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 .
DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 2/25/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim(s) 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.
Applicant states: … That section points to Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) (precedential) to illustrate this point. Per Desjardins, it should be clear that this specification provides sufficient details for one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the improvement claimed. That improvement include allowing, via one or more API calls, one or more PPUs to separately prioritize different tasks for execution of a graph on the one or more PPUs. This improvement is not taught in the art, as explained below in more detail. Because the claim does not qualify as reciting mental steps, it is respectfully requested that the rejection of claim 1 on this ground be withdrawn. Likewise, the remaining claims either contain at least the same or similar limitations as claim 1. Thus, it is also requested that the rejection of the remaining claims on this ground be withdrawn.
Examiner states: Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., allowing, via one or more API calls, one or more PPUs to separately prioritize different tasks for execution of a graph on the one or more PPUs) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, the PPUs are interpreted as no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). The limitation merely recites modifying a priority without any further integration into the computing technology that amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
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 1-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent claims 1, 8 the limitations of utilizing an interface to modify a priority as drafted, recites functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a function that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitations as cited above as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process.
Thus, these limitation falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional limitations of a PPU and/or processor. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of PPU and/or processor amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception.
The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 2, 3, 5, 10, 12, 15, 16, 19, 21-23 utilizing graph code, API, receiving values, utilizing captured streams are nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity which is not a practical application under prong 2. Under step 2B, the courts of identified the generic function of gathering/storing data, the results of the judicial exception, is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding claim 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 20, 24-26 the limitations of pertaining to the priority, combining and subtracting, adding, modifying values, are functions that can be reasonably performed in the human mind, thus, additional mental process defined in the claims. The claim does not include any additional element, thus, no limitation that needs to be analyzed under prong 2 for practical application, or under step 2B for significantly more.
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, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones (Pub. No. US 2021/0248115) in view of Bokam (Pub. No. US 2021/0191765).
Claim 1, 7, 13 Jones teaches “One or more processors, comprising: circuitry of one or more Parallel Processor Units (PPUs), in response to one or more application programming interface (APIs) calls, to modify a priority of one or more graph tasks for a graph ([0089] At 710, in at least one embodiment, parameters of a graph are changed. [0090] In at least one embodiment, an API for graph utilization comprises one or more functions for changing parameters associated with an already-instantiated graph.) executed on the one or more PPUs ([0056] In at least one embodiment, a graph 100 is optimized for performance by one or more processors. [0077] Although FIG. 7 is depicted as an ordered set of operations, it will be appreciated that the depicted order is intended to be illustrative of at least one embodiment, rather than limiting. As such, unless logically required, the depicted operations may, in one or more embodiments, be modified, re-ordered, or performed in parallel.)”.
However, Jones may not explicitly teach parameters are priorities.
Bokam teaches parameters define priorities such that teaches “priority ([0078] In one implementation, shown in FIG. 9, the system can execute a priority-based greedy scheduler in order to generate the schedule based on the graph. The system can assign operations to resources according to a priority strategy associated with a graph. More specifically, the system can calculate a node priority for each compute node in the set of compute nodes and for each data transfer node in the set of data transfer nodes of the graph. Additionally, the system can assign a priority to each node in the graph based on the type of operation represented by the node and the number of child nodes that depend on the node (i.e., the outdegree of the node) according to a priority scheme defined by the execution parameters associated with the graph)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Bokam with the teachings of Jones in order to provide a system that teaches adjusting priorities. The motivation for applying Bokam teaching with Jones teaching is to provide a system that allows for design choice of improvements upon parallel scheduling. Jones, Bokam are analogous art directed towards graph processing. Together Jones, Bokam teaches every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Bokam with the teachings of Jones by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim 4, the combination teaches the claim, wherein Bokam teaches “the one or more processors of claim 1, wherein the priority is based, at least in part, on one or more dependencies among the one or more graph tasks ([0078] In one implementation, shown in FIG. 9, the system can execute a priority-based greedy scheduler in order to generate the schedule based on the graph. The system can assign operations to resources according to a priority strategy associated with a graph. More specifically, the system can calculate a node priority for each compute node in the set of compute nodes and for each data transfer node in the set of data transfer nodes of the graph. Additionally, the system can assign a priority to each node in the graph based on the type of operation represented by the node and the number of child nodes that depend on the node (i.e., the outdegree of the node) according to a priority scheme defined by the execution parameters associated with the graph)”.
Rationale to claim 1 is applied here.
Claim 5, 10 the combination teaches the claim, wherein Bokam teaches “the one or more processors of claim 1, the one or more circuits are further to receive one or more values associated with the one or more graph tasks to modify the priority ([0078] In one implementation, shown in FIG. 9, the system can execute a priority-based greedy scheduler in order to generate the schedule based on the graph. The system can assign operations to resources according to a priority strategy associated with a graph. More specifically, the system can calculate a node priority for each compute node in the set of compute nodes and for each data transfer node in the set of data transfer nodes of the graph. Additionally, the system can assign a priority to each node in the graph based on the type of operation represented by the node and the number of child nodes that depend on the node (i.e., the outdegree of the node) according to a priority scheme defined by the execution parameters associated with the graph)”.
Rationale to claim 1 is applied here.
Claim 11, the combination teaches the claim, wherein Jones teaches “the system of claim 7, wherein the one or more processors are further to modify a value as a result of performing one or more APIs ([0089] At 710, in at least one embodiment, parameters of a graph are changed. [0090] In at least one embodiment, an API for graph utilization comprises one or more functions for changing parameters associated with an already-instantiated graph.)”.
Rationale to claim 2 is applied here.
Claim 12, 15, 16 the combination teaches the claim, wherein Jones teaches “the system of claim 7, the one or more processors are further to perform one or more APIs to indicate the modification of the priority ([0089] At 710, in at least one embodiment, parameters of a graph are changed. [0090] In at least one embodiment, an API for graph utilization comprises one or more functions for changing parameters associated with an already-instantiated graph.)”.
Claim/s 2, 3, 8, 14, 17, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones, Bokam in further view of Wolfe.
Claim 2, 8, 14 the combination may not explicitly teach details regarding the dependency graph.
Wolfe teaches “the one or more processors of claim 1, wherein: the one or more graph tasks comprise a second graph node and a third graph node that both depend on a first graph node; and the modified priority causes the second graph node to be scheduled before the third graph node ([0109] Returning to FIG. 4, once the memory has been allocated, in the illustrated embodiment, the method 400 continues to block 430, where the processing system modifies the ordering of the nodes in the topological ordering in order to increase parallel utilization of resources. In various embodiments, this can include, for example, moving load operations (e.g., moving data from storage to memory) to earlier positions in the ordering, rearranging nodes to allow for parallel execution on separate processing units, and the like. [0085] In an embodiment, the final topological ordering is created by reconnecting each subgraph, in the proper order, where the cuts were made (e.g., by adding or reconnecting the edges that were severed, while maintaining the linear sequence of nodes).)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Wolfe with the teachings of Jones, Bokam in order to provide a system that teaches details of dependency. The motivation for applying Wolfe teaching with Jones, Bokam teaching is to provide a system that allows for design choice of improvements upon parallel scheduling. Jones, Bokam, Wolfe are analogous art directed towards graph processing. Together Jones, Bokam, Wolfe teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Wolfe with the teachings of Jones, Bokam by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim 3, 19 the combination may not explicitly teach details regarding the dependency graph.
Wolfe teaches “the one or more processors of claim 1, wherein the one or more circuits are further to perform one or more application programming interfaces (APIs) to change a value associated with a graph node of the one or more graph tasks ([0109] Returning to FIG. 4, once the memory has been allocated, in the illustrated embodiment, the method 400 continues to block 430, where the processing system modifies the ordering of the nodes in the topological ordering in order to increase parallel utilization of resources. In various embodiments, this can include, for example, moving load operations (e.g., moving data from storage to memory) to earlier positions in the ordering, rearranging nodes to allow for parallel execution on separate processing units, and the like.)”.
Rationale to claim 2 is applied here.
Claim 17, Wolfe teaches “the method of claim 13, wherein modifying the priority further comprises modifying a value based, at least in part, on a first value that is associated with the one or more graph tasks and a second value that is associated with a steam ([0077] In embodiments, the Ordering Component 110 also sets the weights of each original edge from the producer node to the consumers to zero. In the illustrated embodiment, this includes changing the weights of the edges from Node 210A to 210B (i.e. stream) and from Node 210A to 210C to zero. This is performed because if both edges retained their original weight, the data flowing on those edges would be “double counted” while computing minimum cuts, resulting in inaccuracies and inefficiencies in the final schedule.)”.
Claim/s 6, 9, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones, Bokam in view of Barsness (Pat. No. US 9,971,633).
Claim 6, 18 the combination may not explicitly teach the limitations of the claim.
Barsness teaches “the one or more processors of claim 1, wherein the circuitry is further to combine a first value assigned to a stream and a second value assigned to a node of the one or more graph tasks ([Col. 14, Line 1 - 24] The operator graph 500 begins at a source 135 and ends at a sink 504, 506. Compute node 110A includes the processing elements PE1, PE2, and PE3. Source 135 flows into the processing element PE1, which in turn outputs tuples that are received by PE2 and PE3. For example, PE1 may split data attributes received in a tuple and pass some data attributes in a new tuple to PE2, while passing other data attributes in another new tuple to PE3. As a second example, PE1 may pass some received tuples to PE2 while passing other tuples to PE3. Tuples that flow to PE2 are processed by the stream operators contained in PE2, and the resulting tuples are then output to PE4 on compute node 110B Likewise, the tuples output by PE4 flow to operator sink PE6 504. Similarly, tuples flowing from PE3 to PE5 also reach the operators in sink PE6 504. Thus, in addition to being a sink for this example operator graph, PE6 could be configured to perform a join operation, combining tuples received from PE4 and PE5. This example operator graph also shows tuples flowing from PE3 to PE7 on compute node 110C, which itself shows tuples flowing to PE8 and looping back to PE7. Tuples output from PE8 flow to PE9 on compute node 110D, which in turn outputs tuples to be processed by operators in a sink processing element, for example PE10 506.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Barsness with the teachings of Jones, Bokam, in order to provide a system that teaches combining values. The motivation for applying Barsness teaching with Jones, Bokam, teaching is to provide a system that allows for computation of information carried out during graph processing. Jones, Bokam, Barsness are analogous art directed towards graph processing. Together Jones, Bokam, Barsness teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Barsness with the teachings of Jones, Bokam, by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim 9, the combination may not explicitly teach the limitations of the claim.
Barsness teaches “the system of claim 7, further comprising subtracting a first value assigned to a stream and a second value assigned to a node of the one or more graph tasks ([Col. 3, Lines 34-37] When a stream operator receives data, it may perform operations, such as analysis logic, which may change the tuple by adding or subtracting attributes, or updating the values of existing attributes within the tuple.)”.
Rationale to claim 8 is applied here.
Claim/s 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones, Bokam in view of Wolfe and Ogrinz.
Claim 20, the combination may not explicitly teach the limitation.
Wolfe teaches “the method of claim 13, wherein the modified priority is based, at least in part, on calling one or more APIs to select a second value assigned to a node of the one or more graph tasks over a first value assigned to a stream ([0109] Returning to FIG. 4, once the memory has been allocated, in the illustrated embodiment, the method 400 continues to block 430, where the processing system modifies the ordering of the nodes in the topological ordering in order to increase parallel utilization of resources. In various embodiments, this can include, for example, moving load operations (e.g., moving data from storage to memory) to earlier positions in the ordering, rearranging nodes to allow for parallel execution on separate processing units, and the like. Examiner notes APIs may be used to change ordering and as evidence by Ogrinz [0048] “The APIs are required to perform certain functions such as crawling of the catalog, ordering items”. Therefore, it would be obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art, an API may make the requested changes of Purnomo, Wolfe)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Wolfe with the teachings of Jones, Bokam, Ogrinz in order to provide a system that teaches selecting values. The motivation for applying the teaching of Wolfe with Jones, Bokam, Ogrinz teaching is to provide a system that allows for computation of information carried out during graph processing. Jones, Bokam, Ogrinz, Wolfe are analogous art directed towards graph processing. Together Jones, Bokam, Ogrinz, Wolfe teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Wolfe with the teachings of Jones, Bokam, Ogrinz, by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim/s 21, 22, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones, Bokam, in further view of Ravala (Pub. No. US 2022/0070245).
Claims 21, 22, 23 the combination teaches the claim, wherein Bokam teaches “the processors of claim 1, wherein the one or more APIs are capable of being performed so that one or more captured streams (i.e. streamed commands as evidenced below) is capable of modifying the priority of one or more graph tasks for a graph executed on one or more PPUs ([0078] In one implementation, shown in FIG. 9, the system can execute a priority-based greedy scheduler in order to generate the schedule based on the graph. The system can assign operations to resources according to a priority strategy associated with a graph. More specifically, the system can calculate a node priority for each compute node in the set of compute nodes and for each data transfer node in the set of data transfer nodes of the graph. Additionally, the system can assign a priority to each node in the graph based on the type of operation represented by the node and the number of child nodes that depend on the node (i.e., the outdegree of the node) according to a priority scheme defined by the execution parameters associated with the graph)”.
However, the combination may not explicitly teach the captured commands of the interface are streamed.
Ravala teaches as evidence, commands of an interface are streamed ([0052] In some embodiments, computing device 85 of the user may include a processor 90, a memory 87, input and/or output (I/O) devices 88, and communication circuitry 86 for communicating 95 with TDI 15 and/or RDI 60 over a communication network. For example, I/O devices 88 may include a keyboard 98, a mouse 99, and a display 97. A graphic user interface (GUI) 96 may be displayed on display 97. Computing device 85 may be used to communicate 95 data stream commands and/or provisioning requests to TDI 15 and/or RDI 60. The commands and/or requests between computing device 85 and TDI 15 and/or RDI 60 may be entered by the user on GUI 96.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Ravala with the teachings of Jones, Bokam, in order to provide a system that teaches streams. The motivation for applying Ravala teaching with Jones, Bokam, teaching is to provide evidence commands captured of Jones, Bokam, are stream based for the purposes of design choice. Jones, Bokam, Ravala are analogous art directed towards command processing. Together Jones, Bokam, Ravala teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Ravala with the teachings of Jones, Bokam, by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim/s 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones, Bokam, in further view of Ippatapu (Pub. No. US 2021/0019178).
Claims 24, 25, 26 the combination teaches the claim, wherein Jones teaches “the one or more processors of claim 1, wherein one or more application programming interface (APIs) runtime calls modify a priority (i.e. Bokam [0075]) of one or more graph tasks for graph task dependencies of a graph executed on one or more PPUs to modify a priority for one or more graph task dependencies ([0089] At 710, in at least one embodiment, parameters of a graph are changed. [0090] In at least one embodiment, an API for graph utilization comprises one or more functions for changing parameters associated with an already-instantiated graph.)”.
However, the combination may not explicitly teach the other limitations.
Ippatapu teaches “modifying priority for one or more other graph task dependencies via one or more captured streams ([0034] In one embodiment of the invention, if the tasks are associated with multiple directed graphs, then the traversal described above is performed across all directed graphs. In such scenarios, the traversal of the individual directed graphs may result in multiple ordered subsets of tasks, which may then be merged to generate the task order. The merger of the subsets of tasks may include prioritizing tasks associated with root nodes prior to ordering of all other dependent tasks. Further, the ordering of the various dependent tasks may be based, e.g., on the incoming edge weights of nodes corresponding to the dependent tasks. Other methods for merging the subsets of ordered tasks without departing from the invention.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Ippatapu with the teachings of Jones, Bokam, in order to provide a system that teaches updating other portions of priority. The motivation for applying Ippatapu teaching with Jones, Bokam, teaching is to provide a system that allows for design choice. Jones, Bokam, Ippatapu are analogous art directed towards graph processing. Together Jones, Bokam, Ippatapu teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Ippatapu with the teachings of Jones, Bokam, by known methods and gained expected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WYNUEL S AQUINO whose telephone number is (571)272-7478. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached at 571-272-3759. 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.
/WYNUEL S AQUINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights