. The processing application API component 309 in turn sends graph object and action object requests to the packet processing component 305 via data connection 313, para[0040], In 10-26) for the same reason as to claim 5 above .
As to claim 43, Sunada teaches execution state indicating a graph node of the graph code to disable( col 14, ln 2-7 )and EVANS teaches the one or more indicating a graph node of the graph code to disable( para[0040], In 10-20) for the same reason as to claim 5 above .
20. Claim(s) 7, 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suryanarayana( US 20210089325 A1) in view of NORDLUND( ES 2614716 T3) and further in view of BONFIGLIO( US 20210365410 A1).
As to claim 7, BONFILIO teaches the graph code is an instantiation of a graph template( application graph 208 that provides API call templates, para[0091], ln 7-10).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention was made to modify the teaching of above references to incorporate the feature of the graph code is an instantiation of a graph template because this helps organizations automate and measure marketing engagement, tasks and workflows.
As to claim 37, it is rejected for the same reason as to claim 7 above.
21. Claim(s) 8, 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suryanarayana( US 20210089325 A1) in view of NORDLUND( ES 2614716 T3) further in view of WOODSIDE(CA 2216667 A1).
As to claim 8, WOODSIDE teaches the graph code is defined by a superset graph template( An example is shown in Fig. 15, where: the initiating task (Task A) sends an RPC request and blocks, the first responding task (Task B) processes the request, and forwards it to another responding task (Task C), Task C processes the request further and forwards it to Task D which replies to the initiating task. A proper time model is analyzed or translated into a domain specific model. 25 analysis is done by first describing the properties to be assessed as a sub-graph template, Sec: An example is shown in Fig. 15, ln 1-15).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention was made to modify the teaching of above references to incorporate the feature of the graph code is defined by a superset graph template because this allows for a directed optimization effort at points where the software executes slowest or where execution will benefit most.
As to claim 38, it is rejected for the same reason as to claim 8 above.
22. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suryanarayana( US 20210089325 A1) in view of NORDLUND( ES 2614716 T3) and further in view of Van Wie( US 20100146085 A1).
As to claim 9, Van teaches API is a driver API( A device driver typically provides an API for functions that can be invoked by calls made by software processes in order to translate commands and data that are transferred between the software processes and the hardware device, para[0177]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention was made to modify the teaching of above references to incorporate the feature of API is a driver API because this supports Realtime communications between communicants operating on respective network nodes.
23. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suryanarayana( US 20210089325 A1) in view of NORDLUND( ES 2614716 T3) and further in view of Dubey(US 11210143 B1).
As to claim 10, Dubey teaches api runtime( calls to a runtime API of the workflow platform to update the workflow (e.g., updating the workflow graph and/or context of the workflow) maintained by the workflow platform, col 3, ln 28-32).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention was made to modify the teaching of above references to incorporate the feature of API runtime because this provides techniques for a workflow platform enabling parallel execution of workflow steps of a workflow.
24. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Veeraswamy ( US 8977898 B1) in view of Manion( US 20040111469 A1) and further in view of Suryanarayana( US 20210089325 A1).
As to claim 11, Veeraswamy teaches A computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving an application programming interface ("API") call to indicate an execution status of at least one graph node of graph code to be performed by one or more processors( the data processor executing computer instructions stored on a non-transitory computer readable storage medium to perform the steps of: (a) parsing records in the log of transactions not-yet-completed by the time of the re-boot in order to create a dependency graph of dependencies between the not-yet-completed transactions; and then (b) performing a background task of replay of the not-yet-completed transactions in a time order sequence, and concurrent with the background task of replay of the not-yet-completed transactions in the time order sequence, col 13, ln 42-57/ FIG. 4 shows a preferred format of a dependency graph 38 for the not-yet-completed transactions in the transaction log of FIG. 3. The dependency graph 38 includes a directed acyclic graph 39 having a time-ordered series of nodes 62 for the not-yet-completed transactions in the transaction log, so that each not-yet-completed transactions in the transaction log has a respective unique node (shown as an oval) in the directed acyclic graph , col 8, ln 25-35/ the depth-first search of the dependency graph is performed by calling a recursive subroutine[API] that searches nodes of the dependency graph that are linked to a specified node by edges of the dependency graph that point from the specified node. The recursive subroutine[API] does this search by calling itself for each of the nodes pointed to by edges that point from the specified node, and then replaying the not-yet-completed transaction corresponding to the specified node. FIG. 10 shows the recursive subroutine (called in step 108 of FIG. 9) for recovering the transaction of a specified node and recovering any and all not-yet-completed supporting transactions. In a first step 110, if the specified node has a state of "recovered", then execution returns. Otherwise, execution continues to step 111. In step 111, if the specified node has a recovery state of "in progress," then execution continues to step 112 to suspend and resume execution, and then execution loops back to step 110. In this case, once the "in progress" recovery has been completed, execution will return from step 110, col 12, ln 3-21).
Manion teaches receiving an application programming interface ("API") call to indicate an execution status of at least one graph node of graph code( application programming interfaces (APIs) are provided that allow a node to enumerate all nodes in a graph and that allow a node to set its presence in the graph, para[0015], ln 1-6/ The peer graph set presence API is used to inform other graph members that a node is actively connected and listening to the graph. The parameters of this API are the graph handle, and a flag that, if true, floods information to that graph that the node is "present." This API returns an indication of success or failure. The error indications include an indication of an error due to an invalid argument, and if not initialized, para[0092])
wherein the execution status indicates whether the at least one graph node is enabled or disabled(allows for the retrieval of the status of the group through a call[API] to the peer graph get status function. The parameters for this function are the handle to the group, and a set of peer graph status flags that are currently set as the status of the group. These flags may be used to indicate whether or not the node is listening for connections, whether or not the node has connections to other nodes, and whether or not the node's database is synchronized, para[0072]),
and in response to the API call, providing the execution status of the at least one graph node ( The graphing APIs of the present invention also allow the management and communication of presence information related to the node. The peer graph set presence API is used to inform other graph members that a node is actively connected and listening to the graph. The parameters of this API are the graph handle, and a flag that, if true, floods information to that graph that the node is "present." This API returns an indication of success or failure. The error indications include an indication of an error due to an invalid argument, and if not initialized, para[0092]/ The graphing APIs allow an application to establish a connection with a node in the graph in order to send data. This connection does not count towards graph maintenance. The parameters for this API include the handle of the graph, the unique ID of a person to whom to connect at an address (required since multiple identities may be connected at the specified address), a pointer to structure containing details about address, etc. of the node to which to connect, and the connection ID of this direct connection. This API returns an indication of success or failure. The error indications include an indication of an error due to an invalid argument, and if no peer with the given ID exists. There may also be an error to denote that the peer node refused the connection, para[0101]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention was made to modify the teaching of above references to incorporate the above feature because this provides an indication as to the problem resulting in the failure.
Suryanarayana teaches the API call at least specifies the graph code, the at least one graph node of the graph code, and a memory location to receive the execution status of the at least one graph node, in response to the API call, providing the execution status of the at least one graph node at [[a]] the memory location specified using the API call ( the script may include BIOS procedure calls (BPCs), para[0016], ln 6-9/ The UEFI 122[API] may retrieve the script 164 from the namespace 150 and execute the script 164 (e.g., execute the BIOS procedure calls[API]166 in the script 164), para[0057], ln 16-21/ the script 164 may be saved to the namespace 150[memory location] in the non-volatile memory 124 ….the UEFI 122[API] checks[specified] the namespace 150[memory location] to determine if a script is present., para[0036], ln 2-10/ The script 164 may include a sequence of actions[node] to be performed on the UEFI (BIOS) 122 to update the BIOS settings, para[0036], ln 1-5/ The action tree 146 enables the actions in the script 164 to be translated into virtual mouse actions and virtual keyboard actions to modify a configuration of the UEFI 122. After the action tree 146 has been executed, the UEFI 122 may save the results of performing the actions[node] in the action tree 146[graph code] into the namespace 150 and perform a reboot. After the reboot, the chat application 134 may regain control and read the script status 152 indicating a result of executing the script 164. The chat application 134 may send a message to the server 104 indicating whether or not the script 164 was successfully executed (e.g., the script status 152[execution status]), para[0036], ln 12-20/ ( the UEFI 122 may use the BIOS procedure calls 166 in the script 164 to construct the action tree 146[graph code] that includes actions[graph code] to be performed by a virtual mouse and/or a virtual keyboard. The UEFI 122 may execute the script 164 by executing the actions in the action tree 146, para[0070], ln 27-32/ the UEFI 122 may save the results of performing the actions in the action tree 146 into the namespace 150 (e.g., the script status 152) and perform a reboot. After the reboot, the chat application 134 may regain control and read the script status 152 indicating a result of executing the script 164. The chat application 134 may send a message to the server 104 indicating whether or not the script 164 was successfully executed, para[0036], ln 17-36/ Fig.1).
the execution status indicating whether the one or more graph nodes are enabled or disabled( the script status 152 indicating a result of executing the script 164. The chat application 134 may send a message to the server 104 indicating whether or not the script 164 was successfully executed (e.g., the script status 152[execution status]), para[0036], ln 12-20).
25. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Veeraswamy(US 8977898 B1) in view of Manion( US 20040111469 A1) in view of Suryanarayana( US 20210089325 A1) and further in view of PANNEER( US 20140281615 A1).
As to claim 12, Panneer teaches GPU work queue 210 may store one or more tasks 212( para[0030], ln 8-12/ The API 204 may communicate the request to the graphics driver module 206 to determine the completion status of the task 212, para[0044], ln 10-14).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention was made to modify the teaching of above references to incorporate the above feature because this allows a reader to quickly ascertain the nature of the technical disclosure.
26. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Veeraswamy(US 8977898 B1) in view of Manion( US 20040111469 A1) in view of Suryanarayana( US 20210089325 A1) and further in view of Clarke(US 20180260300 A1).
As to claim 13, Clarke teaches the API comprises a runtime API( Enhanced policy editor 112 parses the content retrieved by the REST API calls and populates lists of choices for the policy definition. Enhanced policy editor 112 may apply type or predicate filtering to the content before populating a list of choices. Enhanced policy editor 112 sets up callbacks for runtime objects that the policy references. Enhanced policy editor 112 also builds a dependency analysis tree for each runtime object. Once a policy built with enhanced policy editor 112 is in place, or while a user is editing a policy built using enhanced policy editor 112, enhanced policy editor 112 can receive a notification of a change of one or more of the runtime objects referenced by the policy. Enhanced policy editor 112 then runs a validation against the affected objects. If any of the objects have become invalid due to the change, enhanced policy editor 112 marks the objects as invalid and outputs the results of the validation. In the depicted embodiment, enhanced policy editor 112 includes components that perform the various functions, para[0015], ln 14-30/ enhanced policy editor 112 invokes one or more REST APIs, such as REST API 124, para[0039], ln 1-5).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention was made to modify the teaching of above references to incorporate the above feature because this provides an indication as to the problem resulting in the failure.
27. Claims 14, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Veeraswamy(US 8977898 B1) in view of Manion( US 20040111469 A1) in view of Suryanarayana( US 20210089325 A1) and further in view of Wiegley( US 20220236976 A1).
As to claim 14, Wieghley teaches the graph code is defined by a superset graph template( generates a second set of pipelines from the plurality of partially hydrated pipeline templates including the regenerated partially hydrated pipeline template and one or more partially hydrated templates generated before the change in metadata. Para[0031], ln 27-33).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention was made to modify the teaching of above references to incorporate the above feature because this allows organizations to simplify software deployment process and manage applications, firewalls, clusters, servers, load balancers, and other computing infrastructure on the cloud platform.
As to claim 15, Wiegly teaches the graph code is an instantiation of a graph template( para[0031], ln 27-33) for the same reason as to claim 14 above.
28. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Veeraswamy(US 8977898 B1) in view of Manion( US 20040111469 A1) in view of Suryanarayana( US 20210089325 A1) and further in view of Takeda( US 20200310937 A1).
As to claim 16, Takeda teaches the at least one graph node is disabled or enabled in response receiving another API call( FIG. 2 shows a data structure of an example of the storage 15. The storage 15 stores an operating system (OS) 151, an application 152, an image processing library 153, an RPC (Remote Procedure Call) library 154, para[0035], ln 1-6/ the image processing library 153 includes a node creation APT 1531, an RPC node creation API 1532, a graph creation API 1533, an execution API 1534, para[0038], ln 5-9/ The execution API 1534 is an API for executing the processes of the all-node graph, para[0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention was made to modify the teaching of above references to incorporate the above feature because this allocates a node to a thread in a thread pool, and executes the process of the RPC node of graph.
29. Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manion( US 20040111469 A1) in view of Veeraswamy(US 8977898 B1) in view of Suryanarayana( US 20210089325 A1) and further in view of Wells(US 20170344605 Al).
.
As to claim 17, Takeda teaches a graph node of the graph code to enable (The execution API 1534 is an API for executing the processes of the all-node graph, para[0044]) for the same reason as to claim 16 above.
Wells teaches determining a graph node of the graph code to enable( The API exposed at application gateway 130 may have a root node, and each request for data interaction (e.g., read, write, data processing requests) using the API may be defined and verified in relation to an access route from the root node. For example, a valid request may be defined as a continuous path through the graph representation of the API, para[0031]/ because multiple paths may exist in a graph projection of the API to a specified node, the context in which API service 132 performs a request on the specified node may change based on the navigable path identified in the request, para[0034]) , based at least in part on the API; determining whether the graph node is disabled( If API service 132 detects that one of the subqueries is not accessible (e.g., the node identified in the subquery is not an immediate child of the node identified in a previous subquery), API service 132 can stop processing the query and notify client device 120 that the received query is invalid, para[0023],ln 21-27/ using the API may be defined and verified in relation to an access route from the root node. For example, a valid request may be defined as a continuous path through the graph representation of the API, while an invalid request may be defined as a discontinuous path through the graph representation of the API, para[0031]); determining previously defined functionality of the graph node based at least in part on an execution graph template( request router 620 can examine provider information included in the schema definition for the node representing the subquery. The provider information generally includes an address (e.g. URL) of the server that can process requests for data related to the node in graph projection 200 of the API, para[0079]/ para[0058]; restoring a descriptor of the graph node( and as API service 132 reads schema definitions for each node, API service 132 can add an identifier representing the node (e.g., the node name) to an appropriate place (level) in the graph. For example, API service 132 may add a first-level node in the graph linked to the root node for a schema definition that identifies a node's parent as the root node, para[0030], ln 16-26; and restoring the previously defined functionality of the graph node( API service 132 can build a projection of the API based on API schema 172 stored at schema data store 170, para[0030], ln 1-3/ As discussed in further detail below, API schema 172 can define functions in relation to a parent node, para[0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention was made to modify the teaching of above references to incorporate the above feature because this optimizes certain operations to data stored according to a given object schema across a collection of nodes.
30. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Veeraswamy(US 8977898 B1) in view of Manion( US 20040111469 A1) in view of Suryanarayana( US 20210089325 A1) in view of Wells(US 20170344605 A1) further in view of YAMAMOTO(JP 2017062710 A).
As to claim 18, Wells teaches determining a graph node of the graph code to disable, based at least in part on the API; determining whether the graph node is enabled( The API exposed at application gateway 130 may have a root node, and each request for data interaction (e.g., read, write, data processing requests) using the API may be defined and verified in relation to an access route from the root node. For example, a valid request may be defined as a continuous path through the graph representation of the API, para[0031]/ because multiple paths may exist in a graph projection of the API to a specified node, the context in which API service 132 performs a request on the specified node may change based on the navigable path identified in the request, para[0034]/ If API service 132 detects that one of the subqueries is not accessible (e.g., the node identified in the subquery is not an immediate child of the node identified in a previous subquery), API service 132 can stop processing the query and notify client device 120 that the received query is invalid, para[0023],ln 21-27/ using the API may be defined and verified in relation to an access route from the root node. For example, a valid request may be defined as a continuous path through the graph representation of the API, while an invalid request may be defined as a discontinuous path through the graph representation of the API, para[0031]; saving one or more data items associated with the graph node(API service 132 can build a projection of the API based on API schema 172 stored at schema data store 170, para[0030], ln 1-3/ As discussed in further detail below, API schema 172 can define functions in relation to a parent node, para[0031]) for the same reason as to claim 16 above.
Yamamoto teaches setting a descriptor of the graph node to a null descriptor; and setting a functional specification of the graph node to an empty kernel( For example, in Fig. 2, the nodes of the graph represent classes or methods, and the edges of the graph represent relationships where the class holds methods (when annotation is <has>) or implementation relationships (when annotation is <impl>) Represents. That is, in FIG. 2, the annotation <has> indicates that the Tranceiver class has a send method and a transmit () method. <Impl> indicates the relationship between classes, Sec: Fig.2, ln 6-14/ Next, the graph edge search unit 111 returns the end point u of the input edge u .fwdarw. v if v is a node on the path with respect to the starting node (including the intermediate node) for each node v of the node set V, and so on. Otherwise return null. The graph edge search unit 111 sets the preceding node dictionary prev to return null for all nodes. The preceding node dictionary prev is a dictionary that holds information on the node immediately before the current search position. At this time, null is set in the preceding node dictionary prev indicating that the node immediately before the current search position has not been found, Sec: 1-12).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention was made to modify the teaching of above references to incorporate the feature of setting a descriptor of the graph node to a null descriptor; and setting a functional specification of the graph node to an empty kernel because this specifies a route to be searched from among a plurality of routes to be searched.
31. Claims 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Veeraswamy(US 8977898 B1) in view of Manion( US 20040111469 A1) in view of Suryanarayana( US 20210089325 A1) further in view of EVANS(US 20200053025 A1).
As to claim 19, EVANS teaches updated data for a graph node of the graph code( para[0022]) and Wells teaches receiving updated data for a graph node of the graph code; determining that the graph node is enabled, based at least in part on the API; and providing the updated data to the graph node( para[0030], ln 10-43/ para[0034]/ para[0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention was made to modify the teaching of above references to incorporate the above feature because this provides a more flexible and scalable environment within which to build data plane solutions than is possible with known programmable data plane technologies.
As to claim 20, EVANS teaches updated data for a graph node of the graph code( para[0022]) and Wells teaches receiving updated data for a graph node of the graph code; determining that the graph node is disabled, based at least in part on the API; storing the updated data; enabling the graph node; and providing the stored updated data to the graph node( para[0030], ln 10-43/ para[0034]/ para[0031]) for the same reason as to claim 19 above.
32. Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Suryanarayana( US 20210089325 A1) in view of NORDLUND( ES 2614716 T3). and further in view of Takeda( US 20200310937 A1).
As to claim 25, Takeda teaches as a result of being executed by the one or more processors, enable a graph node of the graph code, based at least in part on another the API.
( FIG. 2 shows a data structure of an example of the storage 15. The storage 15 stores an operating system (OS) 151, an application 152, an image processing library 153, an RPC (Remote Procedure Call) library 154, para[0035], ln 1-6/ the image processing library 153 includes a node creation APT 1531, an RPC node creation API 1532, a graph creation API 1533, an execution API 1534, para[0038], ln 5-9/ The execution API 1534 is an API for executing the processes of the all-node graph, para[0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention was made to modify the teaching of above references to incorporate the above feature because this allocates a node to a thread in a thread pool, and executes the process of the RPC node of graph.
33. Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suryanarayana( US 20210089325 A1) in view of NORDLUND( ES 2614716 T3) and further in view of Rudolph( US 20040267778 A1).
As to claim 26, Rudolph teaches disable a graph node of the graph code, based at least in part on another the API( The RemoveNode(IMFTopologyNode * pNode) command is called by a user to remove a node from a topology. The GetNodeCount( ) command is called by a user to determine the count of nodes in a current topology. The GetNode( ) command is called by a user to retrieve a node at position wIndex in the current topology. The Clear( ) command is called by a user to remove all nodes in the current topology, para[0094], ln 6-15).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention was made to modify the teaching of above references to incorporate the above feature because provides flexibility and modularity by providing interfaces for a system that separate the data flow information from the maintaining of stream state of multimedia components.
34. Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suryanarayana( US 20210089325 A1) in view of NORDLUND( ES 2614716 T3) and further in view of HIROTAC US 20200401444 Al).
As to claim 29, HIROTA teaches at least one of the one or more processors is a parallel processing unit ("PPU")( Parallel processing units (PPUs) are capable of very high processing performance using a large number of threads executing in parallel on dedicated programmable hardware processing units. Some PPUs provide an application programming interface (“API”) that enable developers to specify a workload as a graph of dependencies known as a “task graph.” Each node in the task graph is a task that is to be performed by one or more of the hardware processing units, para[002], In 1-12).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention was made to modify the teaching of above references to incorporate the feature of at least one of the one or more processors is a parallel processing unit ("PPU") because this enables the latency between completing the producer task and launching the consumer task to be reduced.
35. Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suryanarayana( US 20210089325 A1) in view of NORDLUND( ES 2614716 T3) and further in view of SHARP(CN 104981811 B).
As to claim 30, SHARP teaches at least one of the one or more processors is a general-purpose graphics processing unit ("GPGPU")( the software instructions may conform to a graphics application programming interface (API), such as open graphics library API, open graphics library embedded system (OpenGL ES) API, open computing language API, Direct3D API, X3D API, RenderMan API, a WebGL API or any other public or proprietary standard graphics API. In order to process the image reproduction instruction, the CPU 6 can be one or more graphics rendering commands issued to GPU 12 (e.g., by GPU driver 7) to cause GPU 12 to execute the graphics data for some or all of the reproduction. In some examples, the graph data representation may include, for example, point, line, triangle, quadrangle, triangle belt and other graphic primitive list, Sec: one or more graphics rendering commands, In 1-15/GPU 12 may be configured to more reproduction mode performing graphics processing pipeline 30 includes reproduction mode (also referred to as tiles or delayed based on reproduction mode) and the reproduction mode directly. GPU 12 may also be operable to perform general shader 39 for performing more general application to calculation by the GPU hardware for highly parallel execution. Such universal application can be so called general-purpose graphics processing unit (GPGPU) and in accordance with the common API, such as OpenCL, Sec: Fig 3, In 8-17).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention was made to modify the teaching of above references to incorporate the above feature because this allows the GPU only writing data to a secure portion of the first memory unit when the GPU is in the secure mode when the GPU is in the secure mode in the configuration.
36. Claims 37, 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suryanarayana( US 20210089325 A1) in view of NORDLUND( ES 2614716 T3) and further in view of Wiegley( US 20220236976 A1).
As to claim 37, Wieghley teaches the graph code is an instantiation of a graph template. ( generates a second set of pipelines from the plurality of partially hydrated pipeline templates including the regenerated partially hydrated pipeline template and one or more partially hydrated templates generated before the change in metadata. Para[0031], ln 27-33).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention was made to modify the teaching of above references to incorporate the above feature because this allows organizations to simplify software deployment process and manage applications, firewalls, clusters, servers, load balancers, and other computing infrastructure on the cloud platform.
As to claim 38, Wiegly teaches the graph code is defined by a superset execution graph template( Para[0031], ln 27-33) for the same reason as to claim 37 above.
37. Claim(s) 44 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Suryanarayana( US 20210089325 A1) in view of NORDLUND( ES 2614716 T3) in view of Wells(US 20170344605 A1) and further in view of VENKATESH( US 20210382765 Al).
As to claim 44, Wells teaches the API at least specifies the graph code, a graph node of the graph code(allows API service 132 to respond to requests by identifying nodes in the graph projection of the API , para[0030], In 6-10, API service 132 can generate a graph projection of the API including any extensions usable by the specific client device, para[0053], In 11-15) for the same reason as to claim 16 above.
VENKATESH teaches memory location to receive an execution status of the graph node( Application 1608A can submit APIs in a graphics stream for processing by driver 1606, para[0192], In 1-3/ application 1608A can insert DDIs to record a pipeline 3D state of a graphics pipeline in a state buffer 1614 in memory 1610 and can mark a current location of an API command added by application 1608A in queue 1612 as a potential queue split point with driver 1606, para[0194], In 4-12).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention was made to modify the teaching of above references to incorporate the feature of memory location to receive an execution status of the graph node because this facilitates the emulation of other instruction sets.
38 . Claim(s) 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suryanarayana( US 20210089325 A1) in view of NORDLUND( ES 2614716 T3) and further in view of Manion(US 20040111469 Al).
As to claim 45, Manion teaches the API returns an indication of success( 0 initiate shut down, the application calls the Peer Graph Shutdown function. This function cleans up any resources allocated by the call to the API Peer Graph Startup. As indicated above, there is preferably one call to Peer Graph Shutdown for each call to Peer Graph Startup. There are no required parameters for this function. This function returns an indication of success or failure of the shutdown function. In the case of error, the function returns an appropriate error code, para[0046]/ The graphing APIs of the present invention also allow the management and communication of presence information related to the node. The peer graph set presence API is used to inform other graph members that a node is actively connected and listening to the graph. The parameters of this API are the graph handle, and a flag that, if true, floods information to that graph that the node is "present." This API returns an indication of success or failure. The error indications include an indication of an error due to an invalid argument, and if not initialized, para[0092]).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention was made to modify the teaching of above references to incorporate the feature of the API returns an indication of success because this allows the management and communication of presence information related to the node .
Response to the argument:
39. Applicant amendment filed on 04/02/2026 has been considered but they are not persuasive:
Applicant argued in substance that :
(1)“ Applicant therefore respectfully submits that independent claims 1 and 11 recite patent-eligible subject matter and are not directed to a judicial exception for at least the reasons described above”
(2) “ applicant contends that even accepting those teachings for purposes of argument, the cited combination still does not disclose the claimed API call or the claimed execution status. In particular, the cited combination does not disclose an API call that at least specifies graph code, one or more graph nodes of the graph code, and a memory location to receive execution status of the one or more graph nodes, and in response to that API call provides to the specified memory location an execution status indicating whether the one or more graph nodes are enabled or disabled for execution by one or more GPUs. ”.
. Examiner respectfully disagreed with Applicant's remarks:
As to the point (1), As to Claims 1, 2, 3, 11, 23, 40, 41 have been rejected under 35 USC 101 for abstract idea without significantly more. Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the “ indicating whether the one or more graph nodes are to be performed enabled or disabled for execution ” , “ specifies the graph code, ]the one or more graph nodes of the graph code, and a memory location to receive an execution status of the one or more graph code”, “ indicate an execution status of at least one graph node of graph recite a mental process” since “ indicate”, “ specify” are functions that can be reasonably performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion.
Under Prong 2, the additional element “ in response to an application programming interface ("API") call, provide an execution status to indicate which of one or more graph nodes of graph code to a memory location specified using the API call “, “ graph code are to be performed by one or more graphics processing units (GPU)” , “ the execution status indicates whether the at least one graph node is enabled or disabled; and in response to the API call, providing the execution status of the at least one graph node” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, or merely a generic computer or generic computer components to perform the judicial exception, Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under Step 2B, the additional elements “ graph code are to be performed by one or more graphics processing units (GPU)” - this generally have been a mental process although the graph code could be a generic computer component in actual computer hardware. “ in response to an application programming interface ("API") call, provide an execution status of one or more graph nodes of graph code to a memory location specified using the API call,”- this is mere instructions to apply the mental process under mpep 2106.05(f), amounts to merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field or use, and is merely applying the judicial exception, therefore, does not amount to significantly more, hence, cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
As to the point(2), Suryanarayana teaches One or more processors comprising: circuitry to, in response to an application programming interface ("API") call, provide an execution status of one or more graph nodes of graph code to a memory location specified using the API call( hardware (e.g., fixed logic circuitry)… .g., CPUs or processors, the script may include BIOS procedure calls (BPCs), para[0016], ln 6-9/ para[0071], ln 11-25/ The UEFI 122[API] may retrieve the script 164 from the namespace 150 and execute the script 164 (e.g., execute the BIOS procedure calls[API]166 in the script 164), para[0057], ln 16-21/ the script 164 may be saved to the namespace 150[memory location] in the non-volatile memory 124 ….the UEFI 122[API] checks[specified] the namespace 150[memory location] to determine if a script is present., para[0036], ln 2-10/ The script 164 may include a sequence of actions[node] to be performed on the UEFI (BIOS) 122 to update the BIOS settings, para[0036], ln 1-5/ The action tree 146 enables the actions in the script 164 to be translated into virtual mouse actions and virtual keyboard actions to modify a configuration of the UEFI 122. After the action tree 146 has been executed, the UEFI 122 may save the results of performing the actions[node] in the action tree 146[graph code] into the namespace 150 and perform a reboot. After the reboot, the chat application 134 may regain control and read the script status 152 indicating a result of executing the script 164. The chat application 134 may send a message to the server 104 indicating whether or not the script 164 was successfully executed (e.g., the script status 152[execution status]), para[0036], ln 12-20).
the execution status indicating whether the one or more graph nodes are enabled or disabled( the script status 152 indicating a result of executing the script 164. The chat application 134 may send a message to the server 104 indicating whether or not the script 164 was successfully executed (e.g., the script status 152[execution status]), para[0036], ln 12-20)
wherein the API call at least specifies the graph code, the one or more graph nodes of the graph code( the UEFI 122 may use the BIOS procedure calls 166 in the script 164 to construct the action tree 146[graph code] that includes actions[graph code] to be performed by a virtual mouse and/or a virtual keyboard. The UEFI 122 may execute the script 164 by executing the actions in the action tree 146, para[0070], ln 27-32)
and the memory location to receive the execution status of the one or more graph nodes( the UEFI 122 may save the results of performing the actions in the action tree 146 into the namespace 150 (e.g., the script status 152) and perform a reboot. After the reboot, the chat application 134 may regain control and read the script status 152 indicating a result of executing the script 164. The chat application 134 may send a message to the server 104 indicating whether or not the script 164 was successfully executed, para[0036], ln 17-36/ Fig.1).
NORDLUND teaches the execution status indicating whether the one or more graph nodes are enabled or disabled for execution by one or more graphics processing units( processor 24 may generate a flow of commands that includes one or more tasks to be performed by the GPU 48, Sec: In operation, according to aspects of this disclosure, ln 1-5/ a graphics processing unit comprises a shader processor, one or more fixed function hardware units and a command processor. The shader processor is configured 40 to execute a plurality of instructions in parallel. The one or more fixed function hardware units are configured to represent graph data. The command processing unit is configured to receive one or more tasks from a main processor and independently plan the one or more tasks to be selectively executed by the shader processor and the one or more fixed function hardware units, Sec: In one example, a graphics processing unit comprises a shader processor, ln 1-19/ For example, according to the aspects of this disclosure, the command processor 56 of the GPU 48 may receive one or more "tasks" from the host processor 24. The command processor 56 can independently plan the tasks to be executed by means of resources of the GPU 48, including, for example, the shader processor 20 and the fixed function units 54, Sec: As indicated above, with respect to FIG. 1, ln 3-14/ the command processor 56 can plan a graphing task, to be executed by the fixed function units 54 of the GPU 48, Sec: execution of the tasks without the intervention of the host processor 24, ln 5-9/ The command processor 56 of the GPU 48 can receive the command flow and 20 facilitate the execution of each of the tasks included in the command flow, Sec: In operation, according to aspects , ln 1-6/ the command processor 56 can also maintain a list of active tasks that are being executed by the components of the GPU 48, as well as track the component responsible for the execution of the tasks. The list of active tasks can be used, for example, to track the status of tasks. By tracking the status of the tasks, the command processor 56 can determine which resources of the GPU 48 are available for task planning. That is, if a task is currently being executed by a GPU resource (for example, the task is "active"), Sec: In some examples, the command processor 56, ln 1-9/ When planning a task, the command processor 56 can update a list of active tasks (112), that is, a list of active tasks. For example, the command processor 56 can maintain a list of active tasks that are being executed by the components of the GPU 48, as well as track the component 50 responsible for the execution of the task. The list of active tasks can be used, for example, to track the status of tasks. By tracking the status of the tasks, the command processor 56 can determine which resources of the GPU 48 are available for task planning, and which resources of the GPU 48 are busy executing tasks. That is, if a task is currently being executed by a GPU resource (for example, the task is "active"), Sec: When planning a task, the command processor 56, ln 1-23/ the status of the impersonated task may be stored (for example, stored in the memory of GPU 58), Sec: If the resources for the execution of the current task are not available, ln 15-17).
Conclusion
CN 111163906 A teaches in at least one of the data to confirm the user. Processor 120 may operate according to the confirmation information corresponding to the task execution condition to the user. Electronic device 101 may store information with corresponding to the user state of the task execution condition. memory 130 may store algorithms or program at least one of user state and user state can be confirmed has been obtained. Processor 120 may be used by the algorithm or program verification application from the at least one of data in the sensor.
US 20180365058 A1 teaches input for receiving an instruction in a scheduled task in an active state from a scheduler; an instruction decoder arranged to decode the received instruction; a memory element arranged to store a plurality of ALU work fullness counters; and hardware logic.
US 20210089325 A1 teaches The BIOS may retrieve the script, convert BIOS procedure calls in the script into an action tree, and execute the actions in the action tree, causing a virtual mouse and/or virtual keyboard to provide input to the BIOS to modify the BIOS to address an issue
US 20140282180 A1 teaches For example, when the "update" operation of reference node 6 (e.g., update(Node2)) modifies the state associated with the computation represented by node 6 (e.g., dsp.Minimum), the state is also modified for Nodes 2, 7, and 8. In some implementations, the state associated with the computation may be a single shared state that is referenced by each
US 20080282071 A1 teaches The map register 41 retains map data. The map data is a collection of flags that have one-to-one correspondence with the general purpose registers of the register file 20. When an instruction to write to a general purpose register is executed, that is, when data is saved, the map register 41 sets a flag corresponding to the general purpose register to "1" in the map data. When a call instruction is executed, the map register 41 saves the retained map data to the saving memory 30 and initializes the map data retained therein. Then when a return instruction is executed, the map register 41 acquires the map data which has been saved in the saving memory 30, and retains it again.
US 20150324131 A1 teaches the data structure based on the parameters. In another embodiment, the function call comprises an indicator of a memory level of the multiclass memory system, such that when the processor executes the function call comprising the indicator, the operating system allocates an identified portion of the data structure to the indicated memory leve
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LECHI TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)272-3767. The examiner can normally be reached 10-8 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 Young Kevin can be reached on (571)270-3180. 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.us pto.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.
/LECHI TRUONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights