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 .
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on 02/10/2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. A new ground of rejection is set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/KEVIN L YOUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Claims 1 – 5, 7 – 19 and 21 – 22 are pending for examination.
Examiner’s Note
The prior art rejection below cites particular paragraphs, columns, and/or line numbers in the references for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claim 21, at least examiner cannot find in the specification the description of the first queue and second queue correspond to a single queue associated with the given successor graph node and containing data representing priorities associated with a plurality of predecessor graph nodes including the first predecessor graph node and the second predecessor graph node.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 - 5 and 7 – 19 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claim 1, “A method comprising:
providing a directed acyclic graph (DAG) that represents an execution order for a plurality of tasks, wherein the DAG comprises a plurality of graph nodes, and each graph node corresponds to a corresponding task subset of at least one task of the plurality of tasks;
accessing, by a DAG scheduling engine, a first queue corresponding to a given successor graph node of the plurality of graph nodes, wherein the first queue comprises data associating a first priority with the given successor graph node for the given successor graph node to execute after a first predecessor graph node of the plurality of graph nodes, and wherein the given successor graph node is connected to the first predecessor graph node by a first edge of the DAG;
accessing, by the DAG scheduling engine, a second queue corresponding to the given successor graph node, wherein the second queue comprises data associating a second priority other than the first priority with the given successor graph node for the given successor graph node to execute after a second predecessor graph node of the plurality of graph nodes other than the first predecessor graph node, and wherein the given successor graph node is connected to the second predecessor graph node by a second edge of the DAG; and
scheduling, by the DAG scheduling engine and based on the DAG, the plurality of tasks to be executed by a plurality of compute nodes, wherein the scheduling comprises, based on the first priority and the second priority:
scheduling the task subset corresponding to the given successor graph node to execute after the task subset corresponding to the first predecessor node executes; or
scheduling the task subset corresponding to the given successor graph node to execute after the task subset corresponding to the second predecessor node executes.
Step 2A
Prong 1: the limitations of “scheduling”, “based on the DAG, the plurality of tasks”, “wherein the scheduling comprises, based on the first priority and the second priority:
scheduling the task subset corresponding to the given successor graph node to execute after the task subset corresponding to the first predecessor node executes”;
“scheduling the task subset corresponding to the given successor graph node to execute after the task subset corresponding to the second predecessor node executes” are functions that can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, thus it is reasonable to identify these limitation as reciting a mental process.
Prong 2:
The additional limitations “by the DAG scheduling engine” and “to be executed by a plurality of compute nodes” merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
The additional elements “providing a directed acyclic graph (DAG) that represents an execution order for a plurality of tasks, wherein the DAG comprises a plurality of graph nodes, and each graph node corresponds to a corresponding task subset of at least one task of the plurality of tasks;
accessing, by a DAG scheduling engine, a first queue corresponding to a given successor graph node of the plurality of graph nodes, wherein the first queue comprises data associating a first priority with the given successor graph node for the given successor graph node to execute after a first predecessor graph node of the plurality of graph nodes, and wherein the given successor graph node is connected to the first predecessor graph node by a first edge of the DAG;
accessing, by the DAG scheduling engine, a second queue corresponding to the given successor graph node, wherein the second queue comprises data associating a second priority other than the first priority with the given successor graph node for the given successor graph node to execute after a second predecessor graph node of the plurality of graph nodes other than the first predecessor graph node, and wherein the given successor graph node is connected to the second predecessor graph node by a second edge of the DAG” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Thus, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The additional limitations “by the DAG scheduling engine” and “to be executed by a plurality of compute nodes” merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
The additional elements “providing a directed acyclic graph (DAG) that represents an execution order for a plurality of tasks, wherein the DAG comprises a plurality of graph nodes, and each graph node corresponds to a corresponding task subset of at least one task of the plurality of tasks;
accessing, by a DAG scheduling engine, a first queue corresponding to a given successor graph node of the plurality of graph nodes, wherein the first queue comprises data associating a first priority with the given successor graph node for the given successor graph node to execute after a first predecessor graph node of the plurality of graph nodes, and wherein the given successor graph node is connected to the first predecessor graph node by a first edge of the DAG;
accessing, by the DAG scheduling engine, a second queue corresponding to the given successor graph node, wherein the second queue comprises data associating a second priority other than the first priority with the given successor graph node for the given successor graph node to execute after a second predecessor graph node of the plurality of graph nodes other than the first predecessor graph node, and wherein the given successor graph node is connected to the second predecessor graph node by a second edge of the DAG” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As to claim 2, The method of claim 1, wherein the DAG comprises a given DAG of a plurality of DAGs, the method further comprising performing the scheduling responsive to the priority of the given DAG.
The limitations of performing the scheduling responsive to the priority of the given DAG are functions that can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, thus it is reasonable to identify these limitation as reciting a mental process.
The additional element of the DAG comprises a given DAG of a plurality of DAG merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
As to claim 3, The method of claim 2, wherein the scheduling comprises:
accessing a set of queues corresponding to the given DAG and corresponding to the first queue and the second queue, wherein each queue of the set of queues corresponds to a graph node of the plurality of graph nodes and stores data representing available scheduling paths from the graph node and priorities associated with the available scheduling paths merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
As to claim 4, The method of claim 1, wherein the task subset corresponding to the given successor graph node is associated with another DAG merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
As to claim 5, The method of claim 1, further comprising:
associating a third priority with a second successor graph node of the plurality of graph nodes for the second successor graph node to execute after a third predecessor graph node; and
associating a fourth priority with a third successor graph node of the plurality of graph nodes for the third successor graph node to execute after the third predecessor graph node,
wherein the scheduling of the plurality of tasks further comprises, based on the third priority and the fourth priority:
scheduling the task subset corresponding to the second successor graph node to execute after the task subset corresponding to the third predecessor graph node; or
scheduling the task subset corresponding to the third successor graph node to execute after the task subset corresponding to the third predecessor graph node
are functions that can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, thus it is reasonable to identify these limitation as reciting a mental process.
As to claim 7, The method of claim 1, wherein the scheduling comprises:
accessing, by the DAG scheduling engine, a hash map corresponding to the given successor graph node;
based on the hash map, accessing a queue corresponding to the given successor graph node, and storing comprises data representing the first priority and the second priority merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
As to claim 8, The method of claim 1, wherein:
the DAG is associated with multiple scheduling paths; and
each scheduling path of the multiple scheduling paths is associated with a result of a plurality of results merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
As to claim 9, The method of claim 1, further comprising:
associating a plurality of priorities with the plurality of graph nodes; and
during the scheduling, changing, a given priority of the plurality of priorities are functions that can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, thus it is reasonable to identify these limitation as reciting a mental process.
As to claim 10, An apparatus comprising:
a directed acyclic graph (DAG) scheduling engine to schedule a plurality of tasks to be executed by a plurality of compute nodes, wherein the DAG scheduling engine comprises:
hardware processor; and
memory to store instructions that, when executed by the hardware processor, cause the DAG scheduling engine to:
select a given DAG from a plurality of DAGs based on a priority of the given DAG, wherein the given DAG represents an execution order for [[a]] the plurality of tasks, the DAG comprises a plurality of graph nodes, and wherein each graph node corresponds to a corresponding task subset of at least one task of the plurality of tasks; and
schedule tasks of the plurality of tasks for execution by the plurality of compute nodes based on the given DAG, wherein a first candidate execution path for the scheduling comprises a first graph node of the plurality of graph nodes and is associated with a first set of tasks of the plurality of tasks, wherein a second candidate execution path for the scheduling other than the first candidate execution path comprises the first graph node and is associated with a second set of tasks of the plurality of tasks, and wherein the scheduling comprises:
based on a first priority associated with the first graph node and a second priority other than the first priority associated with the first graph node, selecting one of the first candidate execution path or the second candidate execution path; and
responsive to the selection, scheduling, for execution by compute nodes of the plurality of compute nodes, one of the first set of tasks or the second set of tasks.
Step 2A
Prong 1: the limitations of “to schedule a plurality of tasks to be executed by a plurality of compute nodes”, “select a given DAG from a plurality of DAGs based on a priority of the given DAG, wherein the given DAG represents an execution order for the plurality of tasks, the DAG comprises a plurality of graph nodes, and wherein each graph node corresponds to a corresponding task subset of at least one task of the plurality of task”, “schedule tasks of the plurality of tasks”, “based on the given DAG, wherein a first candidate execution path for the scheduling comprises a first graph node of the plurality of graph nodes and is associated with a first set of tasks of the plurality of tasks, wherein a second candidate execution path for the scheduling other than the first candidate execution path comprises the first graph node and is associated with a second set of tasks of the plurality of tasks, and wherein the scheduling comprises:
based on a first priority associated with the first graph node and a second priority other than the first priority associated with the first graph node, selecting one of the first candidate execution path or the second candidate execution path”, “responsive to the selection, scheduling” “one of the first set of tasks or the second set of tasks” are functions that can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, thus it is reasonable to identify these limitation as reciting a mental process.
Prong 2:
The additional elements of a directed acyclic graph (DAG) scheduling engine, wherein the DAG scheduling engine, hardware processor, memory to store instructions that, when executed by the hardware processor, cause the DAG scheduling engine wherein the DAG scheduling engine, hardware processor, memory to store instructions that, when executed by the hardware processor, cause the DAG scheduling engine, for execution by the plurality of compute nodes, for execution by compute nodes of the plurality of compute nodes merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Thus, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The additional elements of a directed acyclic graph (DAG) scheduling engine, wherein the DAG scheduling engine, hardware processor, memory to store instructions that, when executed by the hardware processor, cause the DAG scheduling engine wherein the DAG scheduling engine, hardware processor, memory to store instructions that, when executed by the hardware processor, cause the DAG scheduling engine, for execution by the plurality of compute nodes, for execution by compute nodes of the plurality of compute nodes merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As to claim 11, The apparatus of claim 10, wherein the instructions, when executed by the hardware processor, further cause the DAG scheduling engine to:
access a hash map associated with a second graph node of the plurality of graph nodes, wherein the second graph node is a predecessor to the first graph node;
responsive to the hash map, access a priority queue associated with the second node; and access the priority queue to determine the first priority.
The additional elements of access a hash map associated with a second graph node of the plurality of graph nodes, responsive to the hash map, access a priority queue associated with the second node; and access the priority queue to determine the first priority are functions that can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, thus it is reasonable to identify these limitation as reciting a mental process.
The additional elements of wherein the instructions, when executed by the hardware processor, further cause the DAG scheduling engine merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
The additional elements of wherein the second graph node is a predecessor to the first graph node merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
As to claim 12, The apparatus of claim 10, wherein the instructions, when executed by the hardware processor, further cause the DAG scheduling engine to, during the access a hash map associated with a second graph node of the plurality of graph nodes, responsive to the hash map, access a priority queue associated with the second node; and access the priority queue to determine the first priority.
The additional elements of during the access a hash map associated with a second graph node of the plurality of graph nodes, responsive to the hash map, access a priority queue associated with the second node; and access the priority queue to determine the first priority are functions that can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, thus it is reasonable to identify these limitation as reciting a mental process.
The additional elements of wherein the instructions, when executed by the hardware processor, further cause the DAG scheduling engine are functions that can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, thus it is reasonable to identify these limitation as reciting a mental process.
As to claim 13, The apparatus of claim 10, wherein the instructions, when executed by the hardware processor, further cause the DAG scheduling engine to:
based on a third priority associated with a second graph node of the plurality of graph nodes and a fourth priority associated with a third graph node of the plurality of graph nodes, select a third candidate execution path that includes the second graph node or fourth candidate execution path that includes the third graph node, wherein the third candidate execution path is associated with a third set of tasks of the plurality of tasks, and wherein the fourth candidate execution path is associated with a fourth set of tasks of the plurality of tasks; and
responsive to the selection of the third candidate execution path or the fourth candidate execution path, schedule one of the third set of tasks or the fourth set of tasks.
The additional elements of based on a third priority associated with a second graph node of the plurality of graph nodes and a fourth priority associated with a third graph node of the plurality of graph nodes, select a third candidate execution path that includes the second graph node or fourth candidate execution path that includes the third graph nodes, responsive to the selection of the third candidate execution path or the fourth candidate execution path, schedule one of the third set of tasks or the fourth set of tasks are functions that can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, thus it is reasonable to identify these limitation as reciting a mental process.
The additional elements of wherein the instructions, when executed by the hardware processor, further cause the DAG scheduling engine merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
The additional elements of wherein the third candidate execution path is associated with a third set of tasks of the plurality of tasks, and wherein the fourth candidate execution path is associated with a fourth set of tasks of the plurality of tasks merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
As to claim 14, A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium to store instructions that, when executed by a hardware processor, cause a directed acyclic graph (DAG) scheduling engine the machine to:
schedule, for execution by compute nodes of a plurality of compute nodes, a first task subset corresponding to a predecessor graph node of a plurality of graph nodes of a DAG, wherein the DAG represents an execution order for a plurality of tasks comprising the first task subset;
access a queue corresponding to the first graph node, wherein the queue comprises data representing a plurality of priorities for a plurality of candidate successor graph nodes, wherein the data represents, for a given candidate successor graph node of the plurality candidate successor graph nodes, a first priority of the plurality of priorities corresponding to the first graph node and a second priority of the plurality of priorities corresponding to a graph node of the plurality of graph nodes other than the first graph node;
based on a priority selection criterion, the first priority and the second priority, select a candidate successor graph node of the plurality of candidate successor graph nodes to provide a selected candidate successor graph node; and
schedule, for execution by compute nodes of the plurality of compute nodes, a second task subset of the plurality of tasks corresponding to the selected candidate successor graph node.
Step 2A
Prong 1: the limitations of schedule, a first task subset corresponding to a predecessor graph node of a plurality of graph nodes of a DAG, wherein the DAG represents an execution order for a plurality of tasks comprising the first task subset, based on a priority selection criterion, the first priority and the second priority, select a candidate successor graph node of the plurality of candidate successor graph nodes to provide a selected candidate successor graph node; and schedule, a second task subset of the plurality of tasks corresponding to the selected candidate successor graph node are functions that can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, thus it is reasonable to identify these limitation as reciting a mental process.
Prong 2:
The additional elements of A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium to store instructions that, when executed by a hardware processor, cause a directed acyclic graph (DAG) scheduling engine the machine to, for execution by compute nodes of a plurality of compute nodes, and for execution by compute nodes of the plurality of compute nodes merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
The additional elements of access a queue corresponding to the first graph node, wherein the queue comprises data representing a plurality of priorities for a plurality of candidate successor graph nodes, wherein the data represents, for a given candidate successor graph node of the plurality candidate successor graph nodes, a first priority of the plurality of priorities corresponding to the first graph node and a second priority of the plurality of priorities corresponding to a graph node of the plurality of graph nodes other than the first graph node merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Thus, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
The additional elements of A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium to store instructions that, when executed by a hardware processor, cause a directed acyclic graph (DAG) scheduling engine the machine to, for execution by compute nodes of a plurality of compute nodes, and for execution by compute nodes of the plurality of compute nodes merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
The additional elements of access a queue corresponding to the first graph node, wherein the queue comprises data representing a plurality of priorities for a plurality of candidate successor graph nodes, wherein the data represents, for a given candidate successor graph node of the plurality candidate successor graph nodes, a first priority of the plurality of priorities corresponding to the first graph node and a second priority of the plurality of priorities corresponding to a graph node of the plurality of graph nodes other than the first graph node merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As to claim 15. The storage medium of claim 14, wherein the instructions, when executed by the hardware processor, further cause the DAG scheduling engine to:
select the DAG from a plurality of DAGS based on priorities associated with the plurality of DAGs.
The additional elements of select the DAG from a plurality of DAGS based on priorities associated with the plurality of DAGs are functions that can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, thus it is reasonable to identify these limitation as reciting a mental process.
The additional elements of wherein the instructions, when executed by the hardware processor, further cause the DAG scheduling engine merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
As to claim 16. The storage medium of claim 15, wherein the instructions, when executed by the hardware processor, further cause the DAG scheduling engine to select a queue set corresponding to the selected DAG and select the queue from the selected queue set.
The additional elements of select a queue set corresponding to the selected DAG and select the queue from the selected queue set are functions that can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, thus it is reasonable to identify these limitation as reciting a mental process.
The additional elements of wherein the instructions, when executed by the hardware processor, further cause the DAG scheduling engine merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
As to claim 17. The storage medium of claim 14, wherein at least one of the first task subset or the second task subset comprises a DAG.
The additional elements of wherein at least one of the first task subset or the second task subset comprises a DAG merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
As to claim 18. The storage medium of claim 14, wherein the instructions, when executed by the DAG scheduling engine, further cause the DAG scheduling engine to access the queue based on a hash map associated with the first graph node.
The additional elements of access the queue based on a hash map associated with the first graph node are functions that can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, thus it is reasonable to identify these limitation as reciting a mental process.
The additional elements of wherein the instructions, when executed by the hardware processor, further cause the DAG scheduling engine merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
As to claim 19. The storage medium of claim 14, wherein the instructions, when executed by the DAG scheduling engine, further cause the DAG scheduling engine to access a linked list associated with the first graph node to identify the plurality of candidate successor graph nodes.
The additional elements of access a linked list associated with the first graph node to identify the plurality of candidate successor graph nodes are functions that can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, thus it is reasonable to identify these limitation as reciting a mental process.
The additional elements of wherein the instructions, when executed by the hardware processor, further cause the DAG scheduling engine merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, with respect to 112(a) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Whether Claim 21 Complies with the Written Description Requirement (pages 9 – 10 of remark).
Applicant argued
“...Neither claim 21 nor independent claim 1 from which claim 21 depends contains language, which would exclude the first and second queues from being the same queue.
Therefore, the instant application, as originally-filed, clearly contains a written description of claim 21, which is sufficient to convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventors possessed the invention as claimed.
Thus, for at least the foregoing reasons, the § 112 rejection of claim 12 as failing to comply with the written description requirement is in error and should be reversed”.
In response,
If the first queue and the second queue are the same queue, claim 21 must recites the first queue or the second queue correspond to a queue. Instead, the claim 21 recites the first queue and the second queue correspond to a queue... Therefore, the claim 21 is rejected under 112(a) for failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Applicant's arguments, with respect to rejection under 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive (pages 10 – 21 of remark).
Whether Claims 1 – 5 and 7 – 19 are Directed to Unpatentable Subject Matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Whether Claim 1 Is Directed to Unpatentable Subject Matter under 35
U.S.C. § 101
Claim 1 is not Directed to a Judicial Exception
Applicant argued
“In Prong One of the Step 2A § 101 analysis of claim 1, the Final Office Action contends that the "scheduling" is a mental process:
Step 2A
Prong 1: the limitations of "scheduling tasks of the plurality of
tasks for execution based on the DAG, wherein the scheduling comprises,
based on the first priority and the second priority: scheduling the task
subset corresponding to the given successor node to execute after the task subset corresponding to the first predecessor node executes; or scheduling the task subset corresponding to the given successor node to execute after the task subset corresponding to the second predecessor node executes", recite mental processes since "scheduling" is a function that can be reasonably performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion.
Final Office Action, p.5
In determining whether claims are directed to abstract ideas or judicial exceptions, "courts' must be careful to avoid over simplifying the claims' by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims." McRO Inc. v. Bandai Namco
Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In this manner, in Enfish V.Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d at 1327, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the Federal Circuit held that the district court's characterization of the claims as being directed to "storing, organizing, and retrieving memory in a logical table," or, "the concept of organizing information using tabular formats," was improperly broad. The Federal Circuit noted, "describing the claims at such a high level of abstraction and untethered from the language of the claims all but ensures that the exceptions to § 101 swallow the rule." Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1337. The Final Office Action's conclusion that the "scheduling" of claim 1 is a mere mental process is based on high level abstractions that are untethered from the actual claim language. When the actual claim language is not oversimplified and the expressly-recited elements of claim 1 are properly considered, it becomes clear that the human mind is not equipped to perform these elements, and as such, these claim elements do not correspond to a mental process.
Claim 1 recites specific actions that are taken by a DAG scheduling engine and for which the human mind is not equipped to perform. For example, claim 1 recites that the DAG scheduling engine accesses queues that contain data representing priorities associated with the given successor graph node. More specifically, claim 1 recites, "accessing, by a DAG scheduling engine, a first queue corresponding to a given successor graph node, wherein the first queue comprises data associating a first priority with the given successor graph node." Moreover, claim 1 further recites, " accessing, by the DAG scheduling engine, a second queue corresponding to a given successor graph node, wherein the first queue comprises data associating a second priority other than the first priority with the given successor graph node."
The human mind is not equipped to access a queue.
Claim 1 also recites, "scheduling by the DAG scheduling engine, the plurality of tasks to be executed by a plurality of compute nodes." The scheduling includes, "based on the first priority and the second priority scheduling the task subset corresponding to the given successor graph node to execute after the task subset corresponding to the first predecessor node executes; or scheduling the task subset corresponding to the given successor graph node to execute after the task subset corresponding to the second predecessor node executes." The human mind is neither equipped to schedule tasks to be executed by compute nodes nor schedule task subsets to be executed based on priorities associated with a graph node of a DAG.
In SRI International, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 930 F.3d 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the Federal Circuit clarified that § 101 is not meant to exclude every activity that may be conceivably performed (or alleged to be performed) in the human mind. Instead, the Federal Circuit held that the mental process judicial exception only applies to activities that can be practically performed in the human mind. In SRI International, the Federal Circuit considered claims that recited deploying a plurality of network onitors in an enterprise network and detecting, by the network monitors, suspicious network activity based on analysis of network traffic data. The appellant in SRI International contended that the claims encompassed steps that people can "go through in their minds." SRI International, 930 F.3d at 1305. In holding that the claims were not directed to mental process judicial exception, the Federal Circuit stated, "this is not the type of human activity that § 101 is meant to exclude," and observed, "the human mind is not equipped to detect suspicious activity by using network monitors and analyzing network packets as recited by the claims." Id.
Similar to the facts in SRI International, the Final Office Action fails to consider the practical limitations of the human mind. The human mind is not equipped to access queues or schedule tasks to be executed by a plurality of compute nodes, much less schedule task subsets of these tasks based on node priorities represented by data contained in the queues. For similar reasons, neither accessing a first queue nor accessing a second queue, as now-recited in claim 1, is a mental process. Therefore, claim 1 is not directed to the type of activity that § 101 is meant to exclude.
Therefore, for at least the reason that claim 1 is not directed to a judicial exception, the § 101 rejection of claim 1 is deficient.” (pages 10 – 12 of remark).
In response,
As indicated in the rejection, “scheduling” can be implemented by human mind with or without the aid of pen and paper, just like any kind of scheduling; therefore, it is abstract idea. A queue is just an array structures to store data for processing and it can be drawn with pen and paper; data put in a queue can be organized in priority with help of pen and paper. DAG is basically a graph and both DAG and queue can be drawn with aid of pen and paper. A directed acyclic graph (DAG) engine and compute nodes are instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. A human can determine and draw how first and second queues are corresponding to predecessor graph node and successor graph node such as first queue is corresponding to a given predecessor graph node, and second queue is corresponding to a given successor graph node.
Accessing queues or data in queues using computing nodes as a computing tools and accessing a queue is just insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, claim 1 recites abstract idea.
The Additional Elements of Claim 1 Amount to Significantly More
Than the Purported Judicial Exception
Applicant argued
"A claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application." M.P.E.P. § 2106.04(d)(1), Rev. 10.2019, June 2020. For claim 1, the practical application is an innovative solution to perform DAG scheduling of execution tasks for compute nodes.
The Specification of the instant application discusses converting a logical workflow of transformations for high performance computing (HPC) into a physical execution plan. Specification, para. no. [0013]. "The physical execution plan may be in the form of a graph, such as a directed acyclic graph (DAG)." Specification, para. no. [0014]. Each node of the DAG represents "a particular stage of the physical execution plan, and correspondingly, each node may correspond to a taskset related to one or multiple transformations that operate on and produce datasets." Id. "A DAG scheduler may process a DAG for purposes of scheduling tasks among nodes of a cluster." Specification, para. no. [0016]. "Using a DAG to represent a physical execution plan may be rather inflexible for purposes of responding to a dynamic environment." Specification, para. no. [0017]. "A DAG that has only single directed edges from its node does not accommodate the situation in which conditions for more than one scenario are simultaneously satisfied." Specification, para. no. [0019].
The Specification describes DAG scheduling for a DAG that "may have multiple candidate paths (or 'execution paths') that originate from a given node." Specification, para. no. [0020]. "A potential challenge with multiple candidate paths in DAG scheduling is that the condition(s) for transitioning to more than one candidate path may be simultaneously satisfied." Specification, para. no. [0021]. The Specification describes a "priority DAG." "A 'priority DAG" generally refers to a DAG that has alternate candidate paths (or 'candidate execution paths'), and the candidate paths are associated with relative priorities." Specification, para. no. [0022].
"The DAG scheduling engine 140 processes a priority DAG 150, one node at a time, for purposes of scheduling the tasks for compute nodes 120 to execute." Specification, para. no. [0036]. "Selecting the 'next node' may involve the DAG scheduling engine 140 evaluating multiple choices (i.e., evaluating candidate next nodes) based on respective node priorities associated with these choices." Id. The priorities are indicated by data stored in priority queues. In connection with Fig. 5, the Specification describes a priority queue set 160-1 that is mapped to a priority DAG 150-1. "A given queue 540, as indicated at reference numeral 544, contains data representing the priorities for the immediate candidate successor nodes for the corresponding predecessor node." Specification, para. no. [0052]. "In accordance with further example implementations, the given priority queue set may include one or multiple ...priority queues that correspond to respective successor nodes 204, where each of these successor nodes 204 has multiple candidate immediate predecessor nodes." Specification, para. no. [0044].
The above-described improvement to the technology/technical field of DAG scheduling is recited in claim 1:
...accessing, by a DAG scheduling engine and based on the DAG, a first queue corresponding to a given successor graph node of the plurality of graph nodes, wherein the first queue comprises data associating a first priority with the given successor graph node
...accessing, by the DAG scheduling engine and based on the DAG, a second queue corresponding to the given successor graph node, wherein the second queue comprises data associating a second priority other than the first priority with the given successor graph node
...scheduling, by the DAG scheduling engine and based on the DAG, the plurality of tasks to be executed by a plurality of compute nodes, wherein the scheduling comprises, based on the first priority and the second priority:
...scheduling the task subset corresponding to the given successor
graph node to execute after the task subset corresponding to the first
predecessor node executes; or
scheduling the task subset corresponding to the given successor
graph node to execute after the task subset corresponding to the second
predecessor node executes.
Therefore, claim 1 integrates explicit language that is directed to the improvement of the technology/technical field of DAG scheduling and which meaningfully limits the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. M.P.E.P. § 2106.04(d)(1), Rev. 10.2019, June 2020. For at least the independent reason that claim 1 as a whole integrates the purported judicial exception into a practical application, claim 1 overcomes the § 101 rejection.
The Final Office Action contends that the DAG scheduling engine accessing a queue is a "insignificant extra-solution activity." Final Office Action, pp. 5 and 6. The Final Office Action fails to explain, however, why a DAG scheduling engine accessing queues as part of scheduling tasks to be executed by a plurality of compute nodes is an "insignificant extra-solution activity."
"The term 'extra-solution activity' can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim." M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(g), Rev. 01.2024, November 2024. "Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity." For claim 1, the DAG scheduling engine accessing the first and second queues is neither a nominal nor tangential addition to the claim, as the accessing describes how the DAG scheduling engine schedules the tasks. For example, claim 1 recites "accessing, by a DAG scheduling engine, a first queue corresponding to a given successor graph node," and claim 1 further describes content of the first queue relative to the scheduling: "data associating a first priority with the given successor graph node to execute after a first predecessor graph node." Moreover, claim 1 recites "accessing, by the DAG scheduling engine, a second queue corresponding to the given successor graph node," where "the second queue comprises data associated in a second priority other than the first priority for the given successor graph node to execute after a second predecessor graph node." The scheduling is "based on the first priority and the second priority." The accessing of the queues is therefore neither a pre-solution nor a post-solution activity but instead of part of the claimed solution.
The elements of the DAG scheduling engine accessing the first queue, accessing the second queue and scheduling the plurality of tasks to be executed by the plurality of nodes are additional elements to be considered in the Step 2B analysis, § 101 analysis of claim 1. The additional elements, when properly identified, amount to an inventive concept that improves the technology/technical field of DAG scheduling.
Therefore, for at least the additional, independent reason that the additional elements integrate the purported judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception, the § 101 rejection of claim 1 is deficient” (pages 12 – 15 of remark).
In response,
Examiner refers to response above.
The Evidentiary Requirements of the Berkhiemer Memo are not
Satisfied
When the additional elements of claim 1 are properly identified, it becomes clear that the Final Office Action fails to satisfy the evidentiary burden that is imposed by the April 19, 2018 USPTO Memorandum related to Berkheimer V. HP Inc. (hereinafter "Berkheimer Memo"). The Berkheimer Memo provides guidance as to analyzing the "additional elements" beyond the asserted abstract idea, or judicial exception. The Berkheimer Memo states as follows:
As set forth in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(I), an examiner should conclude that an element (or combination of elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity only when the examiner can readily conclude that the element(s) is widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant industry. This memorandum clarifies that such a conclusion must be based upon a factual determination that is supported as discussed in section III below.
[III.A] In a step 2B analysis, an additional element (or combination of elements) is not well-understood, routine or conventional unless the examiner finds, and expressly supports a rejection in writing with, one or more of the following:
A citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statemen made by an Appellant [...]
2. A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP §
2106.05(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
3. A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine,
conventional nature of the additional element(s). [...]
4. A statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s). This option should be used only when the examiner is certain, based upon his or her personal knowledge, that the additional element(s) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity engaged in by those in the relevant art, in that the additional elements are widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant field.
Berkheimer Memo, pp. 3-4 (emphasis in the original).
The Step 2B analysis by the Final Office Action fails to meet the evidentiary requirements that are set forth in the Berkheimer Memo. In this manner, for the above identified additional elements, the Final Office Action fails to recite a citation to an expressed statement in the Specification or statement made by Appellant; a citation to one or more court decisions; a citation to a publication that demonstrates well-understood, routine and the conventional nature of the additional elements or a statement that the Examiner is taking Official Notice of the purported well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional elements. The mere citation of prior art references for the § 103 rejections does not satisfy the evidentiary requirements of the Berkheimer Memo:
The question of whether additional elements represent well-understood,
routine, conventional activity is distinct from patentability over the prior
art under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. This is because a showing that
additional elements are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, or even that they
lack novelty under 35 U.S.C. § 102, is not by itself sufficient to establish
that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional
activities or elements to those in the relevant field.
Berkheimer Memo, p. 3.
Therefore, for at least the additional, independent reason that the additional elements amount to significantly more than the purported judicial exception, the § 101 rejection of claim 1 is deficient.
Thus, for at least the foregoing reasons, the § 101 rejection of claim 1 is in error and should be reversed.” (pages 15 – 17 of remark).
In response,
When submitting an application, applicant is required to follow USPTO requirements and guidelines. Since claims do not meet 101 requirements, examiner rejects claims under 101 under USPTO guidelines, on which examiner cites MPEP 2106.05 where applicant can review Eligibility Step 2B: whether a Claim Amounts to Significantly More comprising additional elements, etc.
Whether Claim 10 Is Directed to Unpatentable Subject Matter under 35
U.S.C. § 101 (page 17 of remark).
For the § 101 rejection of claim 10, the Final Office Action states the following:
As to claim 10, this is apparatus claim of claim 1 and recites similar scope of claim 1. See rejection for claim 1 above. Further, the additional elements of "a hardware processor" and "a memory" are computing tool for storing and executing the abstract idea of scheduling but the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Final Office Action, p. 10.
The Final Office Action fails to consider the practical limitations of the human mind. In this manner, the human mind is not equipped to "schedule a plurality of tasks to be executed by a plurality of compute nodes," as this is clearly not a mental process. Moreover, the human mind is not equipped to execute instructions to "schedule tasks of the plurality of tasks for execution by the plurality of compute nodes based on the given DAG." Therefore, claim 10 overcomes the § 101 rejection for at least the reason that this claim is not directed to a judicial exception.
Moreover, when all of the additional elements of claim 10 are properly identified, it
becomes clear even assuming, arguendo, that claim 10 recites a judicial exception, the additional elements amount to significantly more than the purported judicial exception, as discussed above for claim 1. Moreover, the Final Office Action fails to satisfy the evidentiary burden that is imposed by the Berkheimer Memo.
Thus, for at least the foregoing reasons, the § 101 rejection of claim 10 is in error and should be reversed”.
In response,
Examiner refers to response for claim 1 above.
Whether Claim 14 Is Directed to Unpatentable Subject Matter under 35
U.S.C. § 101 (page 18 of remark)
In the § 101 rejection of claim 14, the Office Action states, "scheduling" is function that can be reasonable performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion." Final Office Action, pp. 11 and 12. The Final Office Action fails to explain, however, how the human mind can schedule, for execution by compute nodes a first task subset or "schedule, for execution by compute nodes a second task subset," as recited in claim 14. Therefore, claim 14 overcomes the § 101 rejection for at least the reason that this claim is not directed to a judicial exception.
The Final Office Action further contends that the additional elements of the scheduling engine accessing the queue are "data gathering and organizing extra-solution activities." Final Office Action, p. 12. Contrary to the decision taken by the Final Office Action, however, accessing the queue is integrated into the claimed solution. In this manner, the DAG scheduling engine is to access the queue, which contains data representing priorities. Moreover, claim 14 recites that the DAG scheduling engine "based on a priority selection criterion, the first priority and the second priority, select a candidate successor graph node to provide a selected candidate successor graph node" and "schedule, for execution by compute noes a second task subset corresponding to the selected candidate successor graph node." When all of the additional elements of claim 14 are properly identified, it becomes clear that the additional elements amount to significantly more than the purported judicial exception.
Moreover, for the § 101 rejection of claim 14, the Final Office Action fails to satisfy the evidentiary requirements imposed by the Berkheimer Memo.
Thus, for at least the foregoing reasons, the § 101 rejection of claim 14 is in error and should be reversed”.
In response,
Examiner refers to response for claim 1 above. Further, a first task subset and/or second task subset are functions or routines with instructions and they can be written by human with aid of pen and paper. Therefore, claim 14 recites an abstract idea.
Whether Claims 2-5, 7-9, 11-13, and 15-19 are Directed to Unpatentable Subject Matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101
Dependent claims 2-5, 7-9, 11-13, and 15-19 are directed to patentable subject matter and therefore overcome the corresponding § 101 rejections for at least the same reasons as the claims from which they depend.
Thus, for at least the foregoing reasons, the § 101 rejections of claims 2-5, 7-9, 11-13, and 15-19 are in error and should be reversed.
In response,
Claims 2-5, 7-9, 11-13, and 15-19 depend on rejected independent claims and they do not remedy the deficiencies of their independent claims. Therefore, they are rejected as their independent claims.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection has been withdrawn.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 10, and 14 are allowed if they are overcome to 101 rejections.
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if it is overcome 112(a) and 101 rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record but not relied upon request is considered to be pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Raman, (US PUB 2017/0109214), discloses a plurality of tasks belonging to a common property task graph, wherein successor tasks and predecessor tasks are added to the graph to a queue (title, abstract and figures 1 – 12).
Larin, (US PUB 2014/0082330), discloses DAG with Instruction for scheduling (title, abstract and figures 1 – 6).
Dai, (US PUB 20050125786), discloses dependence DAG with each node labeled with its scheduling priority (title, abstract and figures 1 – 5).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG N HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3763. The examiner can normally be reached 9:5-30.
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, KEVIN YOUNG can be reached at 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.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.
/PHUONG N HOANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2194 /KEVIN L YOUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights