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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 31, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 3-4, 6-9, 13-16, and 18-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, line 1, before “tracking”, insert -- the --.
Claim 3, line 1, before “updating”, insert -- the --.
Claim 6, line 1, before “deterministically”, insert -- the --.
Claim 8, line 4, delete “are those processes that”.
Claim 9, line 2, “the minimum scheduled time” lacks antecedent basis.
Claim 9, line 2, “a code breakpoint” should be --the code breakpoint--.
Claim 13, line 1, before “updating”, insert -- the --.
Claim 14, line 1, before “updating”, insert -- the --.
Claim 15, line 1, before “receiving”, insert -- the --.
Claim 15, lines 1-2, “an indication” should be -- the indication --.
Claim 16, lines 1-2, before “deterministically”, insert -- the --.
Claim 18, line 1, before “tracking”, insert -- the --.
Claim 18, line 2, before “updating”, insert -- the --.
Claim 19, line 2, “a code breakpoint” should be --the code breakpoint--.
Claim 20, line 1, before “maintaining”, insert -- the --.
Claims 4 and 7 depend on objected claims and inherit the same issues as objected claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 8-9, 14 and 18-19 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.
Claim 8, lines 3-4, “that can be” is indefinite. For the following prior art rejection, “that can be” in lines 3-4 of claim 8 is treated as --to be--.
Claim 9, line 3, “can next be scheduled” is indefinite. For the following prior art rejection, “can next be scheduled” in line 3 of claim 9 is treated as --to be scheduled next--.
Claim 14, line 6, “the particular process” is unclear whether it refers to “a particular process” in line 3 of claim 14 or “a particular process” in line 9 of claim 12. For the following prior art rejection, “the particular process” in line 6 of claim 14 is treated as --the registered particular process--.
Claim 18, line 9, “the update” is unclear whether it refers to “an update” in line 7 of claim 18 or “updating” in line 7 of claim 17. For the following prior art rejection, “the update” in line 9 of claim 18 is treated as --the update from the first process--.
Claim 19, line 3, “can next be scheduled” is indefinite. For the following prior art rejection, “can next be scheduled” in line 3 of claim 9 is treated as --to be scheduled next--.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 5, 10-12 and 17 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art of record teaches the following limitations:
Guo (US 20230289242 A1) discloses:
tracking, at a control server, status information relating to execution of the set of processes (“The scheduler unit 1020 is configured to track state information related to the various tasks managed by the scheduler unit 1020.”, para [0170]);
Bril (WO 2004090720 A2) discloses:
receiving, at the control server, a call from a process of the set of processes indicating that the process has reached a code breakpoint (“The tasks τ, will then inform the task manager 403 when they reach preemption points, which enables the task manager 403 to start a different task.”, page , lines );
Wagner (US 20170371706 A1) discloses:
updating, by the control server, the status information to indicate that the process is in a blocked state and is waiting to be scheduled by the control server (“The async controller 160, at (8), can store the retrieved state information and blocking information, such that the task can be resumed at a later time (e.g., when the dependency operation has completed or is expected to soon complete).”, para [0072]);
Pilkington (US 20050149937 A1) discloses:
deterministically selecting, by the control server from a group of the set of processes that are in the blocked state, a particular process executing on a particular execution node to be executed ("If there are multiple threads in a wait queue, the concurrency engine 206 often needs to determine which one of the waiting threads should be woken up and allowed to resume execution. Several techniques may be used by the concurrency engine 206 to select one of the multiple threads. For example, the concurrency engine 206 could use round robin ordering, a first-in first-out (FIFO) ordering where the thread that has been waiting the longest is serviced first, an ordering based on static priority, and an ordering based on dynamically-calculated priority. ", para [0050], "In other embodiments, the concurrency engine 206 selects a thread running on a processor that is the least lightly loaded or that has a performance suitable for the work priority.", para [0067]); and
However, Examiner has concluded that the specific claim limitation “responding, by the control server, to a call from the particular process by indicating that the particular process is to unblock and resume execution” as recited in independent claim 1, with similar limitations recited in independent claims 12 and 17, in combination with the other recited claim elements, are not found in the prior art of record and would not have been obvious.
Claims 1, 12, and 17 are therefore allowed. Dependent claims 2, 5, and 10-11 are also allowed due to their respective dependence on the allowable independent claims.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Foy (WO 2025117387 A1) discloses “Generally, the checkpoint server stores a set of checkpoint objects, each checkpoint object associated with a process in a set of processes. More specifically, the checkpoint server can store a group of checkpoint objects associated with a process in a set of processes representing a job.” (Foy, para [0052]) and “The method S100 includes, at a first checkpoint program executing at a first node, in response to receiving a first checkpoint command from a checkpoint server: recording a first state of the first process executing at the first node, the first state representing a first set of resources in the first node allocated to the first process at a first time in Block S142; generating a first checkpoint object representing the first state of the first process at the first time in Block S144; and transmitting the first checkpoint object to the checkpoint server in Block S146.” (Foy, para [0056]).
Haba (US 9262300 B1) discloses “the debuglet controller 208 stores the active breakpoint information at the breakpoint store 206” (Haba, col 15, lines 53-55) and “In another example, the debuglet controller 208 of the processing device 510 may receive a request from one of the debuglets 212 to update active breakpoint information captured by the debuglet 212 upon a physical breakpoint condition being hit by one of the software processes P.sub.1-n of the distributed service 150” (Haba, col 14, lines 55-61).
Karablieh ("Heterogeneous checkpointing for multithreaded applications") discloses “The preprocessor generates various data structures to keep track ofthe state of the different executing threads.” (Karablieh, page 4, right column, third paragraph).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SELENA SABAH NAHRA whose telephone number is (571)272-6115. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 AM -5:30 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, Hyung 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.
/S.S.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2192
/S. Sough/SPE, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights