DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-27 have been presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/25/22 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the Examiner has considered the IDS as to the merits.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
4. Claims 1-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
i) Claim 1 recites “a best solution.” The term “best solution” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “best” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim recites “automatically choosing a best solution from among the N unique solutions.” It is unclear how to distinguish the best “solution” from another “solution.” Is there a specific metric with which to make this determination? The specifications recitation of “optimal solution” does not further the indefiniteness of the term “best” since it is unclear how to distinguish the solutions from one another let alone how to determine which is “best” or “optimal.” As such the claim is rendered vague and indefinite. This further applies to analogous recitation in claims 10 and 19.
Appropriate correction is required.
All claims dependent upon a rejected base claim are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 1-27 are allowable over the prior art of record pending resolving all intervening issues such as the 112 rejections above.
Claim 1 teaches: A computer-implemented method of facilitating processing within a computing environment, the computer-implemented method comprising: receiving a main program representing one Engineering Design Optimization Problem (EDOP), wherein the one EDOP comprises polynomial terms with product values; identifying a number (N) of available parallel processors for parallel processing; partitioning the main program into N subprograms, wherein N is a positive integer greater than one, wherein the partitioning is prime-number based and wherein the polynomial terms are linearized; solving, by each of the available parallel processors independent of any other processor, a unique subprogram of the N subprograms, the solving resulting in N unique solutions; automatically choosing a best solution from among the N unique solutions; and automatically applying the best solution to the EDOP.
Claim 10 teaches: A computer system for facilitating processing within a computing environment, the computer system comprising: a memory; at least one processor in communication with the memory; and program instructions executable by one or more processor via the memory to perform a method, the method comprising: receiving a main program representing one Engineering Design Optimization Problem (EDOP), wherein the one EDOP comprises polynomial terms with product values; identifying a number (N) of available parallel processors for parallel processing; partitioning the main program into N subprograms, wherein N is a positive integer greater than one, and wherein the partitioning is prime-number based; solving, by each of the available parallel processors independent of any other processor, a unique subprogram of the N subprograms, the solving resulting in N unique solutions; automatically choosing a best solution from among the N unique solutions; and automatically applying the best solution to the EDOP.
Claim 19 teaches: A computer program product for facilitating processing within a computing environment, the computer program product comprising: one or more computer-readable storage media having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions being readable by one or more processing circuit to cause the one or more processing circuit to perform a method comprising: receiving a main program representing one Engineering Design Optimization Problem (EDOP), wherein the one EDOP comprises polynomial terms with product values; identifying a number (N) of available parallel processors for parallel processing; partitioning the main program into N subprograms, wherein N is a positive integer greater than one, and wherein the partitioning is prime-number based; solving, by each of the available parallel processors independent of any other processor, a unique subprogram of the N subprograms, the solving resulting in N unique solutions; automatically choosing a best solution from among the N unique solutions; and automatically applying the best solution to the EDOP.
The closest prior art of record includes:
U.S. Patent Publication No. 20200202058 which teaches partitioning a design space of possible optimizations into distinct partitions.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 20110314448 which teaches as per [0008] the automated partitioning of programs into pieces that can be executed in parallel and to the automated choice of the specific partition form that best exploits the parallelism.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 20020191534 which teaches as per [0030] the frequency (and, hence, time) domains are partitioned using prime numbers, so that the lack of a common divisor in frequency enhances the possibilities for separating various frequency components.
Kruskal, Clyde P., and Alan Weiss. "Allocating independent subtasks on parallel processors." IEEE Transactions on Software engineering 10 (2006): 1001-1016.
However, the closest prior art of record does not explicitly teach or render obvious the limitations above,
particularly in combination with the other limitations within the claims. The dependent claims are allowable for at least the same reasons as their respective independent claims.
Conclusion
6. All Claims are rejected.
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 20200202058 which teaches partitioning a design space of possible optimizations into distinct partitions.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 20110314448 which teaches as per [0008] the automated partitioning of programs into pieces that can be executed in parallel and to the automated choice of the specific partition form that best exploits the parallelism.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 20020191534 which teaches as per [0030] the frequency (and, hence, time) domains are partitioned using prime numbers, so that the lack of a common divisor in frequency enhances the possibilities for separating various frequency components.
Kruskal, Clyde P., and Alan Weiss. "Allocating independent subtasks on parallel processors." IEEE Transactions on Software engineering 10 (2006): 1001-1016.
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Saif A. Alhija whose telephone number is (571) 272-8635. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 10:00-6:00.
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, Renee Chavez, can be reached at (571) 270-1104. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300. Informal or draft communication, please label PROPOSED or DRAFT, can be additionally sent to the Examiners fax phone number, (571) 273-8635.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
SAA
/SAIF A ALHIJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186