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
Claims 1-22 are pending.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs and/or columns and lines in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims 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 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. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06.
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.
Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application
Applicant is encouraged to file an Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application form (http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) along with the response to this office action to facilitate and expedite future communication between Applicant and the examiner. If the form is submitted then Applicant is requested to provide a contact email address in the signature block at the conclusion of the official reply.
Applicant’s Reply Not Fully Responsive
The communication filed on 02/24/2026 is not fully responsive to the prior Office action because it fails to address the examiner’s 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretations and the 35 U.S.C. 101 abstract idea rejections to the dependent claims made in the prior Office action. More specifically, Applicant’s Remarks are only directed to the 35 U.S.C. 101 abstract idea rejections of the independent claims and fail to address any of the 35 U.S.C. 101 abstract idea rejections to the dependent claims. Even if an independent claims is deemed eligible then it does not necessarily mean that all of the dependent claims are also eligible. The response appears to be bona fide, but through an apparent oversight or inadvertence, consideration of some matter or compliance with some requirement has been omitted. Applicant is required to supply the omission or correction to thereby provide a full response to the prior Office action.
35 USC § 112(f) – Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a resource allocation module configured to” in claims 11 and 14-15 (e.g. see [0027]-[0028] of the instant specification).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If Applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim is a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter:
Claim 1. A method comprising.
Step 2A Prong One: The claim recites an abstract idea because it includes limitations that can be considered mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind or via pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea:
in response to receiving, from an application, an instruction identifying a workgroup including a plurality of waves and identifying resource allocations for the plurality of waves, allocating a set of processing resources to a compute unit based on the resource allocations for the plurality of waves (abstract idea mental process e.g., see at least [0009] of the instant specification which states: “the resource allocations include data indicating one or more respective compute unit resources (e.g., a number of registers, an amount of a memory) to allocate to each wave, one or more compute unit resources (e.g., a number of registers, an amount of a memory) to share between the two or more waves (e.g., to allocate to two or more waves), or both”. Therefore, the allocation can be reasonably interpreted as allocating a number or an amount represented as a number which can be performed mentally. See also for example dependent claim 9).
Step 2A Prong Two: The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is recited but for generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. data storage, processor, memory, computer readable medium, etc.) which do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea amounting to simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer using generic computing hardware and/or software (e.g. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the recited generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea:
the set of processing resources allocated to the compute unit (generic computing components).
Step 2B: The claim includes limitations which can be considered extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) insufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional limitations only perform at least one of collecting, gathering, displaying, generating, modifying, updating, storing, retrieving, sending, and receiving data/information data which are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)II. The claim further includes limitations that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they merely recite the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim, and its limitations when considered separately and in combination, is directed to patent ineligible subject matter:
performing the workgroup using the set of processing resources allocated to the compute unit (merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea).
Claim 2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: storing, in a local work queue, the instruction identifying the workgroup and the resource allocations for the plurality of waves (extra-solution activity of saving/storing data/information).
Claim 3. The method of claim 2, further comprising: in response to the compute unit performing a previous workgroup, requesting, from the local work queue, data including the instruction identifying the workgroup and the resource allocations for the plurality of waves (extra-solution activity of sending/transmitting data/information).
Claim 4. The method of claim 1, further comprising: while the workgroup is being performed, allocating a second set of processing resources to the workgroup based on a second instruction identifying the workgroup (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 5. The method of claim 1, wherein allocating the set of processing resources to the compute unit comprises: allocating a same processing resource to two or more waveslots of the compute unit based on the resource allocations for the plurality of waves (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 6. The method of claim 1, further comprising: performing the plurality of waves of the workgroup based on synchronization data received from application (merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea).
Claim 7. The method of claim 6, wherein the synchronization data identifies a thread barrier for a wave of the plurality of waves (extra-solution activity of receiving data/information).
Claim 8. The method of claim 6, wherein the synchronization data identifies two or more waves of the plurality of waves to be performed concurrently (extra-solution activity of receiving data/information).
Claim 9. The method of claim 1, wherein the resource allocations for the plurality of waves identify a respective number of vector registers for each wave of the plurality of waves (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 10. The method of claim 1, further comprising: modifying a hardware register based on the resource allocations for the plurality of waves (extra-solution activity of modifying/updating data/information).
Step 1: The claim is a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter:
Claim 11. A processing system, comprising.
Step 2A Prong One: The claim recites an abstract idea because it includes limitations that can be considered mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind or via pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea:
allocate a set of processing resources to the at least one compute unit based on the resource allocations for the plurality of waves (abstract idea mental process i.e., see the same rationale as claim 1 above. See also dependent claim 18).
Step 2A Prong Two: The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is recited but for generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. data storage, processor, memory, computer readable medium, etc.) which do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea amounting to simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer using generic computing hardware and/or software (e.g. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the recited generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea:
a memory (generic computing components); and
a processor coupled to the memory (generic computing components) and configured to
a plurality of compute units (generic computing components), wherein at least one compute unit of the plurality of compute units comprises:
a resource allocation module configured to (generic computing components); and
a plurality of waveslots configured to (generic computing components).
Step 2B: The claim includes limitations which can be considered extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) insufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional limitations only perform at least one of collecting, gathering, displaying, generating, modifying, updating, storing, retrieving, sending, and receiving data/information data which are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)II. The claim further includes limitations that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they merely recite the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim, and its limitations when considered separately and in combination, is directed to patent ineligible subject matter:
receive, from an application, an instruction identifying a workgroup including a plurality of waves and identifying resource allocations for the plurality of waves (extra-solution activity of receiving data/information), wherein the processor comprises:
perform the workgroup using the set of processing resources allocated to the at least one compute unit (merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea).
Claim 12. The processing system of claim 11, further comprising: a local work queue configured to store the instruction identifying the workgroup and the resource allocations for the plurality of waves (extra-solution activity of saving/storing data/information).
Claim 13. The processing system of claim 12, wherein the at least one compute unit is configured to: in response to at least one compute unit performing a previous workgroup, request, from the local work queue, data including the instruction identifying the workgroup and the resource allocations for the plurality of waves (extra-solution activity of sending/receiving data/information).
Claim 14. The processing system of claim 11, wherein the resource allocation module is configured to: while performing the workgroup, allocate a second set of processing resources to one or more waveslots based on a second instruction identifying the workgroup (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 15. The processing system of claim 11, wherein the resource allocation module is configured to: allocate a same processing resource to two or more waveslots of the plurality of waveslots based on the resource allocations for the plurality of waves (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 16. The processing system of claim 11, the processor configured to: receive, from the application, data identifying a respective thread barrier for one or more waves of the plurality of waves (extra-solution activity of receiving data/information).
Claim 17. The processing system of claim 11, wherein the processor further comprises a hardware register (generic computing components) and wherein the resource allocation module configured to allocate the set of processing resources by modifying the hardware register based on the resource allocations for the plurality of waves (extra-solution activity of modifying/updating data/information).
Claim 18. The processing system of claim 11, wherein the resource allocations for the plurality of waves identify a respective amount of a local data share for each wave of the plurality of waves (abstract idea mental process).
Step 1: The claim is a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter:
Claim 19. A processor comprising.
Step 2A Prong One: The claim recites an abstract idea because it includes limitations that can be considered mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind or via pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea:
in response to receiving, from an application, synchronization data for a plurality of waves and an instruction identifying resource allocations for the plurality of waves, allocate a set of processing resources to a compute unit based on the resource allocations for the plurality of waves (abstract idea mental process i.e., see the same rationale as claim 1 above).
Step 2A Prong Two: The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is recited but for generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. data storage, processor, memory, computer readable medium, etc.) which do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea amounting to simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer using generic computing hardware and/or software (e.g. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the recited generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea:
one or more processing cores and the set of processing resources (generic computing components) configured to.
Step 2B: The claim includes limitations which can be considered extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) insufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional limitations only perform at least one of collecting, gathering, displaying, generating, modifying, updating, storing, retrieving, sending, and receiving data/information data which are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)II. The claim further includes limitations that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they merely recite the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim, and its limitations when considered separately and in combination, is directed to patent ineligible subject matter:
perform the plurality of waves using the set of processing resources allocated to the compute unit and based on the synchronization data (merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea).
Claim 20. The processor of claim 19, wherein the synchronization data identifies a thread barrier for a wave of the plurality of waves (extra-solution activity of receiving data/information).
Claim 21. The processor of claim 19, wherein the synchronization data identifies two or more waves of the plurality of waves to be performed concurrently (extra-solution activity of receiving data/information).
Claim 22. The processor of claim 19, wherein the one or more processing cores are configured to: while performing the plurality of waves, allocate a second set of processing resources to the compute unit based on a second instruction (abstract idea mental process).
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Clark (US 2022/0413910) (as previously cited) in view of Ukidave et al. (US 2019/0332420) (hereinafter Ukidave as previously cited).
As per claim 1, Clark teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a method comprising:
in response to receiving, from an application, an instruction identifying a plurality of jobs and identifying resource allocations for the jobs ([0021] and [0049] receive jobs over an application programming interface wherein the API allows for jobs to be created having metadata properties such as resources needed to execute the jobs i.e., resource allocations and indications of the jobs i.e., job identifiers are received), allocating a set of processing resources to a compute unit based on the resource allocations for the plurality of waves (fig. 4, block 490 and [0049] table for allocating resources to different jobs and [0048] user interface allows user to define resources allocated to the compute units based on usage of the resources by the jobs); and
performing the workgroup using the set of processing resources allocated to the compute unit ([0022] and [0035] resources are allocated to compute units based on job resource requirements and the jobs are completed on the allocated resources of the compute unit).
Clark does not explicitly teach:
an instruction identifying a workgroup;
a workgroup including a plurality of waves.
However, Ukidave teaches:
an instruction identifying a workgroup ([0030] and [0040] workgroup ID);
a workgroup including a plurality of waves (abstract and [0019] wavefronts forming the workgroup).
Ukidave and Clark are both concerned with compute units. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Clark in view of Ukidave because it would provide a way for each data parallel processor to be able to dispatch workgroups to multiple compute units so as to minimize resource contention among the compute units while also allowing wavefronts of the split-workgroup to be dispatched across compute units so as to minimize the load-rating across the compute units.
As per claim 2, Clark further teaches storing, in a local work queue, the instruction identifying the workgroup and the resource allocations for the plurality of waves ([0034] interface receives jobs into queue including identifiers for the jobs and resource allocations).
As per claim 3, Clark further teaches in response to the compute unit performing a previous workgroup, requesting, from the local work queue, data including the instruction identifying the workgroup and the resource allocations for the plurality of waves ([0041] after a period of time jobs will complete/finish and compute unit resources are relinquished back into the pool of free resources for usage on additional jobs).
As per claim 4, Ukidave teaches while the workgroup is being performed, allocating a second set of processing resources to the workgroup based on a second instruction identifying the workgroup ([0039] dynamic algorithm for allocating wavefronts of workgroups to available compute units).
As per claim 5, Ukidave teaches wherein allocating the set of processing resources to the compute unit comprises: allocating a same processing resource to two or more waveslots of the compute unit based on the resource allocations for the plurality of waves ([0036] allocating multiple wavefronts to the same compute unit).
As per claim 6, Ukidave teaches performing the plurality of waves of the workgroup based on synchronization data received from application ([0031] barrier instructions for central mechanism to synchronize wavefronts on separate compute units).
As per claim 7, Ukidave teaches wherein the synchronization data identifies a thread barrier for a wave of the plurality of waves ([0031] barrier instructions for central mechanism to synchronize wavefronts on separate compute units).
As per claim 8, Ukidave teaches wherein the synchronization data identifies two or more waves of the plurality of waves to be performed concurrently ([0035] and [0043] wavefront and thread/work-item parallelism).
As per claim 9, Ukidave teaches wherein the resource allocations for the plurality of waves identify a respective number of vector registers for each wave of the plurality of waves ([0019] a workgroup is dispatched when all of the resources for supporting the full workgroup are available on a single compute unit wherein these resources include at least vector and scalar registers).
As per claim 10, Ukidave teaches modifying a hardware register based on the resource allocations for the plurality of waves ([0060] configure resources via a programmable context setting register).
As per claim 11, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale. Additionally, claim 11 recites a plurality of waveslots which is taught by Ukidave in at least [0019].
As per claim 12, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 13, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 14, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it has similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 16, it has similar limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 17, it has similar limitations as claim 10 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 18, Ukidave teaches wherein the resource allocations for the plurality of waves identify a respective amount of a local data share for each wave of the plurality of waves ([0019] local data share space).
As per claim 19, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale. Additionally, claim 19 recites synchronization data which is taught by Ukidave in at least [0031].
As per claim 20, it has similar limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 21, it has similar limitations as claim 8 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 22, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on pg. 8, Applicant argues that as per claim 11, the human mind is incapable of receiving an instruction from an application. The examiner respectfully traverses. The examiner is not interpreting the step of receiving an instruction as a mental process. Rather it is being interpreted as extra-solution activity of receiving data/information. Thus, for at least the reasons provided above, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejections are sustained.
On pg. 8-9 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that the human mind would not be capable of modifying or setting resource allocations to waves executed by compute units when an application is executing. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated in the rejection above, [0009] of the instant specification states: “the resource allocations include data indicating one or more respective compute unit resources (e.g., a number of registers, an amount of a memory) to allocate to each wave, one or more compute unit resources (e.g., a number of registers, an amount of a memory) to share between the two or more waves (e.g., to allocate to two or more waves), or both”. Therefore, the allocation can be reasonably interpreted as allocating a number or an amount represented as a number which can be performed mentally (i.e., see also dependent claims 9 and 18). Regarding Applicant’s alleged “when an application is executing” statement, it is respectfully noted that the claim does not state “when an application is executing”. Even if the claim did recite that particular limitation, the then that limitation would still be considered a mental process because it can be performed “when an application is executing”. Hence, for at least the rationale provided above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
In the Remarks on pg. 9, Applicant argues that the human mind is not capable of executing workgroups (e.g., data structures). The examiner respectfully disagrees. It should be noted that “executing workgroups (e.g., data structures)” is not recited in the claims. It appears that Applicant is referring to the “perform the workgroup…” limitation. This particular limitation is not being interpreted by the examiner as an abstract idea limitation. Rather it is being interpreted as extra-solution activity of merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Thus, for at least the reasons provided above, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejections are sustained.
On pg. 10 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that the identified generic computing components are not generic because the examiner has not considered “how these limitations interact and impact each other”. The examiner respectfully traverses. Applicant has failed to explain how the interaction of the limitations impact each other to render the elements as non-generic. Rather, Applicant merely provides an unsubstantiated conclusory statement. Applicant is reminded of In re Buchner, 929 F.2d 660, 661, 18 USPQ2d 1331, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“expert’s opinion on the ultimate legal conclusion must be supported by something more than a conclusory statement”). It appears that Applicant is merely making a conclusory statement. Attorney argument is not evidence unless it is an admission, in which case, an examiner may use the admission in making a rejection (see MPEP § 2129 and § 2144.03 for a discussion of admissions as prior art). The arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness."). See MPEP § 716.01(c) for examples of attorney statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration. The examiner asserts that the claimed system merely recites generic computing components performing extra-solution activity. Applicant has failed to explain how the recited “memory”, “processor”, and “compute units” are non-generic. Applicant also fails to explain how a generic processor which receives data and executes data is non-generic. As previously admitted by the Applicant in the Remarks on pg. 9, the workgroups are merely data structures. These data structures can be considered generic software constructs/data (i.e., see the instant specification at [0034] “These design tools typically are represented as one or more software programs” and “The software instructions representing a design tool or fabrication tool typically are stored in a computer-readable storage medium accessible to the computing system”). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a mental process) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). A claim to an abstract idea requiring no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry does not qualify as significantly more. The use of generic computer components to transmit information through an unspecified interface does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than a judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide for a conventional computer implementation. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. An abstract idea does not become non-abstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet or a computer. See MPEP § 2106.05(f) for more information about mere instructions to apply an exception. Hence, for at least the rationale provided above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
In the Remarks on pg. 11-13, Applicant argues that claim 11 provides an improvement to dynamically allocate processing resources each time a workgroup is assigned. The examiner respectfully disagrees. It should be noted that “dynamically allocate processing resources each time a workgroup is assigned” is not recited in the claim. Here, Applicant suggests that the supposed improvement is in the allocate step of the claims. In other words, Applicant is alleging that the supposed improvement is directed to an abstract idea of allocating resources. Applicant’s attempt to show that the recited abstract idea is the improvement is not persuasive. An “improved” abstract idea is still an abstract idea nonetheless and is not eligible for patent protection without significantly more recited in the claim. The examiner respectfully submits that an improvement in computer functionality is a reason for supporting the significance of the additional elements in a claim (Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, and not Step 1 or Step 2A Prong One). In other words, the “improvement” rationale is reserved for evaluating whether the additional elements and not the abstract idea itself amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (see MPEP 2106.05). Applicant is reminded that the abstract idea itself cannot be directed to an improvement in computer functionality (Step 2A Prong One). Rather only the additional elements can qualify as significantly more (i.e., the improvement) than the abstract idea itself (Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B). Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the claims are not directed to a specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities because no capability of the computer is being improved in any way. It should be noted that in the Remarks on pg. 11-20, Applicant quotes [0009] of the instant specification but conveniently omits a crucial portion of [0009] relied upon by the examiner which states: “the resource allocations include data indicating one or more respective compute unit resources (e.g., a number of registers, an amount of a memory) to allocate to each wave, one or more compute unit resources (e.g., a number of registers, an amount of a memory) to share between the two or more waves (e.g., to allocate to two or more waves), or both”. Applicant has failed to explain how indicating a number and/or an amount cannot be performed mentally. On pg. 12, Applicant states that “enabling a processor to concurrently execute more waves” also provides an improvement. It should be noted that “enabling a processor to concurrently execute more waves” is not recited in the claims. If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement and the claim itself must reflect the improvement in technology (emphasis added by the examiner). An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. The claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the improvement in technology (emphasis added by the examiner). An important consideration in determining whether a claim is directed to an improvement in technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. It is important to note that in order for a method claim to improve computer functionality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be limited to computer implementation. That is, a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer technology. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a method of translating a logic circuit into a hardware component description of a logic circuit was found to be ineligible because the method did not employ a computer and a skilled artisan could perform all the steps mentally). Similarly, a claimed process covering embodiments that can be performed on a computer, as well as embodiments that can be practiced verbally or with a telephone, cannot improve computer technology. See RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1328, 122 USPQ2d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (process for encoding/decoding facial data using image codes assigned to particular facial features held ineligible because the process did not require a computer). To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Thus, for at least the reasons provided above, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejections are sustained. Thus, for at least the reasons provided above, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejections are sustained.
On pg. 14-15 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that the claimed receiving the instruction is not “post-solution activity” because it incorporates the abstract idea into “a mechanism that allows software to determine resource allocations so that the processor is enabled to concurrently execute a greater number of waves and dynamically allocate processing resources each time a workgroup is assigned”. The examiner respectfully traverses. It should be noted that “the processor is enabled to concurrently execute a greater number of waves and dynamically allocate processing resources each time a workgroup is assigned” is not recited in the claims. Here, Applicant readily admits that the claims recite a mechanism that allows software to determine resource allocations. Determining resource allocations is a mental process as previously argued by the examiner. Applicant is alleging that incorporating a post-solution activity with the abstract idea results in an abstract idea which does not makes any sense, nor does it render the claim eligible. Applicant has failed to explain how determining resource allocations cannot be performed mentally. Hence, for at least the rationale provided above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
In the Remarks on pg. 15, Applicant states “Claims 1 and 19 recite similar features as claim 1 and overcome these rejections for at least the same reasons discussed above with reference to claim 1”. The examiner respectfully disagrees and argues that it should read: “Claims 1 and 19 recite similar features as claim 11 and overcome these rejections for at least the same reasons discussed above with reference to claim 11”. Applicant’s arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b)-(c) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims are eligible without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims makes the claims eligible in view of the rejections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such rejections. More specifically, Applicant’s Remarks are only directed to the independent claims and fail to address any of the abstract idea rejections to the dependent claims. Even if an independent claims is deemed eligible then it does not necessarily mean that all of the dependent claims are also eligible. Thus, for at least the reasons provided above, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejections are sustained.
In summary, it is readily apparent and clearly evident that Applicant has a deficient, erroneous, and improper understanding of the 35 U.S.C. 101 abstract idea subject matter eligibility examination process. Throughout the Remarks Applicant conflates the individual steps involved in the process (i.e., Step 1, Step 2A Prong One, Step 2A Prong Two, and Step 2B) while also providing unpersuasive arguments that are clearly refuted by various portions of the MPEP. The examiner highly encourages Applicant to amend the claims and review MPEP 2106 prior to submitting any subsequent response.
On pg. 17-18 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that the cited prior art and more specifically Clark does not disclose a micro-architecture for a single processor that includes a compute unit with waveslots or a single processor including an already-established compute unit. The examiner respectfully traverses. It should be noted that none of the instant claims recite “a micro-architecture” or “an already-established compute unit”. 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). The examiner cites particular paragraphs and/or columns and lines in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims 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 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. During examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation. See In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). On pg. 17 of the Remarks, Applicant states that Ukidave does not remedy the deficiencies of Clark. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Ukidave in at least fig. 2 illustrates a GPU 205 comprising a plurality of compute units 255A-N. This is the same as the instant drawings in fig. 3, block 114 (accelerated processing unit such as a GPU) comprising a compute unit 224. Furthermore, Ukidave in [0019] explicitly states: “A processor (e.g., graphics processing unit (GPU)) includes at least a plurality of compute units” (see also claim 1 of Ukidave i.e., “A processor comprising: a plurality of compute units”). Thus, Ukidave successfully teaches the disputed claim limitation. In response to Applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Hence, for at least the rationale provided above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
In the Remarks on pg. 18, Applicant argues that claims 1 and 19 recite similar features as claim 11. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Unlike claim 11, claims 1 and 19 do not recite a processor comprising a plurality of compute units. Rather, claims 1 and 19 merely recite “a compute unit” without any mention of any processor. Thus, for at least the reasons provided above, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and the rejections are sustained.
On pg. 18-19 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that Ukidave does not disclose the limitations of claim 5. More specifically, that Ukidave teaches allocating wavefronts to compute units rather than the claimed allocating resources to compute units. The examiner respectfully traverses. 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). The examiner cites particular paragraphs and/or columns and lines in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims 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 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. During examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation. See In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Clark discloses in [0030] “processing resources that can be allocated to one or more compute units”, [0047] “hardware components to be allocated, as well as software and configuration information, for compute units”, [0048] “hardware and software allocated to the compute unit”, and [0055] “resources that can be allocated to one or more compute units”. In response to Applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Hence, for at least the rationale provided above, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Kazakov et al. (US 2019/0129756) in at least [0016] disclose dynamic allocation of resources to waves.
Colombo et al. (US 2012/0265947) in at least the abstract disclose in response to a memory allocation request received from an application thread, a random number is obtained (e.g., from a random number list previously populated with multiple random numbers). A starting location in at least a portion of a bitmap associated with a region including multiple blocks of the memory is determined based on the random number. A portion of the bitmap is scanned, beginning at the starting location, to identify a location in the bitmap corresponding to an available block of the multiple blocks, and an indication of this available block is returned to the application thread.
Dallman et al. (US 8,510,744) in at least the abstract disclose receiving, by an operating system executing on a data processing system, an execution request from an application, the execution request including at least one resource-defining attribute corresponding to an execution thread of the application. The method also includes allocating processor resources to the execution thread by the operating system according to the at least one resource-defining attribute, and allowing execution of the execution thread on the data processing system according to the allocated processor resources.
Nyland et al. (US 8,392,669) in at least col. 1, ll. 66 to col. 2, ll. 13 disclose receiving a memory access request from the application to be carried out by a plurality of active threads in the thread group, selecting an available entry in a pending request table (PRT) for the memory access request from the application, generating a first memory access request for a first active thread having a maximum size that defines a first memory region for the first memory access request, identifying one or more additional active threads that have associated memory access addresses located within the first memory region, and setting a thread mask to specify that the first active thread and the one or more additional active threads carry out the first memory access request.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Adam Lee whose telephone number is (571) 270-3369. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 8AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Vital can be reached on 571-272-4215. 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.
/Adam Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198 March 11, 2026