Detailed Action
This action is in response to amendments filed on 06/08/2026 and supplemental response filed on 07/22/2026.
This application was filed on 09/29/2023.
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, 3-5, 7-8, 10-12, and 14-15 are pending.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10-12, and 14-15 are rejected.
Applicant's Response
In Applicant's Response dated 06/08/2026 and 07/22/2026, Applicant amended claims 1, 3-8, and 14-15, and canceled claims 2, 9, and 13. Applicant argued against various rejections previously set forth in the Office Action mailed on 03/09/2026.
In light of Applicant' s amendments and remarks, all objections to the claims set forth previously are withdrawn.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Representative claim 1 is directed to a computer-implemented method of controlling a pre-processor function of command stream builder to prepare a command stream for a parallel processor, comprising:
analyzing the command stream to detect at least a first dependency;
generating at least one timeline dependency point responsive to detecting the first dependency;
determining a latest action for the first dependency to derive a completion stream timeline point for the first dependency;
comparing the completion stream timeline point for the first dependency with a completion stream timeline point for a second dependency to determine a latest stream timeline point;
generating at least one command stream synchronization control instruction according to the latest stream timeline point; wherein the at least one command stream synchronization control instruction comprises a await instruction to cause a wait before execution of the command stream; and
writing the command stream and the at least one command stream synchronization control instruction to a memory for subsequent retrieval by an execution unit of the parallel processor.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely,
Mental processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper (see, October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update, 84 Fed. Reg. 55,942, hereinafter “PEG”).
For instance, humans can mentally and/or via aid of pen/paper perform method of preparing a command stream, comprising: mentally analyzing the command stream to detect at least a first dependency; mentally/via pen paper generating at least one timeline dependency point responsive to detecting the first dependency; mentally determining a latest action for the first dependency to derive a completion stream timeline point for the first dependency; mentally/via pen paper comparing the completion stream timeline point for the first dependency with a completion stream timeline point for a second dependency to determine a latest stream timeline point; mentally/via pen paper generating at least one command stream synchronization control instruction according to the latest stream timeline point; wherein the at least one command stream synchronization control instruction comprises a await instruction to cause a wait before execution of the command stream; and mentally/via pen paper writing the command stream and the at least one command stream synchronization control instruction to…
Per prong 2, Step 2A, the additional non-emphasized elements as noted above; namely; “computer-implemented method of controlling a pre-processor function of command stream builder… for a parallel processor… [writing]... a memory for subsequent retrieval by an execution unit of the parallel processor”; are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(f, g, h). Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
Per Step 2B, the additional non-emphasized elements as noted above; namely; “computer-implemented method… of controlling a pre-processor function of command stream builder … for a parallel processor… [writing]... a memory for subsequent retrieval by an execution unit of the parallel processor”; are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results. Accordingly, the above limitations singularly or in combination do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 8, and 15 are apparatus and medium claims corresponding to method claim 1 and are of substantially same scope.
Accordingly, claims 8, and 15 are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-7, and 9-14 when considered individually or in combination per steps as noted above are rejected under the same rational as set forth above for claims 1, and 8. In particular,
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein analyzing the command stream to detect at least the first dependency comprises detecting a resource access dependency.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein analyzing the command stream to detect at least the first dependency comprises detecting that the command stream comprises plural work item queues.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 further incorporated, further recites wherein analyzing the command stream to detect at least the first dependency comprises detecting a cross-queue synchronization dependency.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein generating the least one command stream synchronization control instruction comprises generating at least one synchronize instruction to cause a synchronization after execution of the command stream.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Claims 10-12, and 14 are apparatus claims corresponding to method claim 3-5, and 7 and are of substantially same scope.
Accordingly, claims 10-12, and 14 are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claim 3-5, and 7.
Accordingly, claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-8, 10-12, and 14-15 are allowable if above noted rejections are overcome via amendments and/or arguments. Reasons for allowance will be held in abeyance until all matters in the prosecution are closed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06/08/2026 and 07/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or moot in view of new/modified grounds of rejections.
Applicant argues that “claim 1 now explicitly recite "controlling a pre-processor function of a command stream builder." Claims 8 and 15 have been similarly amended. Claims 1, 8 and 15 now define a specific machine-control process rooted in computer architecture, because a human does not use a "command stream builder" to prepare commands for a "parallel processor." The amended claims anchor the expressed subject matter in a concrete technological environment to which the "pen and paper" analogy does not apply. As such, claims 1, 8 and 15 do not recite a judicial exception and now meet the requirements of Step 2A, prong one” (response page 8, dated 06/08/2026).
The examiner disagrees.
As noted in the rejection above, humans can mentally and/or via aid of pen/paper perform method of preparing a command stream, comprising: mentally analyzing the command stream to detect at least a first dependency; mentally/via pen paper generating at least one timeline dependency point responsive to detecting the first dependency; mentally determining a latest action for the first dependency to derive a completion stream timeline point for the first dependency; mentally/via pen paper comparing the completion stream timeline point for the first dependency with a completion stream timeline point for a second dependency to determine a latest stream timeline point; mentally/via pen paper generating at least one command stream synchronization control instruction according to the latest stream timeline point; wherein the at least one command stream synchronization control instruction comprises a await instruction to cause a wait before execution of the command stream; and mentally/via pen paper mentally/via pen paper writing the command stream and the at least one command stream synchronization control instruction to…; however, the additional limitation of “controlling a pre-processor function of a command stream builder” are analyzed Per prong 2, Step 2A, are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and moot in view of modified grounds of rejections.
Applicant argues that “amended claims now positively recite that the method generates a "wait instruction to cause a wait before execution of the command stream." A wait instruction is not merely data, it is a specific, machine-executable command that directly controls the execution flow of the parallel processor. The generation of such an instruction, based on the claimed timeline analysis, is the technical mechanism that achieves the disclosed technical benefits of reduced synchronization overhead, minimized latency, and improved processor efficiency (see, for example, the application at paragraph [0027])… Stated another way, the claims do not merely use a parallel processor as a generic tool to perform an abstract idea; rather, the claimed method improves the operation of the parallel processor itself by solving a technical problem inherent in parallel processing architectures…. The amended claims provide a specific technical solution to this problem. By "determining a latest action for the first dependency to derive a completion stream timeline point" and "comparing the completion stream timeline point for the first dependency with a completion stream timeline point for a second dependency to determine a latest stream timeline point", the pre-processor identifies the latest actual dependency. This specific mechanism allows earlier actual dependencies to be eliminated from consideration, significantly reducing the number of synchronization instructions required and replacing them with the specifically claimed wait instruction (see paragraphs [0016] and [0034]). This reduction in synchronization overhead reduces latency, reduces memory bandwidth requirements, and improves power saving in the parallel processor (see paragraphs [0027] and [0050]). Accordingly, the claimed feature provides a specific technical improvement…[and] amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea” (response page 9-10, dated 06/08/2026).
The examiner disagrees.
As noted in the rejection above, humans can mentally and/or via aid of pen/paper perform method of preparing a command stream, comprising: mentally analyzing the command stream to detect at least a first dependency; mentally/via pen paper generating at least one timeline dependency point responsive to detecting the first dependency; mentally determining a latest action for the first dependency to derive a completion stream timeline point for the first dependency; mentally/via pen paper comparing the completion stream timeline point for the first dependency with a completion stream timeline point for a second dependency to determine a latest stream timeline point; mentally/via pen paper generating at least one command stream synchronization control instruction according to the latest stream timeline point; wherein the at least one command stream synchronization control instruction comprises a await instruction to cause a wait before execution of the command stream; and mentally/via pen paper writing the command stream and the at least one command stream synchronization control instruction to…; however, merely writing generated command stream and command stream synchronization control instruction for subsequent retrieval by an execution of unit “the parallel processor” does not achieve any improvement unless the “command stream and command stream synchronization control instruction” are positively executed.
Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and moot in view of modified grounds of rejections.
Applicant states that “claim 1 has further amended to recite “writing the command stream and the at least one command stream synchronization control instruction to memory for subsequent retrieval by an exaction unit of the parallel processor” and argues that “’[added limitation] is not merely “applying”… this specific integration improves the functioning of the parallel processor” (response page 8-9, dated 07/22/2026).
The examiner disagrees.
As noted in the rejection above, humans can mentally and/or via aid of pen/paper write the command stream and the at least one command stream synchronization control instruction to… and, the additional limitation of “[writing to ]... a memory for subsequent retrieval by an execution unit of the parallel processor” is merely data gathering steps (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and/or court recognized well known routines – MPEP 2106.05 (d) “Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93”. Furthermore, merely writing generated command stream and command stream synchronization control instruction to memory for subsequent retrieval by an execution of unit “the parallel processor” does not achieve any improvement unless the “command stream and command stream synchronization control instruction” are positively executed the parallel processor.
Accordingly, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and moot in view of modified grounds of rejections.
All other arguments depend on the arguments above.
The examiner disagrees as noted above and/or moot view of modified grounds/rational of rejections.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAFA A AMIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3181. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Young, can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, 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.
/MUSTAFA A AMIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights