DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the amendment filed on 1/7/2026. This Action is made FINAL.
Claims 1 and 21-39 are pending and they are presented for examination.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1 and 21-39 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 21-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 (similarly claims 33 and 37) recite: “generate a plurality of second schedules, each of which include one or more recomputation processes in place of at least one of the data transfer processes included in the first schedule; calculate a value related to an execution time required for the data processing device to execute each of the plurality of second schedules; and select a schedule from a plurality of schedules including at least the plurality of second schedules based on the calculated value”.
After careful search of the instant application, the examiner was unable to find any disclosure pertaining to the above mention limitation. The applicant is advised to provide specifics as to where the above limitations are disclosed within the specification.
Claim 23 recite: “generate the plurality of second schedules using a metaheuristic algorithm”. After careful search of the instant application, the examiner was unable to find any disclosure pertaining to the above mention limitation. The applicant is advised to provide specifics as to where the above limitations are disclosed within the specification.
Claim 28 recite: “the plurality of second schedules are generated based on the first schedule”. After careful search of the instant application, the examiner was unable to find any disclosure pertaining to the above mention limitation. The applicant is advised to provide specifics as to where the above limitations are disclosed within the specification.
Claim 29 recite: “wherein the at least one processor is configured to generate the plurality of second schedules by: calculating a value related to an execution time required for the data processing device to execute the first schedule; and generating the plurality of second schedules based on the calculated valued of the first schedule”.
After careful search of the instant application, the examiner was unable to find any disclosure pertaining to the above mention limitation. The applicant is advised to provide specifics as to where the above limitations are disclosed within the specification.
Claims 21-32, 34-36 and 38-39 are rejected based on rejection of its corresponding dependent claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "select the schedule". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear which schedule from plurality of schedules (i.e. first schedule and plurality of second schedules) “the schedule” is referring to.
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 DONG U KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1313. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Bradley Teets can be reached at 5712723338. 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.
/DONG U KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights