DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the application filed 02/01/2024.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The Applicants’ Information Disclosure Statements (filed 06/06/2025 and 04/01/2026) have been received, entered into the record, and considered.
Drawings
3. The drawings filed 02/01/2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Specification
4. The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Descriptive Title Required
The title of the invention is not descriptive. The title should be as “specific as possible” 37 CFR 1.72 while not exceeding “500 characters in length”. The title should provide “informative value” and serve to aid in the “indexing, classifying, searching” and other Official identification functions. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. MPEP606.01
Claim Objections
5. Claims 2, 10, and 18 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“worst-case execution time WCET” should read “worst-case execution time (WCET)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
6. 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “determining a hardware parameter of the processor and task description information of at least one task group”; “determining an orchestration period of the processor based on a task period corresponding to the at least one task group”; and “orchestrating, based on the hardware parameter of the processor and the task description information, each task in the at least one task group according to an orchestration rule during the orchestration period, to obtain a task execution sequence”
as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites the abstract idea of a mental process. 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. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements “a processor” and “executing all the tasks in the at least one task group based on the task execution sequence” 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, 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).
Under Step 2B, the claim does 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 “a processor” and “executing all the tasks in the at least one task group based on the task execution sequence” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, the limitations “determining a quantity of to-be-orchestrated threads based on the hardware parameter of the processor”; “determining orchestration time units corresponding to an orchestration period of the to-be-orchestrated thread based on worst-case execution time WCET, in the task description information, of each task in the at least one task group”; and “orchestrating, based on the quantity of the to-be-orchestrated threads and the task description information, all the tasks in the at least one task group on each orchestration time unit of the to-be-orchestrated threads according to the orchestration rule, to obtain the task execution sequence” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, the limitations “determining a priority of each task based on dependency relationships between the tasks in the task description information”; and “orchestrating, based on the quantity of the to-be-orchestrated threads and the priority of each task, all the tasks on each orchestration time unit of the to-be-orchestrated threads according to a priority sequence of the tasks, to obtain the task execution sequence” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, the limitations “when the priories of a plurality of the tasks are the same, orchestrating the plurality of tasks on each orchestration time unit of the to-be-orchestrated threads based on the quantity of the to-be-orchestrated threads and the WCET of the plurality of tasks, to obtain the task execution sequence” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, the limitations “when there are unorchestrated tasks in the at least one task group, adjusting a task execution sequence for orchestrated tasks if the task execution sequence for the orchestrated tasks in the at least one task group can be adjusted, so as to orchestrate the unorchestrated tasks during the orchestration period” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, the limitations the limitations “determining a task group quantity of the at least one task group”; and “determining the orchestration period of the processor based on the task group quantity and the task period corresponding to the task group” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, the limitations the limitations “when there are a plurality of task groups, determining the orchestration period of the processor based on a least common multiple of task periods respectively corresponding to the plurality of task groups”; and “when there is one task group, determining the orchestration period of the processor based on the task period corresponding to the task group” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, the limitations the limitations “determining that there is a target task group in the at least one task group that has a task period different from the orchestration period of the processor”; “determining a quantity of orchestrations for the target task group based on the task period of the target task group and the orchestration period of the processor”; “determining a plurality of sub-orchestration periods corresponding to the target task group based on the orchestration period and the quantity of orchestrations”; and “orchestrating, based on the hardware parameter of the processor and the task description information, each task in the target task group according to the orchestration rule during each sub-orchestration period, and orchestrating each task in a task group other than the target task group in the at least one task group during the orchestration period, to obtain the task execution sequence” encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. The claim does not recite additional elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 9, the limitations “determining a hardware parameter of the processor and task description information of at least one task group”; “determining an orchestration period of the processor based on a task period corresponding to the at least one task group”; and “orchestrating, based on the hardware parameter of the processor and the task description information, each task in the at least one task group according to an orchestration rule during the orchestration period, to obtain a task execution sequence”
as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites the abstract idea of a mental process. 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. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium”, “a computer program”, “a processor” and “executing all the tasks in the at least one task group based on the task execution sequence” 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, 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).
Under Step 2B, the claim does 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 “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium”, “a computer program”, “a processor” and “executing all the tasks in the at least one task group based on the task execution sequence” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 10-16 correspond to claims 2-8. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 17, the limitations “determining a hardware parameter of the processor and task description information of at least one task group”; “determining an orchestration period of the processor based on a task period corresponding to the at least one task group”; and “orchestrating, based on the hardware parameter of the processor and the task description information, each task in the at least one task group according to an orchestration rule during the orchestration period, to obtain a task execution sequence”
as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites the abstract idea of a mental process. 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. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements “an electronic device”, “a processor”, “a memory”, “processor-executable instructions”, and “executing all the tasks in the at least one task group based on the task execution sequence” 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, 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).
Under Step 2B, the claim does 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 “an electronic device”, “a processor”, “a memory”, “processor-executable instructions” and “executing all the tasks in the at least one task group based on the task execution sequence” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. After considering all claim elements individually and as an ordered combination, it is determined that the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons given above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 18-20 correspond to claims 2-4. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
7. 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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tia et al. “Task and Resource Assignment in Distributed Real-Time Systems”.
The reference was cited by Applicant in the IDS filed 06/06/2025.
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
As to claim 1:
Tia teaches a method for controlling a processor to execute tasks (Title: Task and Resource Assignment in Distributed Real-Time Systems), comprising:
determining a hardware parameter of the processor and task description information of at least one task group (page 45, left column, 4th paragraph: a distributed system consists of a set of p identical processors… Each processor Pi has access to some physical resources such as I/O devices and sensors. We are given a set of t tasks… together with a set of r logical resources… to be assigned to the processors);
determining an orchestration period of the processor based on a task period corresponding to the at least one task group (page 45, left column, 4th paragraph: Each task Ti is characterized by its period pi, relative deadline dj and execution time… The utilization factor… of task Ti is the fraction of processor time that the task uses);
orchestrating, based on the hardware parameter of the processor and the task description information, each task in the at least one task group according to an orchestration rule during the orchestration period, to obtain a task execution sequence (page 47, Fig.1: Preprocessing: Assign weights to the edges based on resource usage, communication costs and task priorities; Clustering: Cluster the tasks/resources based on resource usage); and
executing all the tasks in the at least one task group based on the task execution sequence (page 47, Fig.1: Assignment: all the tasks, resources and processors are in one partition…All the tasks and resources in each partition are assigned to the processor in the same partition).
As to claim 2:
Tia teaches the orchestrating, based on the hardware parameter of the processor and the task description information, each task in the at least one task group according to an orchestration rule during the orchestration period, to obtain a task execution sequence, comprises: determining a quantity of to-be-orchestrated threads based on the hardware parameter of the processor; determining orchestration time units corresponding to an orchestration period of the to-be-orchestrated thread based on worst-case execution time WCET, in the task description information, of each task in the at least one task group; and orchestrating, based on the quantity of the to-be-orchestrated threads and the task description information, all the tasks in the at least one task group on each orchestration time unit of the to-be-orchestrated threads according to the orchestration rule, to obtain the task execution sequence (page 47, Fig.1).
As to claim 3:
Tia teaches the orchestrating, based on the quantity of the to-be-orchestrated threads and the task description information, all the tasks in the at least one task group on each orchestration time unit of the to-be-orchestrated threads according to the orchestration rule, to obtain the task execution sequence, comprises: determining a priority of each task based on dependency relationships between the tasks in the task description information; and orchestrating, based on the quantity of the to-be-orchestrated threads and the priority of each task, all the tasks on each orchestration time unit of the to-be-orchestrated threads according to a priority sequence of the tasks, to obtain the task execution sequence (page 47, left column, 4th paragraph).
As to claim 4:
Tia teaches the orchestrating, based on the quantity of the to-be-orchestrated threads and the priority of each task, all the tasks on each orchestration time unit of the to-be-orchestrated threads according to a priority sequence of the tasks, to obtain the task execution sequence, comprises: when the priories of a plurality of the tasks are the same, orchestrating the plurality of tasks on each orchestration time unit of the to-be-orchestrated threads based on the quantity of the to-be-orchestrated threads and the WCET of the plurality of tasks, to obtain the task execution sequence (page 47, left column, 4th paragraph).
As to claim 5:
Tia teaches when there are unorchestrated tasks in the at least one task group, adjusting a task execution sequence for orchestrated tasks if the task execution sequence for the orchestrated tasks in the at least one task group can be adjusted, so as to orchestrate the unorchestrated tasks during the orchestration period (page 47, Fig.1).
As to claim 6:
Tia teaches the determining an orchestration period of the processor based on a task period corresponding to the at least one task group comprises: determining a task group quantity of the at least one task group; and determining the orchestration period of the processor based on the task group quantity and the task period corresponding to the task group (page 47, Fig.1).
As to claim 7:
Tia teaches the determining the orchestration period of the processor based on the task group quantity and the task period corresponding to the task group comprises: when there are a plurality of task groups, determining the orchestration period of the processor based on a least common multiple of task periods respectively corresponding to the plurality of task groups; and when there is one task group, determining the orchestration period of the processor based on the task period corresponding to the task group (page 47, Fig.1).
As to claim 8:
Tia teaches when there are a plurality of task groups, the orchestrating, based on the hardware parameter of the processor and the task description information, each task in the at least one task group according to an orchestration rule during the orchestration period, to obtain a task execution sequence, comprises: determining that there is a target task group in the at least one task group that has a task period different from the orchestration period of the processor; determining a quantity of orchestrations for the target task group based on the task period of the target task group and the orchestration period of the processor; determining a plurality of sub-orchestration periods corresponding to the target task group based on the orchestration period and the quantity of orchestrations; and orchestrating, based on the hardware parameter of the processor and the task description information, each task in the target task group according to the orchestration rule during each sub-orchestration period, and orchestrating each task in a task group other than the target task group in the at least one task group during the orchestration period, to obtain the task execution sequence (page 47, left column, 3rd paragraph).
As to Claims 9-16:
Refer to the discussion of Claims 1-8 above, respectively, for rejections. Claims 9-16 are the same as Claims 1-8, except Claims 9-16 are non-transitory computer readable storage medium claims and claims 1- 8 are method claims.
As to Claims 17-20:
Refer to the discussion of Claims 1-4 above, respectively, for rejections. Claims 17-20 are the same as Claims 1-4, except Claims 17-20 are an electronic device claims and claims 1-4 are method claims.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record, listed on PTO 892 provided to Applicant is considered to have relevancy to the claimed invention. Applicant should review each identified reference carefully before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the prior art.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VAN H. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-3765. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday from 9:00AM to 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, LEWIS BULLOCK, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-3759. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/VAN H NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights