DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
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 .
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.
Examiner’s Notes
The Examiner cites particular sections in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant(s). Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant(s) fully consider the references in their 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.
Specification
The use of the terms BLUETOOTH and MICROSOFT, which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the terms.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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.
Claims 5 and 11-20 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 term “time complexity” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “time complexity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, neither the claims nor the specification provide any description regarding what is meant by the term “time complexity” and/or how to determine a “time complexity” value for an optimization pass.
For the following analysis, the Examiner will consider any time cost associated with an optimization pass as being analogous to the “time complexity” of the optimization pass.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the computer system is capable of performing a method” (lines 5-6) which identifies an intended use for the computer system. That is, it is not clear if the method steps recited therewith are actually implemented by the computer system, or if the computer system merely requires the hardware configuration (i.e. one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories, and one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium storing program instructions) that renders the system capable of implementing such steps.
For the following analysis, the Examiner will consider the computer system actually implementing the recited method steps in response to executing the program instructions stored within the one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium.
Claims 12-19 inherit the features of claim 11 and are rejected accordingly.
The term “time complexity” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “time complexity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, neither the claims nor the specification provide any description regarding what is meant by the term “time complexity” and/or how to determine a “time complexity” value for an optimization pass.
For the following analysis, the Examiner will consider any time cost associated with an optimization pass as being analogous to the “time complexity” of the optimization pass.
Claim 20 is directed to a “computer program product” and recites “one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instructions comprising” in lines 2-4. However, the claim identifies method steps (i.e. generating, determining, identifying, scheduling) as “program instructions”. As such, it is not clear if the claim should have been a method or if these method steps are functional steps implemented in response to execution of the program instructions, or if these method steps should have been presented in the form of program instructions.
For the following analysis, the Examiner will consider the limitation “the program instructions comprising” as referring to –the program instructions, when executed by one or more processors, perform a method comprising—.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim 1: Claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because:
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations “determining a plurality of task chains based on dependencies among the plurality of tasks, wherein each of the plurality of task chains comprises one or more tasks of the plurality of tasks”, “identifying a critical task chain with a maximum time-cost weight from the plurality of task chains based on a time-costing weight of each task chain in the plurality of task chains”, “scheduling the critical task chain to be executed with a highest priority and other task chains to be executed in parallel with the critical task chain” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. These 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, such as determining task dependency information and defining a corresponding chain, identifying a critical task based on time cost weight value, and defining a priority-based schedule for the tasks. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Step 2A, Prong 2: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements “generating a plurality of tasks, wherein each optimization pass in a plurality of optimization passes operates on an operation unit smaller than a source file, wherein each task in the plurality of tasks is represented by an optimization pass in the plurality of optimization passes and a corresponding operation unit of the optimization pass” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements 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 of “generating a plurality of tasks, wherein each optimization pass in a plurality of optimization passes operates on an operation unit smaller than a source file, wherein each task in the plurality of tasks is represented by an optimization pass in the plurality of optimization passes and a corresponding operation unit of the optimization pass” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception does not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
With respect to claims 2-9: Claims are also not eligible under 35 USC 101 as being directed to an abstract idea because:
Claims 2-7 recite further elements that can be performed mentally (e.g. determining scheduling information, determining dependency information, etc.);
Claims 8-10 recite further additional elements that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components.
With respect to claims 11-19: Claims 11-19 are directed to a computer system capable of implementing a method corresponding to the method disclosed in claims 1-9, respectively. As such, in view of the abovementioned reasons with respect to claims 1-9, claims 11-19 are also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim 20: Claim 20 is directed to a computer program product to implement active functions corresponding to the method disclosed in claim 1. As such, in view of the abovementioned reasons with respect to claim 1, claim 20 is also directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Crabtree et al. (US 2022/0012093 A1) discloses a distributed computational graph defining a data processing workflow where each vertex of the distributed computational graph represents an application-specific task, the weight of the vertex corresponding to an expected computational cost, the edges of the distributed computational graph represent a task dependency, and the weight of the edges corresponding to an expected communication cost (see paragraph 25).
Roy et al. (US 2023/0214268 A1 discloses workflows represented as directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) modeled as dependencies between the tasks and evaluating such workflows based on optimization costs of the workflows (see paragraphs 35, 83).
Van Velzen et al. (US 2011/0276977 A1) discloses a workflow that specifies task and item dependencies and a clique algorithm applied over a workflow graph including weights for various factors (e.g. size of files to be communicated, network latency, processor speed, processor count, disk latency, disk speed, network speed, compressibility, processor activity, network activity, actual cost of executing a task, explicitly specified task cost, and/or historical data from previous runs) to determine cost (see paragraphs 27, 56).
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Umut Onat whose telephone number is (571)270-1735. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:00-7:30.
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, Kevin L Young can be reached at (571) 270-3180. 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.
/UMUT ONAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights