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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12 May 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends the title is descriptive. Remarks at 13.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Multi-thread task scheduling is generic and not descriptive of the independent claims.
Applicant contends that “Craciunas does not disclose the technical means of using a backtracking algorithm,” because “Craciunas does not involve how to determine the orchestration period, threads, or the time slices corresponding to the threads.” Remarks at 16-17.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Craciunas is not relied upon for teaching the recited “backtracking algorithm.” Accordingly, the argument is moot.
Applicant contends that “because Craciunas avoids un-orchestratable tasks through pre-screening elimination, it cannot cover all tasks in the predefined task set.” Remarks at 18.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not recite and are not limited to “cover[ing] all tasks in [a] predefined task set.” Accordingly, the argument is moot. Furthermore, the BRI of the independent claims include the case that there is one to-be-orchestrated task, there is one thread in the first quantity of threads; therefore, Craciuna’s teaching of generating a task schedule table for any number of threads/tasks teaches the BRI of claim 1, except for the tasks being executed as threads and the backtracking algorithm.
Applicant contends that because “Craciunas has already eliminated un-orchestratable tasks,” “introducing a backtracking algorithm” would “add unnecessary computational cost” and thus “a person skilled in the art would have no reason or motivation to combine Craciunas with a backtracking algorithm.” Remarks at 18.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Nollet (US 8,020,163) provides that “introducing backtracking” is a “classic way to solve” the issue of being “unable to find a suitable mapping for a certain task.” Nollet at col. 20:36-42. The Examiner finds a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Nollet’s backtracking with Craciunas’s time slice scheduling in order to be able to find suitable mappings for tasks.
Applicant contends that “Nollet essentially relates to online dynamic scheduling of tasks, whereas the solution of the present application essentially relates to static planning of tasks. Therefore, the two are applied to completely different stages of the task life cycle.” Remarks at 19.
The Examiner finds the contention by applicant does not identify a particular limitation of the claims alleged to not be taught by Nollet. Accordingly, the Examiner maintains that claim 1 is obvious in view of Craciunas and further in view of Nollet.
Applicant contends that “the function of the backtracking algorithm in the present application is to solve conflicts in the time dimension,” whereas “Nollet” solves a “different technical” problem; therefore, they are completely different technical solutions.”
Assuming applicant contends the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 should be withdrawn on the basis of the allegation that Nollet and the claim are directed to different technical solutions, the Examiner reminds applicant of MPEP § 2141.01(a) (“A reference is analogous art to the claimed invention if . . . (2) the reference is reasonably pertinent to the problem faced by the inventor (even if it is not in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention)”).
Applicant contends that “Nollet also does not disclose a solution on how to orchestrate multiple to-be-orchestrated tasks to generate a task scheduling table.” Remarks at 20.
The Examiner does not rely on Nollet individually for teaching multiple to-be-orchestrated tasks used to generate a task scheduling table. Applicant is reminded on MPEP § 2145, IV (“One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references”).
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 6-9, and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Craciunas (US 2016/0246646) and further in view of Nollet (US 8,020,163).
Regarding claim 1, Craciunas teaches: A task scheduling processing method, wherein the task scheduling processing method comprises:
obtaining to-be-orchestrated task information (¶ 48, “The task set is first transformed to a periodic asynchronous task model (p1), preferably an EDF (“Earliest Deadline first”) task model (p1)”) and target resource information (¶ 4, “said tasks are executed on nodes and/or on the at least one starcoupler according to a static task schedule”), wherein the to-be-orchestrated task information comprises periodic task description information corresponding to at least one to-be-orchestrated task (¶ 59, “A TT-task TTi is defined by a tuple (C.sub.i.sup.TT, T.sub.i.sup.TT), where C.sub.i.sup.TT is the worst-case computation time (WCET) and T.sub.i.sup.TT is the period”), and the target resource information comprises available processing resource information (¶ 104, “The network topology of the industrial application consists of 4 pairs of TTE-switches (in total 8 switches) and up to 80 TTEthernet end-systems (nodes)”);
determining a first quantity of (¶ 5, “a) transforming a defined task set to a periodic asynchronous task model (p1), yielding a first quantity of task sets”);
determining an orchestration period based on the to-be-orchestrated task information (¶ 53, “Time-triggered messages (TT-messages) are scheduled periodically at each network device (i.e. switches and end-systems) and transmitted within predefined periodic transmission-windows”);
determining, based on the orchestration period, time slices respectively corresponding to the first quantity of (¶ 56, “we define the schedule based on time slots, where a time slot consists of one or more contiguous macroticks. TT-tasks have a fixed activation time and a dead-line, and are scheduled offline with fixed guaranteed time slots”);
generating a task scheduling table based on the to-be-orchestrated task information and the time slices respectively corresponding to all the (¶ 57, “The schedule for a task set in TT-RTS is specified through a static offline-computed schedule table consisting of a set of time slots, which are either assigned a TT-Task or marked for the execution of BE-Tasks”), wherein the task scheduling table comprises (¶ 50, “This task set—if exists—is then sent to an offline EDF simulator (p5) which generates the optimal schedule based on the EDF algorithm (Section IV-E). The output is then processed into a static schedule table that can be used at run-time by our time-triggered run-time system (Section III-B)”); and
scheduling all the to-be-orchestrated tasks based on the task scheduling table (claim 1, “said tasks are executed on nodes and/or on the at least one starcoupler according to a static task schedule”).
Craciunas does not teach; however, Nollet discloses: the set of tasks are executed as threads (“Dynamic task relocation requires preemption of the task and the transfer of its state information (e.g. contents of its internal registers and memories) to the OS. This state information is then used to initialize the relocated task on a different computation resource (another HW tile or a software thread on the ISP) to smoothly continue the application.”); and
using a backtracking algorithm (col. 20:43-46, “The backtracking algorithm starts by undoing N (start by N equals one) previous task resource allocations. Then, the PEs are sorted, but instead of choosing the best PE for a certain task, the second best PE is selected”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to have applied the known technique of the set of tasks are executed as threads; and using a backtracking algorithm, as taught by Nollet, in the same way to determining a first quantity of tasks and generating a task scheduling table, as taught by Craciunas. Both inventions are in the field of real-time task scheduling, and combining them would have predictably resulted in “ensure that granted computing power matches communication needs, in order to provide the required quality of service,” as indicated by Nollet (col. 10:58-60).
Regarding claim 6, Craciunas teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the determining an orchestration period based on the to-be-orchestrated task information comprises: taking a preset multiple of a least common multiple for the task periods respectively corresponding to all the to-be-orchestrated tasks as the orchestration period (¶ 57, “Since such tables are potentially infinite we incorporate the concept of schedule cycle, which represents the shortest time interval after which the sequence of time slots repeats (i.e. hyperperiod)”).
Regarding claim 7, Craciunas teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the determining, based on the orchestration period, time slices respectively corresponding to the first quantity of threads comprises: for each thread, determining that the time slice corresponding to the thread has the same duration as the orchestration period (¶ 57, “Since such tables are potentially infinite we incorporate the concept of schedule cycle, which represents the shortest time interval after which the sequence of time slots repeats (i.e. hyperperiod)”).
Regarding claim 8, Nollet teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the target resource information comprises a first quantity of available processing resource information; and the determining a first quantity of threads based on the target resource information comprises: determining the first quantity of threads based on the first quantity of processing resource information, wherein the processing resource information is in one-to-one correspondence to the threads (col. 19:63-67, “tasks that can only be mapped on one specific PE should be mapped before all other tasks. This way, the heuristic avoids a mapping failure, that would occur if this specific PE would be occupied by another task”).
Claims 9 and 14-17 recite commensurate subject matter as claims 1 and 6-8. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 11-13, 19, and 20 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: No reference or combination of references were uncovered that teaches “performing the step of for any idle time point in the time slice corresponding to any thread, determining, based on the priority sequence, a first to-be-orchestrated task that takes the idle time point as a starting time point, until all the to-be-orchestrated tasks are orchestrated, to obtain the task scheduling table,” as recited in dependent claim 3 and commensurately recited in dependent claims 11 and 19. Claims 4, 5, 12, 13, and 20 depend on claims 3, 11, or 19; therefore, they are objected to as allowable for the same reason.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JACOB D DASCOMB whose telephone number is (571)272-9993. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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.
/JACOB D DASCOMB/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Prosecution Insights