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 .
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination in this application. The application filing date on 06/26/2023. Claims 1, 11 and 16 are independent.
Examiner notes
(A). Examiner notes that “computer-readable storage medium” as that term is used in the present disclosure, is not to be construed as storage in the form of transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freely propagating electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves propagating through waveguide, light pulses passing through a fiber optic cable, electrical signals as per paragraph 0007 which have been recited in claim 16.
(B). Drawings submitted on 06/26/2023 comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(d).
(C). IDS submitted on 06/23/2026 have been fully considered by the Examiner.
(D). Limitations have been provided with the Bold fonts in order to distinguish from the cited part of the reference (Italic).
(E). Examiner has cited particular columns, line numbers, references, or figures in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses to fully consider the reference in entirety, as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2141.02 VI and 2123.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111 (c).
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 9 is 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.
Claim 9, line 4, “can be” is indefinite. For the examination purposes, it will be treated as---to be--.
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 of this title, 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.
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.
Claims 1, 4-6, 11, 14-16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ponsini et al (US 20240095328 A1, hereinafter Ponsini) in view of Krajec et al (US 20140019598 A1, hereinafter Krajec) and Everitt et al. (US 20190235999 A1, hereinafter Everitt).
As to claim 1, Ponsini discloses a computer-implemented method for profiling an online transaction processing environment application using a batch profiler program converted to an interactive profiler program, the computer-implemented method comprising:
generating, by a computer, an application extent list parameter for an application (par. 0029, application within the JCRE may be referred to as a Java Card applet. The JCRE includes a firewall mechanism that isolates different applets on the smart card and a sharing mechanism that allows applets to explicitly make objects available to other applets. The JCRE further includes a Java Card Virtual Machine (JCVM) that runs bytecode, which is generated using a different encoding schema than the full JRE. Generally, the encoding schema of the JCRE reduces the memory footprint of an application to optimize for the application for execution by SE hardware 102, which generally includes much more constraints than host hardware 128. For example, the size of SE memory 116 may be much smaller than host memory 136 and the speed of SE processor 104 may be much slower than host processor 140. Further, the native instruction set architecture (ISA) of SE processor 104 may be smaller or otherwise different than the ISA of host processor 140. One optimization technique to account for the constraints is to divide an application's code into packages below a size threshold … . Note: applicant’s spec 0003, define an application extent list parameter for an application based on an instruction memory address corresponding to the application and a size of the application in memory) based on an instruction memory address corresponding to the application and a size of the application in response to the computer determining that the application is found in memory of the computer (pars. 0049-0052, [0049]A set of memory segment entries bound to the LSE. A memory segment entry may identify the type of memory (e.g., ROM, OTP, NVM, RAM), a memory address identifying the start location for the memory segment, and a length of the memory segment. [0050] Personalization data that identifies user customizations and configurations associated with the LSE. [0051] Memory management data such as stack and frame pointers, which may be dereferenced to access parameters, local variables, and other data for executing one or more LSE applets. [0052] Application management data such a secure channel registry and an installed applications table to indicate what LSE application. … Further, par. [0123], … The custom applications may be created using programming languages, libraries, services, and tools supported by the service provider …);
Ponsini does not explicitly disclose the following limitation but,
Krajec discloses substituting, by the computer, an application token parameter for the application with an application name of the application and a library name of a library that includes a dataset definition name corresponding to a location of the application (par. 0064, … substitution schemes, or other techniques to make protect the sensitive data. In some cases, the obfuscator 108 may create a lookup database 112 that may contain the raw and obfuscated values for the traced data. Further, par. 0083, Cleartext descriptors of application elements may include function names, variable names, data object names, record descriptors, column descriptors, annotations, method names, class names, library names, file names, parameter names, tags, control flow diagrams, and other descriptors. Typically, such descriptors may be created by a programmer or developer and may reflect the programmer's intent or logic. Further, par. 0232, The distributor 1206 may operate at a location in an application where instrumentation may be desired. In some cases, the distributor 1206 may be a function call or other instruction that may be inserted into an application. Such an instruction may be added to a user's application by a programmer); and
providing, by the computer, the application extent list parameter corresponding to the application, the application name of the application, and the library name of the library that includes the dataset definition name corresponding to the location of the application see par. 0083, Cleartext descriptors of application elements may include function names, variable names, data object names, record descriptors, column descriptors, annotations, method names, class names, library names, file names, parameter names, tags, control flow diagrams, and other descriptors … . Further, par. 0098, … The raw trace data 226 may include data elements processed by the applications 254, as well as references to application elements such as function names and other descriptors. Further, par 0109, Embodiment 300 illustrates an interaction between a device 302 in a secure location with a remote device 304 which may be outside the secure location. Trace data are gathered on the device 302, obfuscated, and transmitted to the remote device 304. The remote device 304 may process only the obfuscated data to create certain result)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Ponsini to include substituting and providing, by the computer, an application token parameter for the application with an application name of the application and a library name of a library that, as disclosed by Krajec, for the purpose to reflect confidential information that underlying logic or program flow, which may be separate from the confidential nature of the data handled by the application (see paragraph 0084 of Krajec).
Everitt discloses to the interactive profiler program to profile the application running in an online transaction processing environment (par. 0061, the application includes one or more commands for database access, for online transaction processing [i.e. interactive profiler program] and for calls to statically linked application sub-programs and each command has a vector in constant storage with an address to a handler for the corresponding database or transaction command. Note: examiner interpreted interactive profile program as online transaction per applicant’s spec paragraph 0028);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Ponsini to include running, by the computer, the application together with the interactive program in the online transaction processing environment in response to invoking the interactive profiler program to run in the online transaction processing environment, as disclosed by Everitt, for the purpose for online transaction processing and for calls to statically linked application sub-programs. (see paragraph 0061 of Everitt).
As to claim 4, Everitt discloses the computer-implemented method further comprising:
running, by the computer, the application together with the interactive profiler program in the online transaction processing environment in response to invoking (par. 0061, the application includes one or more commands for database access, for online transaction processing [i.e. interactive profiler program] and for calls to statically linked application sub-programs and each command has a vector in constant storage with an address to a handler for the corresponding database or transaction command. Note: examiner interpreted interactive profile program as online transaction per applicant’s spec paragraph 0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Ponsini to include running, by the computer, the application together with the interactive program in the online transaction processing environment in response to invoking the interactive profiler program to run in the online transaction processing environment, as disclosed by Everitt, for the purpose for online transaction processing and for calls to statically linked application sub-programs. (see paragraph 0061 of Everitt).
As to claim 5, Ponsini discloses the computer-implemented method further comprising:
determining, by the computer, the instruction memory address corresponding to the application (pars. 0049-0050, …, a memory address identifying the start location for the memory segment, and a length of the memory segment. [0050] Personalization data that identifies user customizations and configurations associated with the LSE. …); and
the size of the application based on the instruction memory address (Ponsini par. 0029, … The JCRE further includes a Java Card Virtual Machine (JCVM) that runs bytecode, which is generated using a different encoding schema than the full JRE. Generally, the encoding schema of the JCRE reduces the memory footprint of an application to optimize for the application for execution by SE hardware 102, … Further, the native instruction set architecture (ISA) of SE processor 104 may be smaller or otherwise different than the ISA of host processor 140. One optimization technique to account for the constraints is to divide an application's code into packages below a size threshold and to restrict the packages that programming language constructs that are available within the environment. Further, par. 0032, … memory segments, and/or perform memory management operations including allocating [i.e. memory instruction] runtime memory for an applet that is currently running within the runtime environment. The SESS-code [i.e. application / software] may be common to LSEs 108a-n to optimize for size).
Everitt discloses invoking, by the computer, using the interactive profiler program, a new application lookup service of the computer that operates in the online transaction processing environment (par. 0061, the application includes one or more commands for database access, for online transaction processing [i.e. interactive profiler program] and for calls to statically linked application sub-programs and each command has a vector in constant storage with an address to a handler for the corresponding database or transaction command. Further, par. 0123, … the search query [i.e. lookup] may also require the values of the input host variables to uniquely identify the SQLcall object. The technique used—sequential or query—depends on the particular SQL statement type and if input host variables exist or not. In the event the application has changed Note: examiner interpreted interactive profile program as online transaction per applicant’s spec paragraph 0028) to obtain the application name of the application (par. 0059, … JCL tells the operating system the name of an application program 21 to launch as well as where to find the application program 21 and its subprograms 22. JCL also specifies where to retrieve input parameters 23 and store output parameters 24, the names of input data files 25 [i.e. application], the names of output data files 26, and information needed by databases 27 and other sub-systems accessed by the application. … ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Ponsini to include invoking, by the computer, using the interactive profiler program, a new application lookup service of the computer that operates in the online transaction processing environment to obtain the application name of the application, as disclosed by Everitt, for the purpose for online transaction processing and for calls to statically linked application sub-programs. (see paragraph 0061 of Everitt).
As to claim 6, Ponsini discloses the computer-implemented method wherein the computer determines the instruction memory address corresponding to the application at a moment when an instruction of the application is loaded to memory of the computer (par. 0036, … , SE memory 116 securely stores data for LSEs 108a-n. SE memory 116 may include one or more types of volatile and/or non-volatile storage such as read-only memory (ROM) 118, random-access memory (RAM) 120, non-volatile memory (NVM) 124, and one-time programmable (OTP) memory 126. ... . Further, par. 0049, … A memory segment entry may identify the type of memory (e.g., ROM, OTP, NVM, RAM), a memory address identifying the start location for the memory segment, and a length of the memory segment. ... .Further, par. 0083, … In operation 510, SESS-code 202 identifies the one or more cryptographic keys that have been bound to the target LSE. For example, SESS-code 202 may parse the table entry for the currently activated LSE using the address stored in switch memory area 204. …).
As to claim 11, Ponsini-Krajec-Everitt discloses a computer system for profiling an online transaction processing environment application using a batch profiler program converted to an interactive profiler program, the computer system comprising:
a communication fabric (Ponsini at par. 0058, … profile data may vary for different mobile carrier networks and MNOs. SIM applets may execute various SIM-specific functions such as connecting to a carrier network, logging events (e.g., recent calls, call failures, etc.), and switching between available cellular networks);
a storage device connected to the communication fabric (Ponsini at Fig. 1, par. 0025, … SE memory 116. Device host hardware 128 includes SE interface 130, modem 132, near-field communication (NFC) controller 134, host memory 136, and host processor 140. …), wherein the storage device stores program instructions (Ponsini at par. 0138, “storage media” as used herein refers to any non-transitory media that store data and/or instructions that cause a machine to operate in a specific fashion. Such storage media may comprise non-volatile media and/or volatile media. Non-volatile media includes, … ); and
a processor connected to the communication fabric, wherein the processor executes the program instructions to (Ponsini at par. 0025, … SE processor 104, hardware (HW)-based cryptography module 106, logical secure elements (LSEs) 108a-n, SE software stack 110, and SE memory 116. Device host hardware 128 includes SE interface 130, modem 132, near-field communication (NFC) controller 134, host memory 136, and host processor 140. Device host hardware may run host applications 138. A mobile device may include more or fewer components than the components illustrated in FIG. 1,):
For remaining limitations see remarks regarding claim 1.
As to claim 14, it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claim 4. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4.
As to claim 15, it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claim 5. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5.
As to claim 16, Ponsini-Krajec-Everitt discloses a computer program product for profiling an online transaction processing environment application using a batch profiler program converted to an interactive profiler program, the computer program product comprising a computer-readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by a computer to cause the computer to (Ponsini at par. 0146, a non-transitory computer readable storage medium comprises instructions which, when executed by one or more hardware processors, causes performance of any of the operations described herein and/or recited in any of the claims):
For remaining limitations see remarks regarding claim 1.
As to claim 19, it is the medium claim, having similar limitations of claim 4. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4.
As to claim 20, it is the medium claim, having similar limitations of claim 5. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5.
Claims 2-3, 12-13, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ponsini et al , Krajec and Everitt as applied in the claims 1, 11 and 16 above and further in view of and De Melo et al. (US 20110145838 A1, hereinafter De Melo).
As to claim 2, Everitt discloses the computer-implemented method further comprising:
clarifying, by the computer, instruction locations in the application using binder services application programming interfaces of the computer called by the interactive profiler program (par. 0061, … the application includes one or more commands for database access, for online transaction processing and for calls to statically linked application sub-programs and each command has a vector in constant storage with an address to a handler for the corresponding database or transaction command or to the application sub-program entry point. The test configurator further operates to update an entry in a vector table or a constant storage vector for the given command by replacing the address to a handler for the given command or called sub-program entry point with an address [i.e. application address] for the interceptor routine. A vector table vector entry's location in memory is known by its fixed offset within the table. A compiler-generated constant area vector's location in memory is known by calling a system-provided service (e.g., IBM Binder API [i.e. binder service]));
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Ponsini to include clarifying, by the computer, instruction locations in the application using binder services application programming interfaces of the computer called by the interactive profiler program, as disclosed by Everitt, for the purpose to transaction command or to the application sub-program entry point. Further would perform the test configurator further operates to update an entry in a vector table or a constant storage vector for the given command by replacing the address to a handler for the given command or called sub-program entry point with an address for the interceptor routine. (see paragraph 0061 of Everitt).
Ponsini as modified by Krajec and Everitt does not explicitly disclose the following limitations but,
De Melo discloses collecting, by the computer, using the interactive profiler program, application performance information per instruction of the application based on the instruction locations in the application (par. 0026, … Application 104 monitors performance of application(s) 102 by collecting performance characteristics of the application(s) 102, generating appropriate reports and/or displaying profile information. .Further, par. 0035, the monitoring application 104 includes a profiler 112 that can request (e.g., via the above system call) the PCE subsystem 106 to "sample" the performance of the application 102 over a sampling time period with respect to one or more hardware and/or software events. In response to this request, the PCE subsystem 106 periodically (e.g., every 10 milliseconds) records current performance data associated with the specified event(s) to a buffer. The profiler 112 uses a file descriptor associated with the buffer to continually obtain data from the buffer. The profiler 112 creates a profile output using the obtained data and displays it on a screen. The profiler 112 then frequently refreshes the screen [i.e. interactive] with up-to-date information to allow the user to monitor performance statistics in real time. Further, par. 0041, … The current program state may include an instruction pointer (IP) value that specifies the address [i.e. location in the application] of where the application is executing at that specific moment. …);
generating, by the computer, using the interactive profiler program, a profiling report for the application based on collected information (par. 0051, … The profile output generator 184 reads current sampling information from the buffer, and determines, based on the sampling information, what functions of the monitored application(s) have been performed when an event took place and the number of events occurred with respect to each function. The profile output generator 184 then presents the resulting data to a user, and periodically refreshes the presented data using up-to-date sampling information of the monitored applications to allow the user to observe performance of the monitored applications in real time. . Further, pars. 0026, 0035, 0041); and
outputting, by the computer, the profiling report for the application to a client device of a user via a network (par. 0026, FIG. 1A is a block diagram of one embodiment of a performance monitoring system 100 that may be part of a computing system such as a client computer (e.g., a personal computer, a laptop, a PDA, a mobile phone, etc.), a server computer, and a gateway compute … The user space 112 is reserved for user mode applications including application(s) 102 and application 104. Application 102 can represent one or more applications of any type including, for example, a browser application, web application, a desktop application, etc. Application 104 monitors performance of application(s) 102 by collecting performance characteristics of the application(s) 102, generating appropriate reports and/or displaying profile information. Further, par. 0137, … The instructions 1026 (e.g., PCE subsystem 106 and/or profiler 112 of FIG. 1A) may further be transmitted or received over a network 1018 via the network device 110).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Ponsini to include collecting, by the computer, using the interactive profiler program, application performance information per instruction of the application based on the instruction locations in the application; generating, by the computer, using the interactive profiler program, a profiling report for the application based on collected information and outputting, by the computer, the profiling report for the application to a client device of a user via a network, as disclosed by De Melo, for the purpose of generating appropriate reports and displaying profile information. (see paragraph 0026 of De Melo).
As to claim 3, Everitt discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising:
invoking, by the computer, the interactive profiler program to run in the online transaction processing environment (par. 0061, … compiler-generated [i.e. invoking] within the program's constant storage, such that the application includes one or more commands for database access, for online transaction processing …).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Ponsini to include invoking, by the computer, the interactive profiler program to run in the online transaction processing environment, as disclosed by Everitt, for the purpose for online transaction processing and for calls to statically linked application sub-programs. (see paragraph 0061 of Everitt).
De Melo discloses receiving, by the computer, an input to profile a set of applications linked to the interactive profiler program of the computer from a client device of a user via a network (par. 0035, … The profiler 112 uses a file descriptor associated with the buffer to continually obtain data from the buffer. The profiler 112 creates a profile output using the obtained data and displays it on a screen. The profiler 112 then frequently refreshes the screen with up-to-date information to allow the user to monitor performance statistics in real time. … . Further, par. 0051, … The profile output generator 184 then presents the resulting data to a user, and periodically refreshes the presented data using up-to-date sampling information of the monitored applications to allow the user to observe performance of the monitored applications in real time. The presented data may include a list functions that were executed when the measured event took place, and the number of events occurred during the execution of each function. Further, par. 0055, … The monitoring application may identify the type of the event based on user input. …);
selecting, by the computer, the application of the set of applications linked to the interactive profiler program that is ready to run in response to receiving the input to profile the set of applications (see pars. 0035, 0051, 0055, and 0055 );
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Ponsini to include receiving, by the computer, an input to profile a set of applications linked to the interactive profiler program of the computer from a client device of a user via a network; selecting, by the computer, the application of the set of applications linked to the interactive profiler program that is ready to run in response to receiving the input to profile the set of applications and invoking, by the computer, the interactive profiler program to run in the online transaction processing environment, by the computer, the profiling report for the application to a client device of a user via a network, as disclosed by De Melo, for the purpose of generating appropriate reports and displaying profile information. (see paragraph 0026 of De Melo).
As to claim 12, it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claim 2. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2.
As to claim 13, it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claim 3. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3.
As to claim 17, it is the medium claim, having similar limitations of claim 2. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2.
As to claim 18, it is the medium claim, having similar limitations of claim 3. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ponsini et al , Krajec and Everitt et al. as applied in the claim 1 above and further in view of Conrad et al. (US 6892236 B1, hereinafter Conrad).
As to claim 7, Ponsini as modified by Krajec and Everitt does not explicitly disclose the following limitations but,
Conrad discloses the computer-implemented method further comprising:
searching, by the computer, a dynamic library resource of the computer to obtain the library name of the library that includes the dataset definition name corresponding to the location of the application (col. 5, ll. 6-13, manipulation transforms the data or maintains it at locations in the memory system of the computer, which reconfigures or otherwise alters the operation of the computer in a manner well understood by those skilled in the art. The data structures where data is maintained are physical locations of the memory that have particular properties defined by the format of the data. Further, col. 9, ll. 37-39, The Customer Report Buffer Name field 198 is for the user to specify the name of a dynamic link library (DLL) file that functions as a plug-in for the client application. Further, col. 10, ll.37-41, When each reporting client application is started, it queries its component DLL 150 for information regarding the component-specific metrics it wants to track. To communicate with the reporting server for this purpose).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Ponsini to include searching, by the computer, a dynamic library resource of the computer to obtain the library name of the library that includes the dataset definition name corresponding to the location of the application, as disclosed by Conard, for the purpose to maintain the physical locations of the memory that have particular properties defined by the format of the data. (see col. 5, ll. 11-13 of Conrad).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ponsini et al , Krajec and Everitt et al. as applied in the claim 1 above and further in view of Bishop et al. (US 20110145657 A1, hereinafter Bishop) and Campana et al. (US 20180089698 A1, hereinafter Campana).
As to claim 8, Ponsini as modified by Krajec and Everitt does not explicitly disclose the following limitations but,
Bishop discloses the computer-implemented method further comprising:
determining, by the computer, whether a number of profiling reports generated for the application is greater than a user-adjustable maximum number of profiling reports threshold (par. 0356, a user is allowed to customize [i.e. user-adjustable] the application quality profile. Next, the application quality profile is matched to ensembles. If there is an ensemble with a level of fit greater than a threshold value such as seventy percent, than the ensemble with the highest level of fit is selected for the application, and all business activities are mapped to this ensemble.);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Ponsini to include determining, by the computer, whether a number of profiling reports generated for the application is greater than a user-adjustable maximum number of profiling reports, as disclosed by Bishop, for the purpose to select for the application and activities so that mapped to this ensemble. (see par. 0356 of Bishop).
Campana discloses selecting, by the computer, the application again for profiling (par. 0033, … During developer selection, a developer may directly provide the profile data, such as for long chain and short chain memory footprints, based upon test or actual use of the application on profiling devices …).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Ponsini to include selecting, by the computer, the application again for profiling, as disclosed by Campana, for the purpose to use the application and the application provider can analyze the profile. (see par. 0033 of Campana).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Ponsini et al , Krajec and Everitt et al. as applied in the claim 1 above and further in view of Lin et al. (WO 2019071616 A1, hereinafter Lin).
As to claim 10, Ponsini as modified by Krajec and Everitt does not explicitly disclose the following limitations but,
Lin discloses the computer-implemented method wherein the application extent list parameter for the application is a single application extent for the application (page 13, FIG. 6 shows that at the same time, 32 Binder threads (resources) of the Binder thread resource pool are abnormally occupied by the application thread of a single application process. FIG. 6(b) shows a processing method according to an embodiment of the present application. At the same time, an application thread of a single application process only occupies B Binder [i.e. application extent] threads in the Binder thread resource poo).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Ponsini to include the computer-implemented method wherein the application extent list parameter for the application is a single application extent for the application, as disclosed by Lin, for the purpose of keeping the number of Binder threads occupied by the application process. (see abstract of Lin).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Prior arts made of record are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See MPEP § 707.05 (C) For Examples:
I. Al-Jarro et al. (US 20180046497 A1) discloses: “ An application profiling system, initiating profiling a software application; including: apparatus to receive user input information of a software application profiling target and execution requirements, to store profiler specifications; to determine which profiler satisfies the execution requirements, based on the specifications, and to generate needed profiling tasks, each task specifying an application profiler; to select hardware resources the tasks; and to initiate execution of the tasks.” (please see abstract).
II. Adebayo et al. (US 20250278351 A1) discloses: “A computer-implemented method (CIM), according to one embodiment, includes validating code blocks in a software document by performing a first validation process. The first validation process includes iterating through lines in the software document to identify the code blocks, extracting the identified code blocks, and determining an amount of a codebase that the code blocks cover, where the codebase is associated with the software document. The first validation process further includes executing the code blocks and determining whether the code blocks execute correctly. The method further includes generating a report characterizing the software document. The report includes a project coverage metric that indicates the amount of the codebase that the code blocks cover, and an instruction validity metric that indicates an amount of the code blocks that executed correctly during execution of the code blocks. The instruction validity metric is based on a validation of the code blocks.” (please see abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD H KABIR whose telephone number is (571)270-1341. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Sam Sough can be reached at 571-272-6799. 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.
/Mohammad Kabir/
Examiner, Art Unit 2192
/S. Sough/SPE, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights