DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to amendment filed on 3/16/2026.
Claims 1, 2, 4 and 6 – 9 are amended.
Claims 5 and 18 – 25 are cancelled.
Claims 26 – 32 are added.
Claims 1 – 4, 6 – 17 and 26 – 32 are pending.
35 USC 112 rejections of claims 24 and 25 are withdrawn in view of the cancellation of the claims.
35 USC 101 rejections of claims 18 – 22 are withdrawn in view of the cancellations of the claims.
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 .
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claim 31 and 32 have been renumbered to claims 30 and 31 respectively.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6 – 10, 14 – 16, 26, 27. 30 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 20220171658, hereinafter Lee), in view of Paluch et al (USPAT 11080086, hereinafter Paluch), and further in view of Anderson et al (US 20220358214, hereinafter Anderson_.
As per claim 1, Lee discloses: At least one computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions which, when executed, cause a computing device to perform operations comprising:
determining whether a first function that is to be carried out by an executer on behalf of an application has a data dependency on a value that is invalid; after an affirmative determination that the value is invalid, causing a function identifier (ID) of the first function to be queued for a global memory reference associated with the value; (Lee [0061]: “In operation 220, the active scheduler may determine whether a dependency bit of the designated job is true (or “1”). When the dependency bit of the designated job is true, the active scheduler may update the table 121 in which dependency information of jobs is recorded in operation 230, and may determine whether a preceding job of the designated job is completed in operation 240. When the preceding job of the designated job is not completed, the active scheduler may wait in operation 250.”; [0070]: “the master processor 110 may include a wait dependency queue 510 and a ready queue 520. A job for which a preceding job is present may be enqueued in the wait dependency queue 510, and a job for which a preceding job is absent may be enqueued in the ready queue 520.”. Examiner notes that the presence of preceding job is mapped to the claimed invalid determination.)
and after the value becomes valid, cause the first function to be executed by the executer. (Lee [0061]: “When the preceding job of the designated job is completed, the controller 120 may transmit a wake-up signal to the active scheduler. For example, the active scheduler may receive the wake-up signal from the controller 120 in operation 260, and may bring the designated job from the job queue 111 in operation 270. When the dependency bit of the designated job is false (or “0”) in operation 220, the active scheduler may bring the designated job from the job queue 111 in operation 270. When the preceding job of the designated job is determined to be completed in operation 240, the active scheduler may bring the designated job from the job queue 111 in operation 270.”)
Lee did not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first function is associated with a transactional application programming interface (API).
wherein the global memory reference includes a token that identifies argument data storage for a variable argument of the first function;
However, Paluch teaches:
wherein the first function is associated with a transactional application programming interface (API). (Paluch Col 1, lines 33 – 51.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Paluch into that of Lee in order to have the first function is associated with a transactional application programming interface (API). The claimed limitation is merely an intended use of the task scheduling and execution system, and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
Anderson teaches:
wherein the global memory reference includes a token that identifies argument data storage for a variable argument of the first function; (Anderson [0071])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Anderson into that of Lee and Paluch in order to have the global memory reference includes a token that identifies argument data storage for a variable argument of the first function. Anderson [0071] – [0072] has shown that the claimed limitations are merely commonly employed properties commonly used to store information, and applicants have thus merely claimed the combination of known parts in the field to achieve predictable results of creating specific data structure suitable for a specific environment and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 2, the combination of Lee, Paluch and Anderson further teach:
The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1, wherein operations further comprise after a negative determination that the value is invalid, causing the first function to be executed by the executer. (Lee [0061]: “When the preceding job of the designated job is completed, the controller 120 may transmit a wake-up signal to the active scheduler. For example, the active scheduler may receive the wake-up signal from the controller 120 in operation 260, and may bring the designated job from the job queue 111 in operation 270. When the dependency bit of the designated job is false (or “0”) in operation 220, the active scheduler may bring the designated job from the job queue 111 in operation 270.”)
As per claim 6, the combination of Lee, Paluch and Anderson further teach:
The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise maintaining a reference count for the first function that is indicative of a number of a plurality of values of output arguments of one or more other functions of the transactional API upon which the first function is dependent. (Lee figure 1, table 121 and [0054] – [0056])
As per claim 7, the combination of Lee, Paluch and Anderson further teach:
The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 6, wherein the operations further comprise updating the reference count when the function ID is queued for a global memory reference associated with a respective value of the plurality of values. (Lee [0061])
As per claim 8, the combination of Lee, Paluch and Anderson further teach:
The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 6, wherein the operations further comprise updating the reference count after a given value of the plurality of values becomes valid. (Lee figure 1, table 121 and [0063] – [0065])
As per claim 9, it is the method variant of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 10, it is the method variant of claim 2 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 14, it is the method variant of claim 6 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it is the method variant of claim 7 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 16, it is the method variant of claim 8 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 26, it is the device variant of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale. (Lee figure 6.)
As per claim 27, it is the device variant of claim 2 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 30 (amended claim 31), it is the device variant of claim 6 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 31 (amended claim 32), it is the device variant of claim 7 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 11 – 13, 28 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Paluch and Anderson, and further in view of Bakulin et al (US 20210042168, hereinafter Bakulin).
As per claim 3, the combination of Lee, Paluch and Anderson did not teach,
The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the value is associated with an input argument of the first function and wherein the value is set after completion of execution of a second function of the transactional API as a result of the value being associated with an output argument of the second function.
However, Bakulin teaches:
The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the value is associated with an input argument of the first function and wherein the value is set after completion of execution of a second function of the transactional API as a result of the value being associated with an output argument of the second function. (Bakulin [0008], [0008])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Bakulin into that of Lee, Paluch and Anderson in order to have the value is associated with an input argument of the first function and wherein the value is set after completion of execution of a second function of the transactional API as a result of the value being associated with an output argument of the second function. Lee [0061] teaches the jobs may have dependency to a preceding job. One of ordinary skill in the art can easily see that the claimed limitation is merely a commonly known type of dependency between tasks, and applicants have thus merely claimed the combination of known parts in the field to achieve predictable results and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 4, the combination of Lee, Paluch, Anderson and Bakulin further teach:
The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 3, wherein the operations further comprise causing execution of a third function of the transactional API to be started by the executer prior to execution of the first function, wherein the third function has no data dependencies and was received after the first function, wherein execution of the first function by the executer overlaps execution of the third function. (Lee [0061] and [0028])
As per claim 11, it is the method variant of claim 3 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 12, it is the method variant of claim 4 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 13, the combination of Lee, Paluch, Anderson and Bakulin further teach:
The method of claim 12, wherein execution of the first function by the executer overlaps execution of the third function. (Lee [0061] and [0028], the request are vying for resources at the same time and thus overlapping.)
As per claim 28, it is the device variant of claim 3 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 29, it is the device variant of claim 4 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Paluch and Anderson, and further in view of Vukolic et al (US 20220311595, hereinafter Vukolic).
As per claim 17, the combination of Lee, Paluch and Anderson did not explicitly disclose:
The method of claim 13, wherein the first function call, the second function call, and the third function call comprise remote procedure calls (RPCs).
However, Vukolic teaches:
The method of claim 13, wherein the first function call, the second function call, and the third function call comprise remote procedure calls (RPCs). (Vukolic [0047])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Vukolic into that of Lee, Paluch and Anderson in order to have the first function call, the second function call, and the third function call comprise remote procedure calls (RPCs). Lee [0061] teaches the jobs may have dependency to a preceding job. One of ordinary skill in the art can easily see that the claimed limitation is merely a commonly known type of dependency between tasks, and applicants have thus merely claimed the combination of known parts in the field to achieve predictable results and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 4, 6 – 17 and 26 – 31 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES M SWIFT whose telephone number is (571)270-7756. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 7PM.
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, April Blair can be reached at 5712701014. 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.
/CHARLES M SWIFT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2196