Detailed Action
This action is in response to amendments filed on 02/17/2026
This application was filed on 03/22/2022.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-32 are pending.
Claims 1-32 are rejected.
Applicant's Response
In Applicant's Response dated 02/17/2026, Applicant amended claims 1-2, 5, 9-11, 13-14, 17, 20, 25, and 31-32. Applicant argued against various rejections previously set forth in the Office Action mailed on 11/07/2025.
In light of Applicant' s amendments and remarks, all non-statutory type double patenting type rejections set forth previously are windthrown.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Representative claim 1 is directed to one or more processors comprising: circuitry to;
in response to an application programming interface (API) call comprising a parameter indicating one or more programs to be performed on a graphics processing unit (GPU):
identify one or more portions of the one or more programs whose loading into memory of a GPU has been deferred;
cause the one or more portions of the one or more programs to be loaded into the memory of the GPU; and
return, as output of the API locations of the one or more programs.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, mental processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper (see, October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update, 84 Fed. Reg. 55,942, hereinafter “PEG”). The examiner notes that identifying one or more portions of the one or more programs whose loading into memory of a GPU has been deferred is merely a human mind using observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion to identify location of content/program as its loaded and graphically displayed to user as progress bar/data.
Per prong 2, Step 2A, the additional non-emphasized elements as noted above are mere data gathering/displaying/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). For instance,
“in response to an application programming interface (API) call comprising a parameter indicating one or more programs to be performed on a graphics processing unit (GPU)” – are mere data gathering/displaying/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception- MPEP 2106.05 (f, g, h).
“one or more processors comprising circuitry to: cause the one or more portions of the one or more programs to be loaded into the memory of the GPU” ; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(g, h)
“and return, as output of the API locations of the one or more programs” - are mere data gathering/displaying/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception- MPEP 2106.05 (g).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
Per Step 2B, the additional non-emphasized elements as noted above are mere data gathering/displaying/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). For instance,
“in response to an application programming interface (API) call comprising a parameter indicating one or more programs to be performed on a graphics processing unit (GPU)” – are mere data gathering/displaying/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception- MPEP 2106.05 (f, g, h).
“one or more processors comprising circuitry to: cause the one or more portions of the one or more programs to be loaded into the memory of the GPU” ; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(g, h)
“and return, as output of the API locations of the one or more programs” - are mere data gathering/displaying/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception- MPEP 2106.05 (g).
Accordingly, the above limitations singularly or in combination do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 17, and 25 are system and/or medium claims corresponding to apparatus claim 1 and are of substantially same scope.
Accordingly, claims 17, and 25 are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-8, 18-24, 26-32 when considered individually or in combination per step as noted above are rejected under the same rational as set forth above for claim 1. In particular,
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the one or more portions are one or more functions to be performed by a GPU and wherein performing the API is further to cause the one or more functions to be loaded into one or more GPU storage locations.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein performing the API is further to cause the one or more portions of the one or more programs to be loaded by at least using a data structure that includes status information of the one or more portions of the one or more programs generated in response to another API call.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the one or more portions are one or more functions of the one or more programs.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the API is to identify where the one or more portions of the one or more programs are stored by providing a handle corresponding to one or more GPU storage locations.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein an input to the API comprises a name of one or more GPU functions that are part of the one or more portions of the one or more programs.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 6 further incorporated, further recites wherein an input to the API comprises an identifier of the one or more portions to be loaded.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites. wherein the API is further to update a state of a portion of the one or more portions in a data structure that tracks state of the one or more portions.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 18, the rejection of claim 17 further incorporated, further recites. wherein the API is further to cause the one or more portions indicated by one or more inputs to the API to be loaded..
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claims 19, the rejection of claim 17 further incorporated, further recites wherein the API is a driver API.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 20, the rejection of claim 17 further incorporated, further recites wherein the API is to use a call graph to identify one or more other portions associated with the one or more portions to be loaded into the one or more GPU storage locations.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 21, the rejection of claim 17 further incorporated, further recites wherein loading the one or more portions of the one or more programs comprise updating a data structure to indicate that the one or more portions are loaded.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 22, the rejection of claim 17 further incorporated, further recites wherein loading the one or more portions of the one or more programs comprise updating a data structure to indicate that the one or more portions are loaded..
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 23, the rejection of claim 17 further incorporated, further recites wherein the one or more programs comprise a module that comprises the one or more portions.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 24, the rejection of claim 17 further incorporated, further recites wherein the API is further to read a data structure to obtain information indicating whether the one or more portions are already loaded.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claims 26, the rejection of claim 25 further incorporated, further recites. wherein the API is a driver API.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claims 27, the rejection of claim 25 further incorporated, further recites. wherein the API is further to update a state of the one or more portions to indicate the one or more portions are loaded.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claims 28, the rejection of claim 25 further incorporated, further recites further having stored thereon another API to load one or more modules of the one or more programs.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claims 29, the rejection of claim 25 further incorporated, further recites wherein the API is to fail if the one or more programs are not loaded.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claims 30, the rejection of claim 25 further incorporated, further recites wherein the API comprises an input that indicates a name of a function performable by one or more GPUs.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claims 31, the rejection of claim 25 further incorporated, further recites wherein one or more GPU storage locations are indicated by one or more handles.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claims 32, the rejection of claim 25 further incorporated, further recites wherein the API is to provide an identifier corresponding to one or more GPU storage locations, the identifier usable to be input into one or more other APIs.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Representative claim 9 is directed to a method, comprising:
receiving an application programming interface (API) call comprising a parameter indicating one or more programs to be performed on a graphics processing unit (GPU);
identifying one or more portions of the one or more programs whose loading into memory of a GPU has been deferred;
causing the one or more portions of the one or more programs to be loaded into the memory of the GPU; and
returning, as output of the API, one or more locations of the one or more programs.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, mental processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper (see, October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update, 84 Fed. Reg. 55,942, hereinafter “PEG”). For instance, humans can mentally via observation/judgement perform a method, comprising: identifying one or more portions of the one or more programs whose loading into memory of a GPU has been deferred (e.g. via observation some interface indicating such data).
Per prong 2, Step 2A, the additional non-emphasized elements as noted above are mere data gathering/displaying/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). For instance,
“receiving an application programming interface (API) call comprising a parameter indicating one or more programs to be performed on a graphics processing unit (GPU)” – are mere data gathering/displaying/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception- MPEP 2106.05 (f, g, h).
“causing the one or more portions of the one or more programs to be loaded into the memory of the GPU; and” - are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(g, h)
“returning, as output of the API, one or more locations of the one or more programs”- are mere data gathering/displaying/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception- MPEP 2106.05 (g).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
Per Step 2B, the additional non-emphasized elements as noted above are mere data gathering/displaying/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). For instance,
“receiving an application programming interface (API) call comprising a parameter indicating one or more programs to be performed on a graphics processing unit (GPU)” – are mere data gathering/displaying/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception- MPEP 2106.05 (f, g, h).
“causing the one or more portions of the one or more programs to be loaded into the memory of the GPU; and” - are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(g, h)
“returning, as output of the API, one or more locations of the one or more programs”- are mere data gathering/displaying/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception- MPEP 2106.05 (g).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
Accordingly, claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Dependent claims 10-16 when considered individually or in combination per step as noted above are rejected under the same rational as set forth above for claim 9. In particular,
As per claims 10, the rejection of claim 9 further incorporated, further recites wherein the one or more locations is identified based, at least in part, on a call graph that indicates dependencies between one or more first functions of one or more portions and one or more second functions.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claims 11, the rejection of claim 9 further incorporated, further recites generating status information in response to performing another API call
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claims 12, the rejection of claim 9 further incorporated, further recites wherein the API is a driver API.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claims 13, the rejection of claim 9 further incorporated, further recites wherein performing the API comprises obtaining code of a function indicated to the API to be loaded into GPU memory.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claims 14, the rejection of claim 9 further incorporated, further recites wherein performing the API comprises indicating a GPU memory location by providing a handle corresponding to the GPU memory location.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claims 15, the rejection of claim 9 further incorporated, further recites wherein performing the API comprises obtaining a name of a function comprised in the one or more portions.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claims 16, the rejection of claim 9 further incorporated, further recites wherein performing the API comprises causing the one or more portions of one or more program libraries to be loaded without causing other portions of the one or more program libraries to be loaded.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Accordingly, claims are 1-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below 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 or disclosed by the examiner.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-9, 11-12, 14-19, 22-29, and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arendt et al. (US 5708811 A, referred herein after as D1) in view of Riguer et al. (US 20160162190 A1, referred hereinafter as D5).
As per claim 1, D1 discloses,
one or more processors comprising, (D1, title, abstract).
circuitry to, (fig. 1 shows/discloses processor).
in response to an application programming interface (API) call comprising a parameter indicating one or more programs to be performed on a [CPU], (D1, fig. 3, col. 3 lines 14-36, and col. 4 lines 20-25 discloses processor having circuitry/operating system (e.g., figure 3) that calls/loads portions of one or more programs (e.g., main executable file and other portions) based on received/called program name/parameter “ MYPROGM.EXE.” from a user, and executing the program/linked modules accordingly.).
identify one or more portions of the one or more programs whose loading into the memory of [CPU] has been deferred, (D1, fig. 3, col. 3 lines 21-33, col. 5, lines 31-41, disclose processor having circuitry/operating system (e.g., figure 3) that loads portions of one or more programs (e.g., main executable file) and identifies locations/references (e.g., DLL) to other portions of the program whose loading into the memory of CPU has been deferred).
cause the one or more portions of the one or more programs to be loaded in the memory of the [CPU], (D1, fig. 3, col. 3 lines 21-33, col. 5, lines 31-41, disclose processor having circuitry/operating system (e.g., figure 3) that loads portions of one or more programs (e.g., main executable file) and identifies locations/references (e.g., DLL) to other portions of the program whose loading into the memory of [CPU] has been deferred, and loading the deferred portions based on detected signal/reference during execution of the main program.).
[identifying/determining] locations of the one or more programs, (D1, col. 4 lines 6-11 discloses identifying and/or determining new locations/addresses of the one or more programs.)
D1 discloses determining/identifying location of modules and virtual memory entries; however, D1 fails to expressly disclose – [processing using/on] graphical processing unit (GPU)… [memory of] GPU… and return, as output of API, locations [data to processed by GPU]
D5 (0040-0041) discloses processing using/on graphical processing unit (GPU) various data including saving data in to be processed in memory of GPU and furthermore discloses return, as output of API, locations data to processed by GPU.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D5. This would have been obvious with predicable results of storing data in memory locations of GPU and accelerating the processing of the data via the GPU as disclosed by D5 (0019-0020, 0040-0041).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the one or more portions are one or more functions of the one or more programs, (D1, fig. 3, col. 2, lines 1-14 and col. 3 lines 14-36 discloses processor/operating system (e.g., figure 3) that loads portions of program (e.g., main executable file) and identifies locations/references (e.g., DLL) to other portions of the program, and loading to the referenced library/modules/functions for execution.).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the API is to identify [the location] of the one or more portions of the one or more programs are stored by providing a handle corresponding to the location, (D1, fig. 3, col. 2, lines 1-14 and col. 3 lines 14-36 discloses processor/operating system (e.g. figure 3) that loads portions of program (e.g., main executable file) and identifies locations/references (e.g., DLL) to other portions of the program, and providing a handle (e.g., allocating memory location) corresponding to the location/reference to DLL)).
D1 fails to expressly disclose – [API is to identify where data are stored/to be stored] by providing handle corresponding to one or more GPU storage locations.
D5 (0040) discloses a program calling an API, and API identifying where data are stored/to be stored by providing handle/location corresponding to the one or more GPU storage locations.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D5. This would have been obvious with predicable results of storing data in memory locations of GPU and accelerating the processing of the data via the GPU as disclosed by D5 (0019-0020, 0040-0041)
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein an input to the API comprises an identifier of the one or more portions to be loaded, (D1, fig. 3, col. 2, lines 1-14 and col. 3 lines 14-36 discloses processor/operating system (e.g., figure 3) that loads portions of program (e.g., main executable file) and identifies locations/references (e.g., DLL) from executable module to other portions of the program, and loading to the referenced library/modules/functions for execution.).
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the API is further to update a state of a portion of the one or more portions in a data structure that tracks state of the one or more portions, (D1, fig. 3, col. 2, lines 1-14 and col. 3 lines 14-36 discloses processor/operating system (e.g. figure 3) that loads portions of program (e.g., main executable file) and identifies locations/references (e.g., DLL) to other portions of the program, and providing a handle (e.g., allocating memory location) corresponding to the location/reference to DLL without loading the library to memory, and loading the library to allocated memory (i.e., update state) in response to detected signal to the reference that is associated with library/function.).
As per claim 9, D1 discloses
A method, comprising, (D1, title, abstract).
receiving an application programming interface (API) call comprising a parameter indicating one or more programs to be performed on a [CPU], (D1, fig. 3, col. 3 lines 14-36, and col. 4 lines 20-25 discloses processor having circuitry/operating system (e.g., figure 3) that calls/loads portions of one or more programs (e.g., main executable file and other portions) based on received/called program name/parameter “ MYPROGM.EXE.” from a user.).
identifying one or more portions of the one or more programs whose loading into memory of a [CPU] has been deferred, (D1, fig. 3, col. 3 lines 21-33, col. 5, lines 31-41, disclose processor having circuitry/operating system (e.g., figure 3) that loads portions of one or more programs (e.g., main executable file) and identifies locations/references (e.g., DLL) to other portions of the program whose loading into the memory of [CPU] has been deferred).
causing the one or more portions of the one or more programs to be loaded into the memory of the [CPU], (D1, fig. 3, col. 3 lines 21-33, col. 5, lines 31-41, disclose processor having circuitry/operating system (e.g., figure 3) that loads portions of one or more programs (e.g., main executable file) and identifies locations/references (e.g., DLL) to other portions of the program whose loading into the memory of [CPU] has been deferred, and loading the deferred portions based on detected signal/reference.).
[identifying/determining] locations of the one or more programs, (D1, col. 4 lines 6-11 discloses identifying and/or determining new locations/addresses of the one or more programs.)
D1 discloses determining/identifying location of modules and virtual memory entries; however, D1 fails to expressly disclose – [processing using/on] graphical processing unit (GPU)… [memory of] GPU… and return, as output of API, locations [data to processed by GPU]
D5 (0040-0041) discloses processing using/on graphical processing unit (GPU) various data including saving data in to be processed in memory of GPU and furthermore discloses return, as output of API, locations data to processed by GPU.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D5. This would have been obvious with predicable results of storing data in memory locations of GPU and accelerating the processing of the data via the GPU as disclosed by D5 (0019-0020, 0040-0041).
As per claim 11, the rejection of claim 9 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
further comprising generating status information in response to performing…, (D1, fig. 3, col. 2, lines 1-14 and col. 3 lines 14-36, col 4 lines 6-10, 45-55, discloses processor/operating system (e.g. figure 3) that loads portions of program (e.g., main executable file) and identifies locations/references (e.g., DLL) to other portions of the program, and loading the referenced library/modules for execution, and furthermore assigning new/updated address (e.g. updating/generating status information) of the portion that is loaded.).
D1 fails to expressly discloses – [data is] generated in response to another API call.
D5 (0020-0021, 0029, 0040, 0048-0049) discloses data/location/memory requirement/name is generated in response to another API call
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D5. This would have been obvious with predicable results of storing data in memory locations of GPU and accelerating the processing of the data via the GPU as disclosed by D5 (0019-0020, 0040-0041).
As per claim 12, the rejection of claim 9 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein API is… [OS/program] API , (D1, fig. 3, col. 2, lines 1-14 and col. 3 lines 14-36 discloses processor/operating system (e.g. figure 3, construed API) that loads portions of program (e.g., main executable file) and identifies locations/references (e.g., DLL) to other portions of the program, and providing a handle (e.g., allocating memory location) corresponding to the location/reference to DLL without loading the library to memory, and loading the library to allocated memory (i.e., update state) in response to detected signal to the reference that is associated with library/function.).
D1 fails to expressly disclose – driver…
D5 (0015-0018, 0040) discloses drivers as well as API driven memory management which both can fairly be construed as driver/driver API.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D5. This would have been obvious with predicable results of storing data in memory locations of GPU and accelerating the processing of the data via the GPU as disclosed by D5 (0019-0020, 0040-0041)
As per claim 14, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein performing the API comprises indicating the… memory location by providing a handle corresponding to a… memory location, (D1, fig. 3, col. 2, lines 1-14 and col. 3 lines 14-36 discloses processor/operating system (e.g. figure 3) that loads portions of program (e.g., main executable file) and identifies locations/references (e.g., DLL) to other portions of the program, and providing a handle (e.g., allocating memory location) corresponding to the location/reference to DLL)).
D1 fails to expressly disclose – [API] indicating GPU memory location by providing a handle corresponding to a GPU memory location
D5 (0040, 0061-0062) discloses a program calling an API, and API indicating GPU memory location by providing a handle/memory location/address corresponding to the GPU memory location, and binding of memory location/address to data object.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D5. This would have been obvious with predicable results of storing data in memory locations of GPU and accelerating the processing of the data via the GPU as disclosed by D5 (0019-0020, 0040-0041).
As per claim 15, the rejection of claim 9 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein performing the API comprises obtaining a name of function comprises in the one or more portions, (D1, fig. 3, col. 2, lines 1-14 and col. 3 lines 14-36 discloses processor/operating system (e.g., figure 3) that loads portions of program (e.g., main executable file) and identifies locations/references /name(e.g., DLL) from executable module to other portions of the program, and loading to the referenced library/modules/functions to memory for execution via CPU.).
As per claim 16, the rejection of claim 9 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein performing the API comprises causing the one or more portions of the program libraries to be loaded without causing other portions of one or more program libraries to be loaded, (D1, fig. 3, col. 2, lines 1-14 and col. 3 lines 14-36 discloses processor/operating system (e.g. figure 3) that loads portions of program (e.g., main executable file) and identifies locations/references (e.g., DLL) to other portions of the program, and providing a handle (e.g., allocating memory location) corresponding to the location/reference to DLL without loading the library to memory, and loading the library to allocated memory (i.e., update state) in response to detected signal to the reference that is associated with library/function without additionally loading modules/functions referenced by the loaded function.).
As per claim 17:
Claim 17 is a system claim corresponding to method claim 1 and is of substantially same scope.
Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected under the same rational as set forth for claim 1.
As per claim 18, the rejection of claim 17 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the API is further to cause the one or more portions indicated by one or more inputs to the API to be loaded, (D1, fig. 3, col. 2, lines 1-14 and col. 3 lines 14-36 discloses processor/operating system (e.g., figure 3) that loads portions of one or more programs (e.g., main executable file) and identifies locations/references (e.g., DLL) to other portions of the program to be loaded and executed.).
As per claim 19, the rejection of claim 17 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein API is… [OS/program] API , (D1, fig. 3, col. 2, lines 1-14 and col. 3 lines 14-36 discloses processor/operating system (e.g. figure 3, construed API) that loads portions of program (e.g., main executable file) and identifies locations/references (e.g., DLL) to other portions of the program, and providing a handle (e.g., allocating memory location) corresponding to the location/reference to DLL without loading the library to memory, and loading the library to allocated memory (i.e., update state) in response to detected signal to the reference that is associated with library/function.).
D1 fails to expressly disclose – driver…
D5 (0015-0018, 0040) discloses drivers as well as API driven memory management which both can fairly be construed as driver/driver API.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D5. This would have been obvious with predicable results of storing data in memory locations of GPU and accelerating the processing of the data via the GPU as disclosed by D5 (0019-0020, 0040-0041)
As pe claim 22, the rejection of claim 17 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein loading the one or more portions of the one or more programs comprise updating a data structure to indicate that the one or more portions are loaded, (D1, fig. 3, col. 2, lines 1-14 and col. 3 lines 14-36 discloses processor/operating system (e.g. figure 3) that loads portions of program (e.g., main executable file) and identifies locations/references (e.g., DLL) to other portions of the program, and providing a handle (e.g., allocating memory location) corresponding to the location/reference to DLL without loading the library to memory, and loading the library to allocated memory (i.e., update state) in response to detected signal to the reference that is associated with library/function.).
As per claim 23, the rejection of claim 17 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the one or more programs comprise a module that comprises the one or more portions, (D1, fig. 2-3, col. 2, lines 1-14 and col. 3 lines 14-36 discloses processor/operating system (e.g., figure 3) that loads portions of program (e.g., main executable file) and identifies locations/references (e.g., DLL) to other portions of the program, and loading the referenced library/modules for execution.).
As pe claim 24, the rejection of claim 17 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the API is further to read a data structure to obtain information indicating whether the one or more portions are already loaded, (D1, fig. 2-3, col. 2, lines 1-14 and col. 3 lines 14-36, col. 5, discloses known methods for processor/operating system (e.g. figure 3) that loads portions of program (e.g., main executable file) and recursively identifies portions that have not already been loaded, and loads them into memory; as well as improved method of loading portions after receiving/reading signal about unloaded portions being needed for execution. Additionally, D1, col. 2 lines 36-467 discloses known methods of “maintained tables of subroutine references and loaded subroutines… checks table to determine if function has been previously loaded”.
As per claim 25:
Claim 25 is a medium claim corresponding to method claim 1 and is of substantially same scope.
Accordingly, claim 25 is rejected under the same rational as set forth for claim 1.
As per claim 26, the rejection of claim 25 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein API is… [OS/program] API , (D1, fig. 3, col. 2, lines 1-14 and col. 3 lines 14-36 discloses processor/operating system (e.g. figure 3, construed API) that loads portions of program (e.g., main executable file) and identifies locations/references (e.g., DLL) to other portions of the program, and providing a handle (e.g., allocating memory location) corresponding to the location/reference to DLL without loading the library to memory, and loading the library to allocated memory (i.e., update state) in response to detected signal to the reference that is associated with library/function.).
D1 fails to expressly disclose – driver…
D5 (0015-0018, 0040) discloses drivers as well as API driven memory management which both can fairly be construed as driver/driver API.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D5. This would have been obvious with predicable results of storing data in memory locations of GPU and accelerating the processing of the data via the GPU as disclosed by D5 (0019-0020, 0040-0041)
As per claim 27, the rejection of claim 25 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the API is further to update a state of the one or more portions to indicate the one or more portions are loaded, (D1, fig. 3, col. 2, lines 1-14 and col. 3 lines 14-36 discloses processor/operating system (e.g. figure 3) that loads portions of program (e.g., main executable file) and identifies locations/references (e.g., DLL) to other portions of the program, and providing a handle (e.g., allocating memory location) corresponding to the location/reference to DLL without loading the library to memory, and loading the library to allocated memory (i.e., update state) in response to detected signal to the reference that is associated with library/function.).
As per claim 28, the rejection of claim 25 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
further having stored thereon another API to load the one or more modules of one or more programs, (D1, fig. 3, col. 2, lines 1-14 and col. 3 lines 14-36 discloses processor/operating system (e.g. figure 3) that loads portions of program (e.g., main executable file) and identifies locations/references (e.g., DLL) to other portions of the program, and providing a handle (e.g., allocating memory location) corresponding to the location/reference to DLL without loading the library to memory, and loading the library to allocated memory (i.e., update state) in response to detected signal to the reference that is associated with library/function.).
As per claim 29, the rejection of claim 25 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the API is to fail if the one or more programs are not loaded, D1, abstract, fig. 3, col. 2, lines 1-14 and col. 3 lines 14-36, col. 5, discloses processor/operating system (e.g., figure 3) that loads portions of program (e.g., main executable file) and identifies locations/references (e.g., DLL) to other portions of the program, and causing page faults if references are not loaded.
As per claim 31, the rejection of claim 25 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein one or more … storage locations are indicated by one or more handles, (D1, fig. 3, col. 2, lines 1-14 and col. 3 lines 14-36 discloses processor/operating system (e.g. figure 3) that loads portions of program (e.g., main executable file) and identifies locations/references (e.g., DLL) to other portions of the program, and providing a handle (e.g., allocating memory location) corresponding to the location/reference to DLL)).
D1 fails to expressly disclose – one or more GPU storage locations are indicated by one or more handles.
D5 (0040, 0061-0062) discloses a program calling an API, and API indicating GPU memory location by providing a handle/memory location/address corresponding to the GPU memory location, and binding of memory location/address to data object.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D5. This would have been obvious with predicable results of storing data in memory locations of GPU and accelerating the processing of the data via the GPU as disclosed by D5 (0019-0020, 0040-0041).
As per claim 32, the rejection of claim 25 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the API is to provide an identifier corresponding to the location, the identifier usable to be input into one or more other APIs, (D1, fig. 2-3, col. 2, lines 1-14 and col. 3 lines 14-36, col. 5 l discloses known methods for processor/operating system (e.g., figure 3) that loads portions of program (e.g., main executable file) and identifies references/location of the other modules/libraries and builds module table entry (MTE) in the virtual memory corresponding to the DLL reference, where MTE is used by microkernel to load libraries and/or fix faults).
D1 fails to expressly disclose – [identifier corresponding to] one or GPU storage locations.
D5 (0040, 0061-0062) discloses a program calling an API, and API indicating GPU memory location by providing a handle/memory location/address (e.g. “MEM” parameter) corresponding to the GPU memory location, and binding of memory location/address to data object using the “MEM” parameter as shown in the codes in para 0061-0062 which fairly reads on identifier corresponding to] one or GPU storage locations, identifier usable to be input into one or more other APIs.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D5. This would have been obvious with predicable results of storing data in memory locations of GPU and accelerating the processing of the data via the GPU as disclosed by D5 (0019-0020, 0040-0041).
Claim 2, 6, 13, 21, 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arendt et al. (US 5708811 A, referred herein after as D1) in view of Riguer et al. (US 20160162190 A1, referred hereinafter as D5) in view of Nguyen et al. (US 20210240542 A1, referred hereinafter as D2).
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the one or more portions are one or more functions to be performed by a… processing unit and wherein the API is further to cause the one or more functions to be loaded into memory of a [CPU], (D1, fig. 3, col. 2, lines 1-14 and col. 3 lines 14-36 discloses processor/operating system (e.g., figure 3) that loads portions of program (e.g., main executable file) and identifies locations/references (e.g., DLL) from executable module to other portions of the program, and loading to the referenced library/modules/functions to memory for execution via CPU.).
D1/D5 discloses GPU executing command; however, fails to expressly disclose – [portions being functions executed by] Graphical processing unit (GPU).
D2 (0022, 0059-0060) discloses decomposing application into components/functions and distributing it to various processors including GPU that best fit needs the specific software component.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D2. This would have been obvious for the purpose loading and executing software components into specific cloud resource (e.g., GPU) that best needs the component of the software as disclosed by D2.
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein an input to the API comprises an name of one or more [CPU] functions that are part of the one or more portions of the one or more programs, (D1, fig. 3, col. 2, lines 1-14 and col. 3 lines 14-36 discloses processor/operating system (e.g., figure 3) that loads portions of program (e.g., main executable file) and identifies locations/references (e.g., DLL/names) from executable module to other portions of the program, and loading to the referenced library/modules/functions for execution.).
D1/D discloses GPU executing command; however, D1 fails to expressly disclose – [the one or more portion being] one or more GPU functions.
D2 (0022, 0059-0060) discloses decomposing application into components/functions and distributing it to various processors including GPU that best fit needs the specific software component.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D2. This would have been obvious for the purpose loading and executing software components into specific cloud resource (e.g., GPU) that best needs the component of the software as disclosed by D2.
As per claim 13, the rejection of claim 9 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein performing the API comprises obtaining code of a function indicated to the API to be loaded into the [CPU] memory, (D1, fig. 3, col. 2, lines 1-14 and col. 3 lines 14-36 discloses processor/operating system (e.g., figure 3) that loads portions of program (e.g., main executable file) and identifies locations/references (e.g., DLL) from executable module to other portions of the program, and loading to the referenced library/modules/functions to memory for execution via CPU.).
D1 fails to expressly disclose – [data/objects] loaded into the GPU memory.
D5 (0040) discloses a program calling an API, and identifying to the caller (e.g. program) of API, one or more graphics processing (GPU) storage locations, and the program binding/storing objects in the identified locations.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D5. This would have been obvious with predicable results of storing data in memory locations of GPU and accelerating the processing of the data via the GPU as disclosed by D5 (0019-0020, 0040-0041).
D1/D5 discloses loading data to memory of GPU and having GPU perform commands on the data; however, D1 fails to expressly disclose – [function loaded int] Graphical processing unit (GPU) [for execution].
D2 (0022, 0059-0060) discloses decomposing application into components/functions and distributing it to various processors including GPU that best fit needs the specific software component.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D2. This would have been obvious for the purpose loading and executing software components into specific cloud resource (e.g., GPU) that best needs the component of the software as disclosed by D2.
As per claim 21, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the one or more portions comprise one or more… functions, (D1, fig. 3, col. 2, lines 1-14 and col. 3 lines 14-36 discloses processor/operating system (e.g., figure 3) that loads portions of program (e.g., main executable file) and identifies locations/references (e.g., DLL) to other portions of the program, and loading to the referenced library/modules/functions for execution.).
D1/D5 discloses loading data to memory of GPU and having GPU perform commands on the data; however, D1 fails to expressly disclose – [one or more portion being] GPU functions.
D2 (0022, 0059-0060) discloses decomposing application into components/functions and distributing it to various processors including GPU that best fit needs the specific software component.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D2. This would have been obvious for the purpose loading and executing software components into specific cloud resource (e.g., GPU) that best needs the component of the software as disclosed by D2.
As per claim 30, the rejection of claim 25 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the API comprises an input that indicates a name of a function performable by one or more [CPUs], (D1, fig. 3, col. 2, lines 1-14 and col. 3 lines 14-36 discloses processor/operating system (e.g., figure 3) that loads portions of program (e.g., main executable file) and identifies locations/references /names (e.g., DLL) from executable module to other portions of the program, and loading to the referenced library/modules/functions to memory for execution via CPU.).
D1/D5 discloses loading data to memory of GPU and having GPU perform commands on the data; however, D1 fails to expressly disclose – [function performed by] one or more GPUs.
D2 (0022, 0059-0060) discloses decomposing application into components/functions and distributing it to various processors including GPU that best fit needs the specific software component.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D2. This would have been obvious for the purpose loading and executing software components into specific cloud resource (e.g., GPU) that best needs the component of the software as disclosed by D2.
Claims 10, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arendt et al. (US 5708811 A, referred herein after as D1) in view of Riguer et al. (US 20160162190 A1, referred hereinafter as D5) in view of Joukov et al. (US 20120054727 A1, referred hereinafter as D3).
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 9 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the location is identified based, at least on a call graph that indicates dependencies between one or more first functions of the one or more portions and one or more second functions, (D1, fig. 2-3 accompanying text , col. 2, lines 1-14 and col. 3 lines 14-36 shows/discloses processor/operating system (e.g. figure 3) that loads portions of program (e.g., main executable file) and identifies locations/references based on import module list/DLLs (e.g. call graph ) in the executable files that refers to and depends other program portions/modules as s shown figure 2).
As noted above, D1 arguably discloses call graphs (e.g., import module lists/DLL); nevertheless, for the sake completeness; D3 explicitly discloses – call graphs.
D3 (0051, 0056 figure 4) discloses generating/using call graphs.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D3. This would have been obvious for the purpose detecting hardcoded dependencies via call graphs and making code correction if needed as disclosed by D3.
As per claim 20, the rejection of claim 17 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the API is to use a call graph to identify one or more other portions associated with the one or more portions to be loaded into the [memory of the one or more CPUs], (D1, fig. 3, col. 2, lines 1-14 and col. 3 lines 14-36 discloses processor/operating system (e.g., figure 3) that loads portions of program (e.g., main executable file) and identifies locations/references from import module list/DLL (e.g., call graph) to other portions of the program to be loaded and executed via CPU).
D1 fails to expressly disclose – [loaded into] the one or more GPU storage locations.
D5 (0040) discloses a program calling an API, and identifying to the caller (e.g. program) of API , one or more graphics processing (GPU) storage locations, and the program binding/storing objects in the identified locations.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D5. This would have been obvious with predicable results of storing data in memory locations of GPU and accelerating the processing of the data via the GPU as disclosed by D5 (0019-0020, 0040-0041)
As noted above, D1 arguably discloses call graphs (e.g., import module lists); nevertheless, for the sake completeness; D3 explicitly discloses – call graphs.
D3 (0051, 0056 figure 4) discloses generating/using call graphs.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D3. This would have been obvious for the purpose detecting hardcoded dependencies via call graphs and making code correction if needed as disclosed by D3.
Claims 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arendt et al. (US 5708811 A, referred herein after as D1) in view of Riguer et al. (US 20160162190 A1, referred hereinafter as D5) in view of Johnson et al. (US 20190129764 A1, referred hereinafter as D4).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the API is further to cause the one or more portions of the one or more programs to be loaded by at least using a data structure that includes status information of the one more portions of the one or more programs, (D1, fig. 3, col. 2, lines 1-14 and col. 3 lines 14-36 discloses processor/operating system (e.g. figure 3) that loads portions of program (e.g., main executable file) and identifies locations/references (e.g., DLL) to other portions of the program, and loading the referenced library/modules for execution, in response to and by at least using a data structure that includes status information (e.g. signal of detected refenced portion needed for execution) of the one more portions of the one or more programs).
D1 fails to expressly disclose - [the one or more programs] generated in response to another API call.
D4 (abstract, 0006-0007) discloses the one or more programs/models are generated/tuned/optimized in response to another API call.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D4. This would have been obvious for the purpose tuning/optimizing models/programs disclosed by D4 (0004).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or moot in view of new/modified rational/grounds of rejections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAFA A AMIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3181. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Young, 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MUSTAFA A AMIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights