CTFR 18/169,364 CTFR 77409 DETAILED ACTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This action is responsive to the Remarks filed 03/06/2026. Claims 1-21 are pending in this application. Allowable Subject Matter 2. Claims 5-7, 12-14, and 19-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, subject to the results of a final search by the Examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 3. 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15 AIA Claim s 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102( a)(1 ) as being anticipated by Watt et al. (US 20170278290) . It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123. As to claim 1: Turner teaches a computer-implemented method (Abstract: processes providing a tool for visualizing parallel dependency graph evaluation) , comprising: in each iteration: determining whether there exists one still unevaluated action in a dependency graph ([0009]: A data file may be received that includes runtime evaluation entries for nodes in a parallel dependency graph. Runtime evaluation entries may include node identification and runtime duration. The concurrency level for each node in the parallel dependency graph may be determined based on the number of concurrently executing nodes in the data file); determining a set of still unevaluated actions without any unevaluated required dependencies ([0023]: An exemplary visualization tool may include a computer program that generates performance visualizations, statistics, and the like from runtime analysis data of a parallel dependency graph. The data may include identifying information for the nodes in the parallel dependency graph, along with the runtime execution start time and stop time of each node. The exemplary visualization tool may analyze the data and generate a performance visualization that graphically illustrates the level of concurrency during parallel dependency graph evaluation (e.g., how well parallelism is expressed in a parallel dependency graph or how well a parallel dependency graph utilizes multiple processing cores). The tool may also generate statistics and a variety of different graphical illustrations for analyzing parallel dependency graphs) ; asynchronously starting an evaluation for each action in the set of still unevaluated actions, wherein evaluations execute in parallel without waiting on evaluation of other actions ([0055]:At block 702, a visualization tool may receive a data file of a runtime evaluation of a parallel dependency graph. In one embodiment, the data file may have been generated by a monitoring tool that records the computer clock start time and stop time of each node during evaluation of a parallel dependency graph. For example, the data file may include a table of runtime evaluation entries listing each node in the parallel dependency graph, the time each node started computing, and the time each node stopped computing. Each node may be identified in any of a variety of ways, such as a unique identification number, a node name, a node computation type, an affected animation element, or the like. Start times may be the computer clock time when a node was scheduled to run, when node inputs became available, when a node began computing, or the like. Stop times may be the computer clock time when a node was terminated, when node outputs became available, when a node stopped computing, or the like; see also, [0057-0058]); waiting until at least one ongoing action evaluation has finished ([0064]: At block 726, the visualization tool may determine the level of concurrency of executing nodes just as at block 704 of process 700. At block 728, the visualization tool may determine the critical path through the parallel dependency graph. In one embodiment, the tool may determine the critical path at the same time it traverses the data file to determine concurrency levels. For example, starting with the last node to finish computing, the tool may traverse the data file backwards in time, identifying the concurrency levels along the way, as well as tracking the derivation or provenance of the last node to finish computing (some of the derivation nodes also being part of the critical path, as discussed above). In other embodiments, the tool may walk each path through the parallel dependency graph to determine the path with the longest runtime duration, in some cases by traversing each path in the data file marked by corresponding start times and stop times. In still other embodiments, the tool may analyze runtime durations and dependencies using other methods to determine which nodes are on the critical path. In some examples, the critical path may include only serial critical path nodes where parallelism is not expressed in the dependency graph along the critical path. In other examples, the longest nodes in sections with parallelism may be identified as critical path nodes, or all nodes touching the critical path may be identified as critical path nodes) ; and collecting all still uncollected results of finished asynchronous evaluation (Abstract: Runtime evaluation data of a parallel dependency graph may be collected; [0026]: Evaluation data may be collected from parallel dependency graph 203 and used as an input to visualization tool 201. For example, the start time and stop time of each node in parallel dependency graph 203 may be collected and received as an input to visualization tool 201. Visualization tool 201 may analyze the evaluation data and generate performance visualization 207 to, among other things, illustrate how well parallelism is expressed in parallel dependency graph 203. Exemplary performance visualizations are described in further detail below with reference to FIG. 5 and FIG. 6. Likewise, exemplary processes for generating a performance visualization of a parallel dependency graph evaluation are described in further detail below with reference to FIG. 7A and FIG. 7B). As to claim 2: Watt teaches exiting if no still unevaluated actions exist ([0055]). As to claims 8 and 9: Refer to the discussion of claims 1 and 2 above, respectively, for rejections. Claims 8 and 9 are the same as claims 1 and 2, except claims 8 and 9 are computer-readable medium claims and claims 1 and 2 are method claims. As to claims 15 and 16: Refer to the discussion of claims 1 and 2 above, respectively, for rejections. Claims 15 and 16 are the same as claims 1 and 2, except claims 15 and 16 are system claims and claims 1 and 2 are method claims . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 4. 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. 07-20 AIA 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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 3, 4, 10, 11, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watt et al. (US 20170278290) in view of Iorio (US 20120084789) . As to claim 3: Watt does not explicitly teach, Iorio teaches while a set of actions with changed inputs since a last iteration (AwChI)) is not empty and the number of iterations ( i ) is <= the diameter ( d ) of the dependency graph: for each action in the AwChI: asynchronously and in parallel evaluate each action; and wait until at least one action evaluation has finished ([0022-0024], [0039], and [0046]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Watt with Iorio because it would have provided the enhanced capability for optimizing a task graph that specifies multiple tasks and the dependencies between the specified tasks. As to claim 4: Watt does not explicitly teach, Iorio teaches exiting if the AwChI is empty or i > d ([0039-0040]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Watt with Iorio because it would have provided the enhanced capability for optimizing a task graph that specifies multiple tasks and the dependencies between the specified tasks. As to claims 10 and 11: Refer to the discussion of claims 3 and 4 above, respectively, for rejections. Claims 10 and 11 are the same as claims 3 and 4, except claims 10 and 11 are computer-readable medium claims and claims 3 and 4 are method claims. As to claims 17 and 18: Refer to the discussion of claims 3 and 4 above, respectively, for rejections. Claims 17 and 18 are the same as claims 3 and 4, except claims 17 and 18 are computer-readable medium claims and claims 3 and 4 are method claims . Response to Arguments 07-37 5. Applicants' arguments filed 03/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claim Rejection under 35 USC § 101: The 101 rejection has been withdrawn in view of Applicant's arguments. Claim Rejection under 35 USC § 102: Applicant argues that Watt fails to teach “asynchronously starting an evaluation for each action in the set of still unevaluated actions”. In response, under broadest reasonable interpretation, Watt meets the limitations as claimed. Watt teaches asynchronously starting an evaluation for each action in the set of still unevaluated actions ([0055]:At block 702, a visualization tool may receive a data file of a runtime evaluation of a parallel dependency graph. In one embodiment, the data file may have been generated by a monitoring tool that records the computer clock start time and stop time of each node during evaluation of a parallel dependency graph. For example, the data file may include a table of runtime evaluation entries listing each node in the parallel dependency graph, the time each node started computing, and the time each node stopped computing. Each node may be identified in any of a variety of ways, such as a unique identification number, a node name, a node computation type, an affected animation element, or the like. Start times may be the computer clock time when a node was scheduled to run, when node inputs became available, when a node began computing, or the like. Stop times may be the computer clock time when a node was terminated, when node outputs became available, when a node stopped computing, or the like; see also, [0057-0058]); Applicant argues that Watt fails to teach “waiting until at least one ongoing action evaluation has finished”. In response, under broadest reasonable interpretation, Watt meets the limitations as claimed. Watt teaches waiting until at least one ongoing action evaluation has finished ([0064]: At block 726, the visualization tool may determine the level of concurrency of executing nodes just as at block 704 of process 700. At block 728, the visualization tool may determine the critical path through the parallel dependency graph. In one embodiment, the tool may determine the critical path at the same time it traverses the data file to determine concurrency levels. For example, starting with the last node to finish computing, the tool may traverse the data file backwards in time, identifying the concurrency levels along the way, as well as tracking the derivation or provenance of the last node to finish computing (some of the derivation nodes also being part of the critical path, as discussed above). In other embodiments, the tool may walk each path through the parallel dependency graph to determine the path with the longest runtime duration, in some cases by traversing each path in the data file marked by corresponding start times and stop times). During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” In re Hyatt 21 1 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Conclusion 07-39 AIA 6. 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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Contact Information 07-101 7. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VAN H. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-3765. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday from 9:00AM to 5:30 PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, LEWIS BULLOCK, can be reached at telephone number (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, 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. /VAN H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/169,364 Page 2 Art Unit: 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/169,364 Page 3 Art Unit: 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/169,364 Page 4 Art Unit: 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/169,364 Page 5 Art Unit: 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/169,364 Page 6 Art Unit: 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/169,364 Page 7 Art Unit: 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/169,364 Page 8 Art Unit: 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/169,364 Page 9 Art Unit: 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/169,364 Page 10 Art Unit: 2199
Prosecution Insights