DETAILED ACTION
This Office Actions is in response to communication filed on 05/24/2023
Claims 1 – 16 are pending. Claim 1 and 10 are in independent form.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the flowing informalities: “an designated task for each task request”. It should be “a designated task for each task request”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the flowing informalities: “each task request of the plurality of task requests comprises an designated task ID of an designated task and an input data requesting an inference service.”. it should be “each task request of the plurality of task requests comprises a designated task ID of a designated task and an input data requesting an inference service.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: “task IDs”. The term “IDs” need to be fully spelled out in claims 2 and 11. The remaining claims (e.g. claims 3 – 7), that use the term “IDs”, do not need to.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 1 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to claims 1 and 10, these claims are within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directing to:
Step 1:
Claim 1 is directed to system and falls within the statutory category of machines
Claim 10 is directed to a method and fall within the statutory category of process;
Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes, under Step 1.
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:
However, the limitations
Claims 1 and 10 “parse the plurality of task requests to derive a data length and an designated task for each task request; assign a plurality of first task requests of the plurality of task requests that are corresponding to the first shared model to a plurality of computation batches; perform a common computation for a plurality of designated tasks of a plurality of first task requests in each computation batch in batch according to the first shared model parameter set; perform task-specific computation operations for the plurality of designated tasks of the plurality of first task requests in each computation batch.”
as drafted, recite functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers functions that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. For example, a person can perform the parsing/identifying tasks that have same data length and same designated task, in their mind, and/or including with the aid of pen and paper. (See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
That is, the above limitations in the claims 1 and 10 as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A Prong 1.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Under Prong 2 Step 2A, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 1: “A batch computing system, comprising: a memory, configured to store a first shared model parameter set corresponding to a plurality of first tasks in common and a task-specific parameter set corresponding to each first task in the plurality of first tasks; a task manager; an inference computer, comprising: a preprocessing module; a batch assignment module; an inference execution module”
Claim 10: “An inference service method, comprising: in a registration stage, storing a first shared model parameter set corresponding to a plurality of first tasks in common and a task-specific parameter set of each first task of the plurality of first tasks in a memory,”
are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, or merely a generic computer or generic computer components to perform the judicial exception.
Further, the claims recite the following additional element:
Claims 1: receive a plurality of task requests; read a task-specific parameter set and a shared model parameter set of the designated task of each task request
Claim 10: receiving a plurality of task requests; reading a task-specific parameter set and a shared model parameter set of the designated task of each of the plurality of task requests from the memory
which is the limitation merely a recitation of limit the use of the abstract idea amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting - Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity - pre-solution and post-solution activity - mere data gathering. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process. As explained by the Supreme Court, the addition of insignificant extra-solution activity does not amount to an inventive concept, particularly when the activity is well-understood or conventional, which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. (See MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
In addition, the claims also recite the following additional elements:
Claims 1 and 10: wherein the plurality of first tasks are generated by fine tuning a first shared model.
which are merely recites "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. The above limitations invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process, or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Therefore, 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 the claims 1 and 10 do not only recites 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:
Under Step 2B, 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 and invoking computers and other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process, which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.
The claims recite the following additional elements:
Claims 1: receive a plurality of task requests; read a task-specific parameter set and a shared model parameter set of the designated task of each task request
Claim 10: receiving a plurality of task requests; reading a task-specific parameter set and a shared model parameter set of the designated task of each of the plurality of task requests from the memory
which is the limitation merely a recitation of limit the use of the abstract idea amounts to necessary data gathering and outputting - Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity - pre-solution and post-solution activity - mere data gathering. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. The courts have recognized the “sending and receiving data” are insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, and are limitations computer functions as well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC) functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. (See TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Specification described additional elements as “either performing basic computer functions such as sending and receiving data, or performing functions ‘known’ in the art.”) and MPEP § 2106.05(d)).
In addition, the claims also recite the following additional elements:
Claims 1 and 10: wherein the plurality of first tasks are generated by fine tuning a first shared model.
which are merely recites "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer, which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process include requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer. (See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015)) and MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
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 10 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Apply the same analysis to the dependent claims 2 – 9 and 11 – 16. The claims 2 – 9 and 11 – 16, according to the above analysis, are mental processes, groupings of abstract ideas. Thus claims 2 – 9 and 11 – 16 are ineligible.
With regard to claims 2 and 11, these claims have limitations to further indicate the receiving the plurality of first tasks. The limitations are the additional element analyzed under Prong 2 Step 2A, which are merely a recitation of limit the use of the abstract idea to insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity or are no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Further, these claims have limitation to further indicate the establish a plurality of first task IDs of the plurality of first tasks, and use the plurality of first task IDs as indexes to record the first shared model and task-specific computations corresponding to the plurality of first tasks. The limitation is the additional element analyzed under Prong 2 Step 2A, which merely recites "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Further, the claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, the claims do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claims 3 and 12, these claims have limitations to further indicate the receiving a plurality of second tasks generated by fine tuning a second shared model. The limitations are the additional element analyzed under Prong 2 Step 2A, which are merely a recitation of limit the use of the abstract idea to insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity or are no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Further, these claims have limitation to further indicate the establish a plurality of second task IDs of the plurality of second tasks, and use the plurality of second task IDs as indexes to record the second shared model and task-specific computations corresponding to the plurality of second tasks. The limitation is the additional element analyzed under Prong 2 Step 2A, which merely recites "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Further, the claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, the claims do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claims 4 and 13, these claims have limitation to further indicate the establish a model ID corresponding to the first shared model and a model ID corresponding to the second shared model, and record a model ID corresponding to each task ID according to a shared model corresponding to each task of the plurality of first tasks and the plurality of second tasks. The limitation is the additional element analyzed under Prong 2 Step 2A, which merely recites "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Further, the claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, the claims do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claims 5 and 14, these claims have limitation to further indicate the establish a plurality of specific computation IDs corresponding to a plurality of task-specific computations, and record a specific computation ID corresponding to each task ID according to a task-specific computation corresponding to each task of the plurality of first tasks and the plurality of second tasks. The limitation is the additional element analyzed under Prong 2 Step 2A, which merely recites "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Further, the claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, the claims do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claims 6 and 15, these claims have limitations to further indicate the each task request of the plurality of task requests comprises an designated task ID of an designated task and an input data requesting an inference service. The limitations are the additional element analyzed under Prong 2 Step 2A, which are merely a recitation of limit the use of the abstract idea to insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity or are no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Further, the claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, the claims do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 7 the claim has limitations to further indicate the transferring a plurality of task IDs of the plurality of task requests to the task manager; read a shared model parameter set and a task-specific parameter set of the designated task of each task request from the memory according to the plurality of task IDs. The limitations are the additional element analyzed under Prong 2 Step 2A, which are merely a recitation of limit the use of the abstract idea to insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity or are no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Further, the claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, the claim does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claims 8 and 16, these claims have limitation to further indicate the assembling a plurality of first task requests of the plurality of first task requests corresponding to a same first task and having similar data lengths to a same sub-computation batch, and then assembles a plurality of sub-computation batches having similar data lengths and different designated tasks to a computation batch of the plurality of computation batches. The limitation is the additional element analyzed under Prong 2 Step 2A, which merely recites "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer. Further, the claims do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claims also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, the claims do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 9, the claim further including the limitation of “perform a plurality of task-specific computation operations corresponding to the plurality of first tasks” that fall with the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, which is analyzed under Prong 1 Step 2A. Further, the claim does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, the claim also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, the claim does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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 task manager, configured to access...... – in claims 1, 2, 7.
A registration module, configured to receive, establish, use, record...... – in claims 2, 3, 4, 5.
A load module, configured to read...... – in claims 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification (e.g. [0015]: “a batch computing system”) as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. However, the specification only provides generic processing device structure that amounts to a generic computer. When the corresponding structure for a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112 is a generic computer, we also need an algorithm to transform the generic computer into a special purpose computer that is sufficient to be corresponding structure under 35 U.S.C. § 112. MPEP § 2181(II)(B) states that “For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign. Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1367, 88 USPQ2d 1751, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See also In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297, 99 USPQ2d 1936, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]hen the disclosed structure is a computer programmed to carry out an algorithm, ‘the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather that special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.’") (quoting WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999))”
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claim limitations: “A task manager, a registration module, and a load module configured to…” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification discloses “the processing device” (e.g. [0015]: “a batch computing system”) as performing the claimed function. When the corresponding structure for a limitation that invokes 35 U.S.C. § 112 is a generic computer, we also need and algorithm to transform the generic computer into a special purpose computer that is sufficient to be corresponding structure under 35 U.S.C. § 112. MPEP § 2181(II)(B). The specification does not provide the necessary algorithm. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Remaining dependent claims 8 – 9 are also rejected due to their dependency on the rejected independent claim 1.
Claims 1 – 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites the limitation:
a batch assignment module, configured to assign a plurality of first task requests of the plurality of task requests...
and an inference execution module, configured to perform a common computation for a plurality of designated tasks of a plurality of first task requests in each computation batch...
and perform task-specific computation operations for the plurality of designated tasks of the plurality of first task requests in each computation batch.
There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear which “plurality of first task requests” that the “the plurality of first task requests” is referring to.
Claim 10 is also rejected due to the same reasons of the rejection of claim 1.
Remaining dependent claims 2 – 9 and 10 – 16 are also rejected due to their dependency on the rejected independent claims 1 and 10.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites the limitation “and the plurality of second tasks.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear which “the plurality of second tasks” is referring to, as the limitation “the plurality of second tasks” is mention in claims 3, and claim 5 is not depended on claim 3.
Claim 14 is also rejected due to the same reasons of the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites the limitation: “wherein: the batch assignment module first assembles a plurality of first task requests of the plurality of first task requests corresponding to a same first task”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. It is unclear which “plurality of first task requests” that the “the plurality of first task requests” is referring to, because claim 1 also recites the limitation: “a plurality of first task requests”.
Claim 16 is also rejected due to the same reasons of the rejection of claim 8.
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.
Claims 1 – 9 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. The claims 9-20 lack corresponding structures for claim limitation that invoke 112(f) and being rejected under 112(b). Therefore, the claims also lack writing description under 112(a). MPEP § 2181(II)(B) last paragraph states that “When a claim containing a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, it will also lack written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).”)
Remaining dependent claims 8 – 9 are also rejected due to their dependency on the rejected independent claim 1.
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, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LINDBO et al. US Pub. No. US 20230097319 A1 (hereafter LINDBO), in further view of Bhimani US Pub. No. US 20180060125 A1 (hereafter Bhimani) and TORRES et al. US Pub. No. US 20210209513 A1 (hereafter TORRES)
Regarding claim 1, LINDBO teaches the invention substantially as claimed: A batch computing system, comprising: a memory, configured to store a first shared model parameter set corresponding to a plurality of first tasks in common and a task-specific parameter set corresponding to each first task in the plurality of first tasks, (e.g. FIG. 2, [0069]: FIG. 2 schematically illustrates an example arrangement with an example apparatus 290 according to some embodiments. The apparatus 290 is for controlling execution in a parallel processing device (PPD) 210 of a plurality of processing jobs.” and [0041]: “The parallel processing device may generally be any suitable device for parallel processing of a plurality of processing jobs. Examples of the parallel processing device include a graphics processing unit (GPU)” and FIG. 5 and [0121]: “FIG. 5 illustrates an example computer readable medium in the form of a compact disc (CD) ROM 500. The computer readable medium has stored there on a computer program comprising program instructions.” and FIG. 4 and [0111]: “In the uplink scenario of part (a), I/O data is received from four baseband ports and put into four input buffers (P1, P2, P3, P4) 411a-d of a memory (MEM) 410” and [0116]) The citation discloses the apparatus 290/batch computing system, and memory for storing data relates to processing jobs.
and an inference computer, comprising: a preprocessing module, configured to, in a service stage, receive a plurality of task requests, (e.g. FIG. 2, [0069]: FIG. 2 schematically illustrates an example arrangement with an example apparatus 290 according to some embodiments. The apparatus 290 is for controlling execution in a parallel processing device (PPD) 210 of a plurality of processing jobs.” and [0041]: “The parallel processing device may generally be any suitable device for parallel processing of a plurality of processing jobs. Examples of the parallel processing device include a graphics processing unit (GPU)” and FIG. 4 and [0111]: “In the uplink scenario of part (a), I/O data is received from four baseband ports and put into four input buffers (P1, P2, P3, P4) 411a-d of a memory (MEM) 410” and [0116]) The citation discloses the parallel processing device could be a GPU/inference computer, that comprises a buffer for receiving data. At FIG. 4 and [0111] and [0116] discloses the MEM 410 receives plurality of input.
parse the plurality of task requests to derive a data length and an designated task for each task request, (e.g. [0049]: “The grouping of processing jobs in step 130 may comprise letting processing jobs having one or more characteristics or parameters in common belong to the same group. This may be particularly beneficial when the common characteristics or parameters affect the execution of the processing jobs.” and [0056]: “Alternatively or additionally, the grouping of processing jobs in step 130 may comprise letting processing jobs having a same, or similar, execution time belong to the same group. For example, the grouping of processing jobs in step 130 may comprise letting processing jobs with respective expected processing times that falls within a processing time range belong to the same group.” and [0050 – 0055]) The citation discloses at [0049] the method of grouping of processing jobs having one or more characteristics or parameters in common, therefore, it would imply that processing jobs that have the same execution time and other characteristics could be group together. At [0056] the grouping of processing jobs that having same or similar execution time/data length. At [0050 – 0055] discloses some of the processing jobs that have the characteristics or parameters in common, are grouping together.
and an inference execution module, configured to perform a common computation for a plurality of designated tasks of a plurality of first task requests in each computation batch in batch according to the first shared model parameter set, (e.g. [0061]: “In step 150, the processing jobs are launched. Launching comprises using a single execution call for each group, wherein the single execution call causes processing of all processing jobs of the corresponding group.” and [0062], [0063]: “In some embodiments, processing jobs may be executed in parallel within the group when they have one or more characteristic in common. For example, processing jobs which comprise a call to the same function may be executed in parallel.”) The citation discloses the processing jobs within the same group are being executed in parallel/in batch.
and perform task-specific computation operations for the plurality of designated tasks of the plurality of first task requests in each computation batch. (e.g. [0064]: “In some embodiments, the processing jobs of a group are organized in an execution graph, wherein a node of the execution graph represents one or more processing jobs of the group. In such embodiments, branches of the graph may be executed in parallel. Alternatively or additionally, launching the processing of the processing jobs of such a group may comprise initiating execution of one or more initial nodes of the execution graph using the single execution call.”) The citation discloses the execution of one or more nodes/task-specific computation operations, when the system performs the execution of the processing jobs of a group/plurality of designated tasks of the plurality of first task requests.
LINDBO fails to teach wherein the plurality of first tasks are generated by fine tuning the first shared model; a task manager, configured to access parameters stored in the memory; ........ and enable the task manager to read a task-specific parameter set and a shared model parameter set of the designated task of each task request; a batch assignment module, configured to assign a plurality of first task requests of the plurality of task requests that are corresponding to the first shared model to a plurality of computation batches
However, TORRES teaches wherein the plurality of first tasks are generated by fine tuning the first shared model (e.g. FIG. 4B and [0021]: “As shown in FIG. 4B, to process requests including multiple types of NLP tasks, the ML system 130 may load multiple output layers 230a-n and/or adapter layers 226a-n into a base model 220 to generate a fine-tuned model for multiple NLP tasks, for example, sentiment analysis, named entity recognition, document classification, and the like. The multi-task fine-tuned model 252 may then generate predictions 164 using each task specific set of adapter layers 226a-n and output layers 230a-n. Predictions 164 for multiple tasks (e.g., task 1, task 2, task N, and the like) output by the ML system 130 are then distributed to one or more instances of an NLP application. In various embodiments, multi-task fine-tuned models 252 may be assembled to reduce the processing time and computational resources required to generate predictions for multiple NLP tasks.”) The citation discloses the multi-task fine-tuned model generates predictions comprise multiples tasks task 1, task 2, task N, and the like.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the wherein the plurality of first tasks are generated by fine tuning the first shared model, as taught in TORRES’s invention into LINDBO’s invention because by using fine-tuning model to generate the tasks, the system can improve the efficiency of the model training process and improve overall data quality by eliminating common causes of human error. (TORRES – [0010] and [0011])
However, Bhimani teaches a task manager, configured to access parameters stored in the memory; (e.g. [0077]: “Utilizing the results of the analyses of the above described homogeneous and heterogeneous systems, a controller (an intelligent controller) according to example embodiments of the present invention utilizes workload characteristics/properties including, but not limited to, random writing, sequential writing, read intensive and write intensive, to make the determination on the distribution of the buckets (or containers or workloads contained therein) to one or more of the storage devices that may be of one type or a mixed type including different types of storage devices.”) The citation discloses the controller/task manager, that uses the workload characteristics/properties to make the determination on the distribution of the buckets. Since the controller can utilizes workload characteristics/properties, it would imply that the controller has access to the memory for retrieving the workload characteristics/properties information.
and enable the task manager to read a task-specific parameter set and a shared model parameter set of the designated task of each task request; (e.g. [0082]: “As such, the workload characteristic detector 304 may also receive information 306 on the pre-known nature (or pre-known characteristics) about the workload or workloads. Utilizing the information 306 and/or any ongoing observed characteristics, the workload characteristic detector 304 assigns the container of the workload one or more labels or characteristics, illustrated by the workload “buckets” 308, each of which has an associated (or existing) workload character/property W1, W2 or W3.” and [0084]: “The workload characteristic detector 304 according to example embodiments may take pre-known nature 306 of some applications/workloads and/or perform run-time workload characterization.”) The citation discloses the workload characteristic detector receives information about the characteristics of the workload/ task. It would imply that the characteristics includes the task-specific parameter and shared model parameter, because the workload characteristic detector bases on the characteristics information to assign the workload into the corresponding bucket.
a batch assignment module, configured to assign a plurality of first task requests of the plurality of task requests that are corresponding to the first shared model to a plurality of computation batches; ([0082] As such, the workload characteristic detector 304 may also receive information 306 on the pre-known nature (or pre-known characteristics) about the workload or workloads. Utilizing the information 306 and/or any ongoing observed characteristics, the workload characteristic detector 304 assigns the container of the workload one or more labels or characteristics, illustrated by the workload “buckets” 308, each of which has an associated (or existing) workload character/property W1, W2 or W3. To this end, after workloads (and/or the characteristics) are detected, the workload's container may be grouped based on different characteristics into the workload buckets 308 (W1-W3). Here, each group may have similar types of properties” and [0083]: “Once a container is characterized, it is assigned to a device by the controller 312, and it runs on that device normally. Also, there may not be a one-to-one mapping between the buckets 308 and the devices 314, such that any suitable number of the buckets may be mapped to any suitable number of the devices 314, and multiple buckets may be assigned to one device, if the workloads they represent are compatible. Here, the controller 312 understands the workload characteristics and which workloads would have a conflict with each other and may assign (e.g., intelligently assign) the buckets (or containers) to a device or devices that do not have conflicting workload types”) The citations disclose after the workload’s containers are characterized, the controller/batch assignment module, assigned the workload’s containers to the corresponding devices for processing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the a task manager, configured to access parameters stored in the memory; enable the task manager to read a task-specific parameter set and a shared model parameter set of the designated task of each task request; a batch assignment module, configured to assign a plurality of first task requests of the plurality of task requests that are corresponding to the first shared model to a plurality of computation batches, as taught in Bhimani’s invention into LINDBO’s invention because the additional feature enable the task request that use the same shared model to be grouped and processed together more efficiently, and would help the whole system to reduce repeated work, lower processing time, and improve overall system throughput.
Regarding claim 9, LINDBO, in view of Bhimani, and TORRES, discloses the batch computing system of claim 1, and LINDBO further teach wherein the inference execution module further comprises a plurality of specific computation modules, configured to perform a plurality of task-specific computation operations corresponding to the plurality of first tasks. (e.g. [0014]: “In some embodiments, the processing jobs of each group are organized in an execution graph, wherein a node of the execution graph represents one or more processing jobs of the group, and wherein launching processing of the processing jobs of the group comprises initiating execution of one or more initial nodes of the execution graph using the single execution call.” and FIG. 3 and [0064]: “In some embodiments, the processing jobs of a group are organized in an execution graph, wherein a node of the execution graph represents one or more processing jobs of the group. In such embodiments, branches of the graph may be executed in parallel. Alternatively or additionally, launching the processing of the processing jobs of such a group may comprise initiating execution of one or more initial nodes of the execution graph using the single execution call.”) The citation discloses the execution of one or more nodes/task-specific computation operations, when the system performs the execution of the processing jobs of a group/plurality of designated tasks of the plurality of first task requests. Each node is the computational modules that responsible for processing jobs.
Regarding claim 10, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 1, so it is also rejected under the same rational.
Claims 2, 5, 6, 11, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LINDBO, Bhimani, and TORRES, in further view of NAGAHARA US Pub. No. US 20220383212 A1
Regarding claim 2, LINDBO, in view of Bhimani, and TORRES, discloses the batch computing system of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the task manager comprises a registration module, configured to, in a registration stage, receive the plurality of first tasks, establish a plurality of first task IDs of the plurality of first tasks, and use the plurality of first task IDs as indexes to record the first shared model and task-specific computations corresponding to the plurality of first tasks.
However, NAGAHARA teaches wherein the task manager comprises a registration module, configured to, in a registration stage, receive the plurality of first tasks, (e.g. FIG. 1A and [0030]: “The input unit 110 receives input of various types of information from an outside of the production simulation device 100...... The storage unit 120 includes a production performance data storage region 121”) The citation discloses the input unit/registration module, receive information/tasks, and stores in the storage unit.
establish a plurality of first task IDs of the plurality of first tasks (e.g. FIG. 2 and [0044]: “The job ID column 211 stores information for specifying each production job (also simply referred to as a job). The job represents an object to be processed in the production process.” and [0045]: “Each process in each job is referred to as a task. That is, one row in the production performance data table 210 corresponds to one task.”) The citation discloses at FIG. 4 the job IDs JOO1/task IDs of the plurality of first tasks.
and use the plurality of first task IDs as indexes to record the first shared model and task-specific computations corresponding to the plurality of first tasks. (e.g. FIG. 2 and [0046]: “The apparatus ID column 217 and the operator ID column 218 store information for identifying the apparatus and the operator that process the process of the job, respectively.”) The citation discloses the apparatus ID/shared model, and the operator ID/task-specific computations, which responsible for processing of the job.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the wherein the task manager comprises a registration module, configured to, in a registration stage, receive the plurality of first tasks, establish a plurality of first task IDs of the plurality of first tasks, and use the plurality of first task IDs as indexes to record the first shared model and task-specific computations corresponding to the plurality of first tasks, as taught in NAGAHARA’s invention into LINDBO, Bhimani, and TORRES’s invention because the newly added limitation would help the system to quickly find the correct parameters and operations for each task request, which reduces lookup time, avoid confusions between task, and makes the overall processing more efficient and reliable.
Regarding claim 5, LINDBO, in view of Bhimani, TORRES and NAGAHARA, discloses the batch computing system of claim 2, and NAGAHARA further teaches further teaches wherein the registration module is further configured to, in the registration stage, establish a plurality of specific computation IDs corresponding to a plurality of task-specific computations, and record a specific computation ID corresponding to each task ID according to a task-specific computation corresponding to each task of the plurality of first tasks and the plurality of second tasks. (e.g. FIG. 2 and [0046]: “The apparatus ID column 217 and the operator ID column 218 store information for identifying the apparatus and the operator that process the process of the job, respectively.”) The citation the operator ID/task-specific computation ID, which responsible for processing of the job. FIG. 4 discloses a table for record which operator that responsible for processing the job/task, bases on job ID.
Regarding claim 6, LINDBO, in view of Bhimani, TORRES and NAGAHARA, discloses the batch computing system of claim 2, and NAGAHARA further teaches further teaches wherein: each task request of the plurality of task requests comprises an designated task ID of an designated task and an input data requesting an inference service. (e.g. FIG. 1A and [0030]: “The input unit 110 receives input of various types of information from an outside of the production simulation device 100...... The storage unit 120 includes a production performance data storage region 121”) and FIG. 2 and [0044]: “The job ID column 211 stores information for specifying each production job (also simply referred to as a job) ....... The process ID column 214 stores information for identifying the process of the process number of the item.” and FIG.7 and [0053]: “The apparatus allocation rule ID column 262 stores information for specifying an apparatus allocation rule in the process. The apparatus allocation rule is a rule for determining which apparatus is to be assigned to each task corresponding to one process when a plurality of allocatable apparatuses are defined for the process on the production process data table 220.”) The citation discloses at FIG. 1A and [0030] the input unit receive information, and stores in the storage unit. FIG. 2 and [0044] discloses the job ID and process ID stores information for identifying the process /input data requesting an inference service. FIG. 7 and [0053] discloses the apparatus allocation rule is a rule for determining which apparatus is to be assigned to each task corresponding to one process. As the storage is used for storing information received from the input unit, and table of FIG. 2 is stored in the storage, it would imply that the information received by the input unit includes the information stored in the table of FIG. 2.
Regarding claim 11, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 2, so it is also rejected under the same rational.
Regarding claim 14, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 5, so it is also rejected under the same rational.
Regarding claim 15, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 6, so it is also rejected under the same rational.
Claims 3, 4, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LINDBO, Bhimani, TORRES, and NAGAHARA, in further view of SHIRATANI US Pub. No. US 20220335610 A1
Regarding claim 3, LINDBO, in view of Bhimani, TORRES, and NAGAHARA discloses the batch computing system of claim 2, and NAGAHARA further teaches, establish a plurality of second task IDs of the plurality of second tasks, (e.g. FIG. 2 and [0044]: “The job ID column 211 stores information for specifying each production job (also simply referred to as a job). The job represents an object to be processed in the production process.” and [0045]: “Each process in each job is referred to as a task. That is, one row in the production performance data table 210 corresponds to one task.”) The citation discloses at FIG. 4 the job IDs JOO2/task IDs of the plurality of second tasks.
and use the plurality of second task IDs as indexes to record the second shared model and task-specific computations corresponding to the plurality of second tasks. (e.g. FIG. 2 and [0046]: “The apparatus ID column 217 and the operator ID column 218 store information for identifying the apparatus and the operator that process the process of the job, respectively.”) The citation discloses the apparatus ID/shared model, and the operator ID/task-specific computations, which responsible for processing of the job.
LINDBO, in view of Bhimani, TORRES, and NAGAHARA fails to teach wherein the registration module is further configured to, in the registration stage, receive a plurality of second tasks generated by fine tuning a second shared model.
However, SHIRATANI teaches wherein the registration module is further configured to, in the registration stage, receive a plurality of second tasks generated by fine tuning a second shared model (e.g. FIG. 12 and [0119]: “FIG. 12 illustrates a configuration example of the training device 100 in accordance with the second embodiment. The training section 120 of the training device 100 includes the pre-training section 121, an observation method-mixed fine-tuning section 123, an observation method-specific fine-tuning section 124”) The citation discloses a system comprises two fine-tuning model 123 and 124. By combining the system has 2 fine-tuning model with the fine-tuning model that can produce multiple tasks (taught by TORRES at FIG. 4B), one with the ordinary skills in the art would be able to come up with the claim invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the wherein the registration module is further configured to, in the registration stage, receive a plurality of second tasks generated by fine tuning a second shared model, as taught in SHIRATANI’s invention into LINDBO, Bhimani, TORRES, and NAGAHARA’s invention because the new feature would allow the system to manage multiple share models in a clear and organized way by assigning different task IDs for different share model. Therefore, the system can quickly select the correct shared model and computations for each task, which reduces errors, request handling more accurate, and supports efficient processing across different models.
Regarding claim 4, LINDBO, in view of Bhimani, TORRES, and SHIRATANI, discloses the batch computing system of claim 3, and NAGAHARA further teaches wherein the registration module is further configured to, in the registration stage, establish a model ID corresponding to the first shared model and a model ID corresponding to the second shared model, and record a model ID corresponding to each task ID according to a shared model corresponding to each task of the plurality of first tasks and the plurality of second tasks. (e.g. FIG. 2 and [0046]: “The apparatus ID column 217 and the operator ID column 218 store information for identifying the apparatus and the operator that process the process of the job, respectively.”) The citation the apparatus ID/model ID, which responsible for processing of the job. FIG. 4 discloses a table for record which model that responsible for processing the job/task, bases on job ID.
Regarding claim 12, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 3, so it is also rejected under the same rational.
Regarding claim 13, it is a method claim having similar limitations cited in claim 4, so it is also rejected under the same rational.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LINDBO, Bhimani, TORRES, and NAGAHARA, in further view of Fenzl et al. US Pub. No. US 20220398255 A1 (hereafter Fenzl)
Regarding claim 7, LINDBO, in view of Bhimani, TORRES, and NAGAHARA discloses the batch computing system of claim 6, but fails to teach wherein in the service stage, the preprocessing module transfers a plurality of task IDs of the plurality of task requests to the task manager; and the task manager further comprises a load module, configured to, in the service stage, read a shared model parameter set and a task-specific parameter set of the designated task of each task request from the memory according to the plurality of task IDs.
However, Fenzl teaches wherein: in the service stage, the preprocessing module transfers a plurality of task IDs of the plurality of task requests to the task manager; (e.g. FIG. 2 and [0024]: “In FIG. 2, data collector 205 receives data from the network elements database 202. This data may include names, workload identifiers, workload identifying metadata, or other information” and [0025]: “The data collector 205 sends the workload data to a manager 210.”) The citation discloses the data collector/preprocessing module, after receive data (include workload identifiers/task IDs), send the workload data to the manager/task manager
and the task manager further comprises a load module, configured to, in the service stage, read a shared model parameter set and a task-specific parameter set of the designated task of each task request from the memory according to the plurality of task IDs. (e.g. [0026]: “The manager 210 sends the workload data (workload IDs, names, identifying metadata, etc.) to the analysis database 215” and [0028]: “The analysis database 215 thus has the data necessary to generate a display. An administrator activates the interface module 230 (e.g., through a GUI that can access the workload clustering application) to call up the display. The interface module 230 retrieves the workload and cluster data from the manager 210 (or in some embodiments, directly from the analysis database 215).” The citation discloses the manager send the workload data to the analysis database/load module, to generate the display. As the analysis database uses the received workload data to generate the display, it would imply that the analysis database read the data relate to the workload to generate the display.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the in the service stage, the preprocessing module transfers a plurality of task IDs of the plurality of task requests to the task manager; and the task manager further comprises a load module, configured to, in the service stage, read a shared model parameter set and a task-specific parameter set of the designated task of each task request from the memory according to the plurality of task IDs, as taught in Fenzl’s invention into LINDBO, Bhimani, TORRES, and NAGAHARA’s invention because the new feature would enable the system to use the task IDs to read the correct model and parameter related to the task from memory, so the system can load the needed data faster and more accurately, which reduces system overhead and improves overall processing efficiency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 16 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.
Conclusion
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraphs/sections and line numbers in the references applied and not relied upon to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to 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.
When responding to the Office action, applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the reference(s) cited or the objections made. A showing of how the amendments avoid such references or objections must also be present. See 37 C.F.R. 1.111(c).
When responding to this Office action, applicant is advised to provide the line and page numbers in the application and/or reference(s) cited to assist in locating the appropriate paragraphs
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUAN M NGUYEN whose telephone number is (703)756-1599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 9:30am - 5:30PM ET.
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, Pierre Vital can be reached at (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 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.
/TUAN M NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2198
/PIERRE VITAL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2198