DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-16 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 2, 13, and 14 are amended.
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 1-16 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. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 1-16 are directed to systems and fall within the statutory category of machines.
Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 1 and 13: The limitations of “maintain a respective token count” and “determine whether to stall or propagate the respective task start signal… based on the respective token count,” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can easily keep a count of a number of objects and then use that count in some kind of algorithm to make a decision.
Therefore, Yes, claim 1 recites judicial exceptions.
The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1 and 13: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements – “data processors,” “thread schedulers,” “a bandwidth controller,” which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)) which do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, claims 1 and 14 recite the following additional element – “provide a respective start signal…,” which is merely a recitation of insignificant pre-solution data storage and reporting activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application and will also be addressed below in Step 2B as also being Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1 and 14 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1 and 13: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, 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 amount to no more than generic computing components which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, to the extent that “provide a respective task start signal” is a positively recited step of giving an instruction, this would be insignificant extra-solution data sharing activity which is also Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory”).
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, Claims 1 and 14 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 2-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as non-statutory for at least the reasons stated above. The claims are dependent on Claim 1, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the non-statutory deficiencies of Claim 1. Instead, the claims simply add further clarifications on the nature of the elements claimed claim 1, further generic computing elements, or further clarifications on the algorithm to be performed in completing the determining step. Claims 2-12 do not add any steps or elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert claim 1 into patent-eligible subject matter. Similarly, claims 14-16 do not add any steps or elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert claim 13 into patent-eligible subject matter.
Claims 1-16 are therefore not drawn to patent-eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to prior art rejections, applicant argues the following in the remarks:
a. The claims are not directed to an abstract idea of token counting. Instead, the claims are directed to a specific technological solution for bandwidth management in parallel image processing systems.
b. Claim 1 integrates the processing with a specific structure.
c. The claim recites consumer sockets.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant:
a. The examiner would point out that no such specific technological solution is claimed. Instead, claim 1 requires only a set of generic data processors coupled to thread schedulers that provide a start signal and a bandwidth controller that counts tokens and decides whether to stall or propagate the start signal based on the count.
The examiner would point out, for instance, that there is no explicit algorithm given for how the determining step is completed. Any possible and imaginable way of deciding whether to stall or propagate would fit within the claim limitations. Thus, there is no specific technological solution. Thus, the rejection stands.
b. According to the MPEP, in order to evaluate integration into a practical application, examiners identify whether there are additional elements and if there are, determine whether those additional elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
In this case, the additional elements amount to nothing more than generic computing elements (“data processors,” “thread schedulers,” “consumer sockets,” “bandwidth controllers”) with nothing more. There is simply nothing contained within the additional elements that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, the rejection stands.
c. The examiner would point out that claim 1, as written, does not even require the inclusion of consumer sockets. The only thing required is that somehow the thread schedulers are associated with them. “Associated with” is a very broad term that could encompass any number of possible relationships. The thread schedulers being associated with consumer sockets could mean nothing more than that the schedulers and sockets are within the same room. There is nothing in the claim language of claim 1 that actually requires the sockets to be a part of the system or to do anything, and even if there were, those same sockets would still be nothing more than generic computing elements. Thus, the rejection stands.
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 Gregory Kessler whose telephone number is (571)270-7762. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30 - 5, Alternate Fridays 8:30-4.
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 (571)272-3338. 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.
/GREGORY A KESSLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2197