DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
In view of Applicant’s amendment and remarks, the 101 rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
In view of Applicant’s amendment, the 112b rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 –
(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.
Claim(s) 9, 10, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by de Cesare et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0293401), hereinafter “Cesare”.
As per claim 9, Cesare discloses a method (abstract and claim 16) comprising:
in response to determining a first thread executing via a first processing core of a group of processing cores has failed to acquire a lock, determining, by a system comprising at least one processor, whether to put the first thread to sleep, comprising: determining an average acquire time for threads that have previously acquired the lock, wherein the lock is currently held by a second thread executing via a second processing core of the group of processing cores; comparing the average acquire time to a threshold acquire time, wherein the threshold acquire time is determined based on an estimated latency of putting the first thread to sleep and waking the first thread up from the sleep; and based on a result of the comparing being indicative that a defined criterion is satisfied, putting the first thread into the sleep, or based on the result of the comparing being indicative that the defined criterion is not satisfied, allowing the first thread to continue to execute via the first processing core (Claim 9 is a method claim and the remaining limitations recited after the preamble in claim 9 are contingent limitations upon the condition precedent of determining that a first thread executing via a first processing core of a group of processing cores has failed to acquire a lock. However, claim 9 does not positively recite that the condition precedent of determining that a first thread executing via a first processing core of a group of processing cores has failed to acquire a lock actually occurs. Therefore, the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of claim 9 is that the contingent limitations in claim 9 are not required to be performed because the condition precedent is not required to occur. See MPEP 2111.04(II) CONTINGENT LIMITATIONS.).
As per claims 10 and 12-15, they are method claims and find condition precedent (as well as antecedent basis) in claim 9. Since all the contingent limitations in claim 9 are not required to be performed as discussed above, it follows that the BRI of claims 10 and 12-15 is that the limitations in those claims are also not required to be performed. Therefore, claims 10 and 12-15 are also disclosed by Cesare, abstract and claim 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 9, 10, and 12-15 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 2, 4-8, and 16-22 are allowed.
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 Arpan P. Savla whose telephone number is (571)272-1077. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 10AM-6PM 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, John Cottingham can be reached at 571-272-1400. 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.
/Arpan P. Savla/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2137
Prosecution Insights