Detailed Notice
1. This office action is in response to communication filed November 16, 2023. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and claims 1, 8, and 17 are the independent claims.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
3. Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 does not have a period at the end of the sentence.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
4. Claims 1-7 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As per independent claim 1, the claim recites “A method comprising: receiving primary application data indicative of a plurality of primary runnables corresponding to a primary computing application; generating, based at least on the primary application data, a primary execution schedule for execution of the plurality of primary runnables using a first plurality of compute engines, the primary execution schedule including one or more timing bubbles inserted therein; receiving secondary application data indicative of a plurality of secondary runnables corresponding to a secondary computing application; generating, based at least on the secondary application data, a secondary execution schedule for execution of the plurality of secondary runnables using a second plurality of compute engines; and generating a combined execution schedule by at least inserting the secondary execution schedule in the one or more timing bubbles of the primary execution schedule, the combined execution schedule dictating execution timing and order of the plurality of primary runnables and the plurality of secondary runnables.”
Under Step 2A, Prong I, the limitation “generating, based at least on the primary application data, a primary execution schedule for execution of the plurality of primary runnables using a first plurality of compute engines, the primary execution schedule including one or more timing bubbles inserted therein” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person may create an execution schedule using timing bubbles with the help of pen and paper by drawing out timing bubbles over a period of time and inserting primary runnables into the available timing bubbles to generate a primary execution schedule. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong I, the limitation “generating, based at least on the secondary application data, a secondary execution schedule for execution of the plurality of secondary runnables using a second plurality of compute engines” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person may create an execution schedule using timing bubbles with the help of pen and paper by drawing out timing bubbles over a period of time and inserting secondary runnables into the available timing bubbles to generate a secondary execution schedule. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong I, the limitation “generating a combined execution schedule by at least inserting the secondary execution schedule in the one or more timing bubbles of the primary execution schedule, the combined execution schedule dictating execution timing and order of the plurality of primary runnables and the plurality of secondary runnables” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person may create a combined execution schedule with the help of pen and paper by drawing out the primary execution schedule created on paper with timing bubbles over a period of time and inserting secondary runnables into the available timing bubbles to generate a combined execution schedule. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular under step 2A Prong II, claim 1 recites the additional elements “receiving primary application data indicative of a plurality of primary runnables corresponding to a primary computing application; receiving secondary application data indicative of a plurality of secondary runnables corresponding to a secondary computing application;” The additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activities of mere data gathering (Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
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 ideas into a practical application, the additional elements “receiving primary application data indicative of a plurality of primary runnables corresponding to a primary computing application; receiving secondary application data indicative of a plurality of secondary runnables corresponding to a secondary computing application” represent the well-understood, routine, conventional activity of receiving or transmitting data over a network (buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)). The additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply an exception of receiving application data for different priority level applications in conjunction with creating execution schedules for these applications based on their level of priority. The additional elements that are well- understood, routine, conventional activity do not amount to significantly more, and are thus, not an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per claim 2, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 1 upon which it depends, and further recites, “wherein the combined execution schedule includes one or more commands corresponding to one or more timing fences, the one or more timing fences dictate the execution timing and order of the plurality of primary runnables and the plurality of secondary runnables”, which conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, merely provides further clarification as to the combined execution schedules process of scheduling runnables based on timing fences, which does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore, claim 2 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 3, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 1 upon which it depends, and further recites, “wherein the combined execution schedule indicates that execution of the plurality of primary runnables is prioritized over execution of the plurality of secondary runnables”, which conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, merely provides further clarification as to the priority of primary runnables over secondary runnables, which does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore, claim 3 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 4, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 1 upon which it depends, and further recites, “wherein the first plurality of compute engines and the second plurality of compute engines include the same compute engines”, which conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, merely provides further clarification as to the shared usage of compute engines for execution of primary runnables and secondary runnables, which does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore, claim 4 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 5, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 1 upon which it depends, and further recites, “wherein the second plurality of compute engines includes a subset of the first plurality of compute engines”, which conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, merely provides further clarification as to the shared usage of compute engines for execution of primary runnables and secondary runnables, which does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore, claim 5 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 6, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 1 upon which it depends, and further recites, “terminating execution of one or more of the secondary runnables in response to execution of the secondary execution schedule during execution of the combined execution schedule overrunning an allocated amount of time corresponding to the secondary execution schedule”, which conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, merely provides further clarification as to the priority of primary runnables in comparison to secondary runnables especially if the secondary runnables overextend their allocated execution time, which does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore, claim 6 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 7, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 1 upon which it depends, and further recites, “wherein one or more gatekeeper runnables control switching between execution of the primary execution schedule and execution of the secondary execution schedule”, which conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, merely provides further clarification as to the authority in charge of switching execution between the primary and secondary execution schedule to properly run a combined execution schedule, which does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore, claim 7 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per independent claim 17, the claim recites “A system comprising: one or more processors to cause performance of operations comprising: generating a combined execution schedule based at least on inserting, in one or more timing bubbles of a first execution schedule, a second execution schedule; and executing, using a plurality of compute engines and based at least on the combined execution schedule, a first computing application corresponding to the first execution schedule and a second computing application corresponding to the second execution schedule.”
Under Step 2A, Prong I, the limitation “generating a combined execution schedule based at least on inserting, in one or more timing bubbles of a first execution schedule, a second execution schedule” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person may create a combined execution schedule with the help of pen and paper by drawing out the primary execution schedule created on paper with timing bubbles over a period of time and inserting secondary runnables into the available timing bubbles to generate a combined execution schedule. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. In particular under step 2A Prong II, claim 1 recites the additional elements “one or more processors to cause performance of operations comprising: … executing, using a plurality of compute engines and based at least on the combined execution schedule, a first computing application corresponding to the first execution schedule and a second computing application corresponding to the second execution schedule.” The additional element “one or more processors to cause performance of operations comprising: …” can be interpreted as a generic computing components for performing the steps of the application, thus this computer/device is an additional element. The additional element “executing, using a plurality of compute engines and based at least on the combined execution schedule, a first computing application corresponding to the first execution schedule and a second computing application corresponding to the second execution schedule” represents the extra-solution activity of merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply an exception of executing application tasks by combining execution schedules of two unique computing applications. The additional elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional activity do not amount to significantly more, and are thus, not an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per claim 18, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 17 upon which it depends, and further recites, “wherein transitions between the first execution schedule and the second execution schedule are controlled by a relay client”, which conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, merely provides further clarification as to the authority in charge of switching execution between the primary and secondary execution schedule to properly run a combined execution schedule, which does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore, claim 18 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 17 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 17, above.
As per claim 19, it incorporates the deficiencies of dependent claim 18 upon which it depends, and further recites, “wherein the relay client is configured to monitor one or more transition signals and is configured to control the transitions based at least on the one or more transition signals”, which conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, merely provides further clarification as to the authority in charge of switching execution between the primary and secondary execution schedule based on transition signals to properly run a combined execution schedule, which does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore, claim 19 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 18 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 18, above.
As per claim 20, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 17 upon which it depends, and further recites, “wherein the system is comprised in at least one of: a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a system for performing simulation operations; a system for performing digital twin operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets; a system for performing deep learning operations; a system for presenting at least one of augmented reality content, virtual reality content, or mixed reality content; a system for hosting one or more real-time streaming applications; a system implemented using an edge device; a system implemented using a robot; a system for performing conversational AI operations; a system for performing one or more generative AI operations; a system implementing one or more large language models (LLMs); a system for generating synthetic data; a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs); a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources”, which conceptually, with broadest reasonable interpretation, merely provides further clarification as to the type of system that would find use in running a combined execution schedule of multiple applications, which does not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the abstract idea/mental process. Therefore, claim 20 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 17 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 17, above.
5. Claims 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to software per se wherein no claim language in claim 8 provides clear physical structure rather than just software implementation. The recitation of a plurality of compute engines in claim 8 can be interpreted and implemented as software or a software module based on the invention’s Specification wherein:
[0041] As discussed in detail in the present disclosure, one or more embodiments of the present disclosure relate to the management of tasks of computing applications that may be executed by a heterogenous computing system. In the present disclosure, a "heterogenous computing system" may include multiple software and/or hardware engines (referred to generally as "compute engines") configured to operate together in the performance of computing work. For example, the heterogenous computing system may perform work across a set of compute engines that may include one or more: operating system processes, virtual machines, systems on chip, Central Processing Units (CPUS), Graphics Processing Units (GPUs), hardware accelerators (e.g., a deep learning accelerator (DLA), a programmable vision accelerator (PVA), etc.), or any combination thereof.
[0066] In some embodiments, the compiler 202 may be configured to generate one or more of the schedules 204 with respect to a heterogenous runtime system ("runtime system") that may include multiple compute engines, such as described in the present disclosure. In order to effectively execute the sets of operations (e.g., runnables or tasks) of the computing applications or modules, various resources of the runtime system may be used. Examples of the resources may include hardware resources (e.g., a deep learning accelerator (DLA), an artificial intelligence (AI) accelerator, a programmable vision accelerator (PV A) (which may include one or more direct memory access (DMA) systems and/or one or more vector processors (VPUs)), a GPU(s), a CPU(s), a VPU(s), a PPU(s), a DPU(s), etc.), software resources (e.g., CUDA streams, accelerator queues, etc.), and/or scheduling mutexes.
The compute engines can be software-based engines based on [0041] and the resources of the runtime system can be software resources based on [0066]. Thus, the system claim is merely comprising the software module corresponding to the compute engines and runtime system resources and therefore claim 8 is considered as software per se claim. Additionally, dependent claims 9-16 do not provide any non-software structure not previously seen in independent claim 8, so claims 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directing to software per se.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
6. Claims 1-3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandt et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0079486) – hereinafter “Brandt” in view of Burger et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0100757) – hereinafter “Burger”.
Regarding independent claim 1, Brandt discloses:A method comprising:
receiving primary application data indicative of a plurality of primary runnables corresponding to a primary computing application; (Figs. 1-3 and [0032] In the illustrated embodiment, the EDF scheduler 114 schedules tasks for both of the applications 106, 110 stored in the memory. Hence, the scheduler 114 schedules EDF processes 116 for the application 106 designed for implementation with the EDF schedule 108. Also, the scheduler 114 schedules static/sporadic processes 118 for the application 110 designed for implementation with the static schedule 112.) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the scheduler receives the EDF processes and the static processes to generate an integrated schedule. The EDF processes are mapped to the primary runnables from this invention.
generating, based at least on the primary application data, a primary execution schedule for execution of the plurality of primary runnables using a first plurality of compute engines … (Figs. 1-3 and [0032] In the illustrated embodiment, the EDF scheduler 114 schedules tasks for both of the applications 106, 110 stored in the memory. Hence, the scheduler 114 schedules EDF processes 116 for the application 106 designed for implementation with the EDF schedule 108. Also, the scheduler 114 schedules static/sporadic processes 118 for the application 110 designed for implementation with the static schedule 112.) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the scheduler receives the EDF processes and the static processes to generate an integrated schedule. The scheduler schedules EDF processes into an EDF schedule which is mapped to the primary execution schedule from this invention.
receiving secondary application data indicative of a plurality of secondary runnables corresponding to a secondary computing application; (Figs. 1-3 and [0032] In the illustrated embodiment, the EDF scheduler 114 schedules tasks for both of the applications 106, 110 stored in the memory. Hence, the scheduler 114 schedules EDF processes 116 for the application 106 designed for implementation with the EDF schedule 108. Also, the scheduler 114 schedules static/sporadic processes 118 for the application 110 designed for implementation with the static schedule 112.) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the scheduler receives the EDF processes and the static schedule to generate an integrated schedule. The static processes are mapped to the secondary runnables from this invention.
generating, based at least on the secondary application data, a secondary execution schedule for execution of the plurality of secondary runnables using a second plurality of compute engines; and (Figs. 1-3 and [0032] In the illustrated embodiment, the EDF scheduler 114 schedules tasks for both of the applications 106, 110 stored in the memory. Hence, the scheduler 114 schedules EDF processes 116 for the application 106 designed for implementation with the EDF schedule 108. Also, the scheduler 114 schedules static/sporadic processes 118 for the application 110 designed for implementation with the static schedule 112.) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the scheduler receives the EDF processes and the static schedule to generate an integrated schedule. The scheduler schedules static processes into a static schedule which is mapped to the secondary execution schedule from this invention.
generating a combined execution schedule by at least inserting the secondary execution schedule in the one or more timing bubbles of the primary execution schedule, the combined execution schedule dictating execution timing and order of the plurality of primary runnables and the plurality of secondary runnables. (Figs. 1-3 and [0040] “One example of an integrated schedule 134 is shown in FIG. 2. The integrated schedule 134 includes the jobs from both the EDF schedule 108 and the static schedule 112. In one embodiment, the entire static schedule 112 is treated as a non-periodic real-time task, and the critical instants of the static jobs are used as the deadlines of the jobs in the task in the integrated schedule 134. When all of the jobs in the static schedule 112 have completed, the entire set of jobs may be repeated, similar to the way that individual jobs in a periodic task are repeated.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the scheduler receives the EDF processes and the static schedule to generate an integrated schedule. The integrated schedule, mapped to the combined execution schedule from this application, contains both the EDF schedule (primary execution schedule) and the static schedule (secondary execution schedule).
Brandt does not explicitly disclose:
… the primary execution schedule including one or more timing bubbles inserted therein;
However, Burger discloses:
… the primary execution schedule including one or more timing bubbles inserted therein; ([0035] “In some cases, the compiler may identify "holes" in the static execution schedule in which a functional unit is not being used for a current instruction at runtime and thus may be available for processing. As used herein, holes are defined as cycles during which the functional units are unoccupied by the static execution schedule. When a dynamically scheduled instruction is issued from the regular mode into a hole, the static execution schedule is not perturbed nor are any structural hazards created. By enabling the processor's wakeup and select logic to issue instructions into those holes the compiler can fill holes in the static execution schedule with regular dynamic instructions so that functional unit utilization may be increased. Implementation of such hole filling techniques further enables the array to be used in a hybrid mode of operation, supporting both modes of execution at once. Additionally, the compiler may insert holes into the static execution schedule to make room for dynamically issued instructions from the standard mode of operation.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, static execution schedule has holes/timing bubbles to insert activities into for secondary tasks/dynamically scheduled instructions to be able to execute.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the primary execution schedule including one or more timing bubbles inserted therein as seen in Burger’s invention into Brandt's invention because these modifications allow combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results such that the execution schedule has holes/bubbles to fill in for other tasks to not completely dominate the execution resources.
Regarding dependent claim 2, Brandt discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the combined execution schedule includes one or more commands corresponding to one or more timing fences, the one or more timing fences dictate the execution timing and order of the plurality of primary runnables and the plurality of secondary runnables. ([0035] “A periodic real-time task commonly includes a unit of work called a job that is repeatedly executed with a frequency equal to 1/p, where p is the period of the task. Thus, a task with a period of 1/10 of a second would execute the job as many as ten times per second. Jobs become ready to run at their release time and must complete by their deadline. A common practice is to make the deadline of the previous job the release time of the next job, and to set the deadline of each job equal to the period of the task. In that scenario, the execution of the task includes a sequence of jobs--one job per period, and each job is ready to run as soon as the previous job's deadline has been reached. Other embodiments may be implemented with other possible configurations that use different release times and/or deadlines.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the schedule is filled with periodic real-time tasks such that they represent timing fences for currently placed activities on the schedule and then additional tasks are filled into open time slots.
Regarding dependent claim 3, Brandt discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the combined execution schedule indicates that execution of the plurality of primary runnables is prioritized over execution of the plurality of secondary runnables. ([0005] “In contrast to static schedules, other schedulers use dynamic schedules. One type of dynamic schedule is a dynamic priority-based schedule. Priority scheduling (e.g., rate monotonic (RM)) assigns a static priority to each concurrently executing task. Tasks are executed according to their priority, with the highest priority task that is currently executable always selected for execution. A limitation of static priority-based schedules is that in general only a relatively low fraction of the CPU utilization may be guaranteed. Another type of dynamic schedule is a dynamic deadline-based schedule. Deadline scheduling assigns a set of deadlines to each task. In one deadline-based scheduling algorithm known as earliest deadline first (EDF), the system always runs the task with the earliest deadline. An advantage of EDF is that 100% of the CPU utilization may be guaranteed. However, EDF is less frequently used due to concerns about its overhead. Recent research indicates that deadline based schemes are effective in supporting a broad range of types of processes ranging from best-effort to hard real-time.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the application tasks can be scheduled based on priority which is set before execution of any tasks or can be set to maximize CPU utilization which will lead to varying priority but still complete all tasks.
Regarding independent claim 17, it is a system claim having the same limitations as cited in method claim 1. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as addressed in the rejection of claim 1 above.
7. Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandt et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0079486) – hereinafter “Brandt” in view of Puthoor et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0195459) – hereinafter “Puthoor”.
Regarding independent claim 8, Brandt discloses:
A system comprising:
a runtime system configured to perform, according to a combined execution schedule, operations with respect to controlling execution using the plurality of compute engines of a first plurality of runnables corresponding to a first computing application and a second plurality of runnables corresponding to a second computing application … (Figs. 1-3 and [0040] “One example of an integrated schedule 134 is shown in FIG. 2. The integrated schedule 134 includes the jobs from both the EDF schedule 108 and the static schedule 112. In one embodiment, the entire static schedule 112 is treated as a non-periodic real-time task, and the critical instants of the static jobs are used as the deadlines of the jobs in the task in the integrated schedule 134. When all of the jobs in the static schedule 112 have completed, the entire set of jobs may be repeated, similar to the way that individual jobs in a periodic task are repeated.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the scheduler receives the EDF processes and the static schedule to generate an integrated schedule. The integrated schedule, mapped to the combined execution schedule from this application, contains both the EDF schedule (primary execution schedule) and the static schedule (secondary execution schedule).
Brandt does not explicitly disclose:
a plurality of compute engines; and
… the operations comprising controlling transitions between execution of the first plurality of runnables and the second plurality of runnables using one or more gatekeeper runnables.
However, Puthoor discloses:
a plurality of compute engines; and (Fig. 1, Execution Units 150 attached to Memory Controller 140 and Gatekeeper 145) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the plurality of execution units complete the same tasks as the compute engines.
… the operations comprising controlling transitions between execution of the first plurality of runnables and the second plurality of runnables using one or more gatekeeper runnables. ([0063] “If another process is the active PIM process and another registered PIM process is active on the PIM device, the gatekeeper performs 512 a context switch of PIM state between the registered PIM processes and then issues 515 the PIM command of the memory request of the requesting process to the PIM device. As part of the context switch, the gatekeeper also updates the active PIM process to be the requesting process's process ID.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the gatekeeper controls context switching between PIM states/PIM processes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a plurality of compute engines and the operations comprising controlling transitions between execution of the first plurality of runnables and the second plurality of runnables using one or more gatekeeper runnables as seen in Puthoor’s invention into Brandt's invention because these modifications allow applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results such that execution is handled by plurality of physical resources rather than handling all tasks in one environment and a gatekeeper ensures only one runnable at a time is handled per allocation of resources so as to not create errors.
Regarding dependent claim 9, Brandt discloses the system of claim 8, wherein the combined execution schedule is based at least on a first execution schedule corresponding to the first computing application and a second execution schedule corresponding to the second computing application. (Figs. 1-3 and [0040] “One example of an integrated schedule 134 is shown in FIG. 2. The integrated schedule 134 includes the jobs from both the EDF schedule 108 and the static schedule 112. In one embodiment, the entire static schedule 112 is treated as a non-periodic real-time task, and the critical instants of the static jobs are used as the deadlines of the jobs in the task in the integrated schedule 134. When all of the jobs in the static schedule 112 have completed, the entire set of jobs may be repeated, similar to the way that individual jobs in a periodic task are repeated.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the scheduler receives the EDF processes and the static schedule to generate an integrated schedule. The integrated schedule, mapped to the combined execution schedule from this application, contains both the EDF schedule (primary execution schedule) and the static schedule (secondary execution schedule).
Regarding dependent claim 10, Brandt discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the combined execution schedule is generated at least by inserting the second execution schedule in the first execution schedule. (Figs. 1-3 and ([0059] “In the illustrated embodiment, the depicted method 200 includes receiving 202 a plurality of jobs for an earliest deadline first (EDF) schedule. In one embodiment, the EDF scheduler 114 implements an EDF scheduling model using the jobs. The EDF scheduler 114 also receives 204 a separate job that is, in some embodiments, from a source other than the EDF schedule.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the primary schedule (EDF schedule) has a secondary schedule (separate job) inserted into its schedule to create a combined execution schedule.
8. Claims 4-5, 7, 12-13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandt et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0079486) – hereinafter “Brandt” in view of Burger et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0100757) – hereinafter “Burger” and Puthoor et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0195459) – hereinafter “Puthoor”.
Regarding dependent claim 4, Brandt in view of Burger discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first plurality of compute engines and the second plurality of compute engines include the same compute engines.
However, Puthoor discloses:
wherein the first plurality of compute engines and the second plurality of compute engines include the same compute engines. (Fig. 1, Execution Units 150 attached to Memory Controller 140 and Gatekeeper 145) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the plurality of execution units complete the same tasks as the compute engines.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein the first plurality of compute engines and the second plurality of compute engines include the same compute engines as seen in Puthoor’s invention into Brandt’s and Burger’s inventions because these modifications allow the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way such that the same resources can be the ones executing the tasks from a plurality of applications rather than completely separating execution resources.
Regarding dependent claim 5, Brandt in view of Burger discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the second plurality of compute engines includes a subset of the first plurality of compute engines.
However, Puthoor discloses:
wherein the second plurality of compute engines includes a subset of the first plurality of compute engines. (Fig. 1, Execution Units 150 attached to Memory Controller 140 and Gatekeeper 145) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the plurality of execution units complete the same tasks as the compute engines.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein the second plurality of compute engines includes a subset of the first plurality of compute engines as seen in Puthoor’s invention into Brandt’s and Burger’s inventions because these modifications allow the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way such that the same resources can be the ones executing the tasks from a plurality of applications rather than completely separating execution resources.
Regarding dependent claim 7, Brandt in view of Burger discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein one or more gatekeeper runnables control switching between execution of the primary execution schedule and execution of the secondary execution schedule.
However, Puthoor discloses:
wherein one or more gatekeeper runnables control switching between execution of the primary execution schedule and execution of the secondary execution schedule. ([0063] “If another process is the active PIM process and another registered PIM process is active on the PIM device, the gatekeeper performs 512 a context switch of PIM state between the registered PIM processes and then issues 515 the PIM command of the memory request of the requesting process to the PIM device. As part of the context switch, the gatekeeper also updates the active PIM process to be the requesting process's process ID.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the gatekeeper controls context switching between PIM states/PIM processes.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein one or more gatekeeper runnables control switching between execution of the primary execution schedule and execution of the secondary execution schedule as seen in Puthoor’s invention into Brandt’s and Burger’s inventions because these modifications allow the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results such that in this case the switching between primary tasks and secondary tasks is handled by a gatekeeper runnable compared to other resources.
Regarding dependent claim 12, it is a system claim having the same limitations as cited in method claim 7. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationale as addressed in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Regarding dependent claim 13, it is a system claim having the same limitations as cited in method claim 3. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected under the same rationale as addressed in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Regarding dependent claim 18, Brandt in view of Burger discloses the system of claim 17, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein transitions between the first execution schedule and the second execution schedule are controlled by a relay client.
However, Puthoor discloses:
wherein transitions between the first execution schedule and the second execution schedule are controlled by a relay client. ([0063] “If another process is the active PIM process and another registered PIM process is active on the PIM device, the gatekeeper performs 512 a context switch of PIM state between the registered PIM processes and then issues 515 the PIM command of the memory request of the requesting process to the PIM device. As part of the context switch, the gatekeeper also updates the active PIM process to be the requesting process's process ID.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the gatekeeper controls context switching between PIM states/PIM processes which relays the switching to the execution units.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein transitions between the first execution schedule and the second execution schedule are controlled by a relay client as seen in Puthoor’s invention into Brandt’s and Burger’s inventions because these modifications allow the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results such that in this case the switching between primary tasks and secondary tasks is handled by a relay client compared to other resources.
9. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandt et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0079486) – hereinafter “Brandt” in view of Burger et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0100757) – hereinafter “Burger”, further in view of Televitckiy et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0034412) – hereinafter “Televitckiy”.
Regarding dependent claim 6, Brandt in view of Burger discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
further comprising terminating execution of one or more of the secondary runnables in response to execution of the secondary execution schedule during execution of the combined execution schedule overrunning an allocated amount of time corresponding to the secondary execution schedule.
However, Televitckiy discloses:
further comprising terminating execution of one or more of the secondary runnables in response to execution of the secondary execution schedule during execution of the combined execution schedule overrunning an allocated amount of time corresponding to the secondary execution schedule. ([0007] “Optionally, developing the schedule may include assigning a maximum time to one or more of the tasks, and when implementing the execution plan, for any task whose execution time exceeds its assigned maximum time, performing one or more actions pertaining to the task and moving to a subsequent task in the schedule. Performing one or more actions pertaining to the task may include one or more of the following: skipping the task, suspending execution of the task, halting execution of the task, or terminating execution of the task.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the exceeding of a maximum time for a task in the execution plan leads to terminating the task’s execution and performing the subsequent task in the schedule.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add further comprising terminating execution of one or more of the secondary runnables in response to execution of the secondary execution schedule during execution of the combined execution schedule overrunning an allocated amount of time corresponding to the secondary execution schedule as seen in Televitckiy’s invention into Brandt’s and Burger’s inventions because these modifications allow applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results such that the execution taking longer than scheduled leads to the termination of the task as each task is given a specific timing bubble to finish its execution in and does not have excess clock timing to use.
10. Claims 11 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandt et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0079486) – hereinafter “Brandt” in view of Puthoor et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0195459) – hereinafter “Puthoor”, further in view of Eiras et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0219585) – hereinafter “Eiras”.
Regarding dependent claim 11, Brandt discloses the system of claim 8, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the system corresponds to an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine, the second execution schedule corresponds to a shadow mode for testing the second plurality of runnables and planning, control, or actuation of the autonomous or semi-autonomous machine is performed without using outputs of the second plurality of runnables.
However, Eiras discloses:
wherein the system corresponds to an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine, the second execution schedule corresponds to a shadow mode for testing the second plurality of runnables and planning, control, or actuation of the autonomous or semi-autonomous machine is performed without using outputs of the second plurality of runnables. (Fig. 1 and [0118] “FIG. 1 shows a highly schematic block diagram of a runtime stack 100 for an autonomous vehicle (AV), also referred to herein as an ego vehicle (EV). The run time stack 100 is shown to comprise a perception system 102, a prediction system 104, a planner 106 and a controller 108.” and [0183] “FIG. 3B shows the testing of the target planner against a reference planner running in shadow mode against one or more test metrics at a given timestep. For each planner, the internal state of the planner at a given time step may be defined as its instantaneous planned trajectory at that timestep. The Test Oracle 252 receives the instantaneous planned trajectory for each of the target and reference planners and compares the trajectories for corresponding timesteps (i.e. common perception and prediction inputs). The trajectories comprise position and motion parameters for the ego vehicle, from which metrics of the vehicle's respective performance along each planned trajectory may be derived and compared.” and [0203] “Respective trajectories may be passed to the test oracle 252 to be evaluated based on one or more metrics which test the performance of the ego vehicle. FIG. 7 shows an example time plot of a single test metric for an instantaneous planned trajectory planned by a target planner 106T and a reference planner 106R running in shadow mode (i.e. along the same travelled trajectory, driven by the target planner, as described in FIG. 3A). An example test metric by which to measure the trajectories is the progress of the ego vehicle over time. The distance covered by the ego vehicle in a given time interval may be converted to a score and normalized to a predetermined scale. In this example, the test metric is measured as a score ranging from −1 to 1. The score of the respective instantaneous trajectory for each of the target planner 106T and the reference planner 106R is calculated at each planning step, i.e. the progress over time of the full instantaneous trajectory is calculated for each planner at a given planner step. A threshold of failure may be chosen, which defines the minimum allowable score for the given metric. For example, the progress of the ego vehicle may be required to be higher than some given distance in a predefined time interval. The normalization of the planner scores may be determined such that the failure threshold is set at 0.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the autonomous vehicle has a controller that executes tests of the target planner compared to a reference planner running in shadow mode to test the autonomous vehicle’s ability.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein the system corresponds to an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine, the second execution schedule corresponds to a shadow mode for testing the second plurality of runnables and planning, control, or actuation of the autonomous or semi-autonomous machine is performed without using outputs of the second plurality of runnables as seen in Eiras’s invention into Brandt’s and Puthoor’s invention because these modifications allow the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way such that the autonomous machine’s environment is a use case for the execution of multiple runnables at the same time specifically in a shadow mode to test execution environments without having to run explicit instructions in the foreground.
Regarding dependent claim 16, Brandt in view of Puthoor discloses the system of claim 8, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the system is comprised in at least one of:
a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine;
a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine;
a system for performing simulation operations;
a system for performing digital twin operations;
a system for performing light transport simulation;
a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets;
a system for performing deep learning operations;
a system for presenting at least one of augmented reality content, virtual reality content, or mixed reality content;
a system for hosting one or more real-time streaming applications;
a system implemented using an edge device;
a system implemented using a robot;
a system for performing conversational AI operations;
a system for performing one or more generative AI operations;
a system implementing one or more large language models (LLMs);
a system for generating synthetic data;
a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs);
a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or
a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources.
However, Eiras discloses:
wherein the system is comprised in at least one of:
a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; (Fig. 1 and [0118] “FIG. 1 shows a highly schematic block diagram of a runtime stack 100 for an autonomous vehicle (AV), also referred to herein as an ego vehicle (EV). The run time stack 100 is shown to comprise a perception system 102, a prediction system 104, a planner 106 and a controller 108.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the autonomous vehicle has a controller.
a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; (Fig. 1 and [0118] “FIG. 1 shows a highly schematic block diagram of a runtime stack 100 for an autonomous vehicle (AV), also referred to herein as an ego vehicle (EV). The run time stack 100 is shown to comprise a perception system 102, a prediction system 104, a planner 106 and a controller 108.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the autonomous vehicle has a perception system.
a system for performing simulation operations;
a system for performing digital twin operations;
a system for performing light transport simulation;
a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets;
a system for performing deep learning operations;
a system for presenting at least one of augmented reality content, virtual reality content, or mixed reality content;
a system for hosting one or more real-time streaming applications;
a system implemented using an edge device;
a system implemented using a robot;
a system for performing conversational AI operations;
a system for performing one or more generative AI operations;
a system implementing one or more large language models (LLMs);
a system for generating synthetic data;
a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs);
a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or
a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein the system is comprised in at least one of: a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a system for performing simulation operations; a system for performing digital twin operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets; a system for performing deep learning operations; a system for presenting at least one of augmented reality content, virtual reality content, or mixed reality content; a system for hosting one or more real-time streaming applications; a system implemented using an edge device; a system implemented using a robot; a system for performing conversational AI operations; a system for performing one or more generative AI operations; a system implementing one or more large language models (LLMs); a system for generating synthetic data; a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs); a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources as seen in Eiras’s invention into Brandt’s and Puthoor’s inventions because these modifications allow the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results such that a system for executing a plurality of tasks by different systems at the same time could be handled in many systems including autonomous/semi-autonomous machinery.
11. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandt et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0079486) – hereinafter “Brandt” in view of Puthoor et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0195459) – hereinafter “Puthoor”, further in view of Cheng et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0250787).
Regarding dependent claim 14, Brandt in view of Puthoor discloses the system of claim 8, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the transitions between execution of the first plurality of runnables and the second plurality of runnables includes changing one or more respective domains of one or more compute engines of the plurality of compute engines.
However, Cheng discloses:
wherein the transitions between execution of the first plurality of runnables and the second plurality of runnables includes changing one or more respective domains of one or more compute engines of the plurality of compute engines. ([0036] “In other implementations, an application sends other numbers and/or types of signals or hints to the scheduler for each frame. Additionally, in other implementations, more than two different priority levels can be employed. For example, in one implementation, an application sends a signal to the scheduler when the application starts to queue jobs for a frame. This signal can be used in addition to the other two previously described signals. When the scheduler receives the signal indicating that the application has started to queue jobs for a current frame, the scheduler transitions the application to a medium priority state. In this implementation, an application can be at one of three different priority levels (high, medium, or low). In another implementation, a frame deadline is tagged to the high priority signal so that the scheduler has more information about the urgency of each frame for the different applications. Attaching the frame deadline to the high priority signal allows the scheduler to make a better priority comparison between the different applications executing on the processing hardware.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the execution environment can change for each task being executed based on the priority level and frame deadline of the job such as increasing resource allocation of the compute engines to complete a job ahead of its deadline.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein the transitions between execution of the first plurality of runnables and the second plurality of runnables includes changing one or more respective domains of one or more compute engines of the plurality of compute engines as seen in Cheng’s invention into Brandt’s and Puthoor’s invention because these modifications allow the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results such that in this case the switching between primary tasks and secondary tasks is handled by switching of the allocation of resources that execute the tasks based on their priority level and frame deadline.
12. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandt et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0079486) – hereinafter “Brandt” in view of Puthoor et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0195459) – hereinafter “Puthoor”, further in view of Smith et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0244584) – hereinafter “Smith”.
Regarding dependent claim 15, Brandt in view of Puthoor discloses the system of claim 8, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the one or more gatekeeper runnables are configured to control the transitions based at least on one or more transition signals.
However, Smith discloses:
wherein the one or more gatekeeper runnables are configured to control the transitions based at least on one or more transition signals. ([0046] “The schedule manager 110 is operable to receive the task from the queue 106 and provide the task to a scheduler 112. In at least one embodiment, the scheduling system 100 includes a plurality of different schedulers 112, each scheduler 112 having at least one characteristic. Retrieval of the tasks from the queue 106 is in at least one embodiment based upon a trigger 108. The trigger 108 may be the passage of time, an accumulation of a specific quantity of tasks in the queue, a signal from a scheduler that it is available, and/or other indicator or combinations of indicators.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the signal/trigger determines the transition between tasks.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein the one or more gatekeeper runnables are configured to control the transitions based at least on one or more transition signals as seen in Smith’s invention into Brandt’s and Puthoor’s invention because these modifications allow the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results such that in this case the switching between primary tasks and secondary tasks is handled by a gatekeeper runnable receiving a transition signal compared to other resources.
13. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandt et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0079486) – hereinafter “Brandt” in view of Burger et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0100757) – hereinafter “Burger” and Puthoor et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0195459) – hereinafter “Puthoor”, further in view of Smith et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0244584) – hereinafter “Smith”.
Regarding dependent claim 19, Brandt in view of Burger and Puthoor discloses the system of claim 18, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the relay client is configured to monitor one or more transition signals and is configured to control the transitions based at least on the one or more transition signals. However, Smith discloses:
wherein the relay client is configured to monitor one or more transition signals and is configured to control the transitions based at least on the one or more transition signals. ([0046] “The schedule manager 110 is operable to receive the task from the queue 106 and provide the task to a scheduler 112. In at least one embodiment, the scheduling system 100 includes a plurality of different schedulers 112, each scheduler 112 having at least one characteristic. Retrieval of the tasks from the queue 106 is in at least one embodiment based upon a trigger 108. The trigger 108 may be the passage of time, an accumulation of a specific quantity of tasks in the queue, a signal from a scheduler that it is available, and/or other indicator or combinations of indicators.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the signal/trigger determines the transition between tasks.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein the relay client is configured to monitor one or more transition signals and is configured to control the transitions based at least on the one or more transition signals as seen in Smith’s invention into Brandt's, Burger’s, and Puthoor’s invention because these modifications allow the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results such that in this case the switching between primary tasks and secondary tasks is handled by a relay client receiving a transition signal compared to other resources.
14. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandt et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0079486) – hereinafter “Brandt” in view of Burger et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0100757) – hereinafter “Burger”, further in view of Eiras et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0219585) – hereinafter “Eiras”.
Regarding dependent claim 20, Brandt in view of Burger discloses the system of claim 17, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the system is comprised in at least one of:
a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine;
a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine;
a system for performing simulation operations;
a system for performing digital twin operations;
a system for performing light transport simulation;
a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets;
a system for performing deep learning operations;
a system for presenting at least one of augmented reality content, virtual reality content, or mixed reality content;
a system for hosting one or more real-time streaming applications;
a system implemented using an edge device;
a system implemented using a robot;
a system for performing conversational AI operations;
a system for performing one or more generative AI operations;
a system implementing one or more large language models (LLMs);
a system for generating synthetic data;
a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs);
a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or
a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources.
However, Eiras discloses:
wherein the system is comprised in at least one of:
a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; (Fig. 1 and [0118] “FIG. 1 shows a highly schematic block diagram of a runtime stack 100 for an autonomous vehicle (AV), also referred to herein as an ego vehicle (EV). The run time stack 100 is shown to comprise a perception system 102, a prediction system 104, a planner 106 and a controller 108.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the autonomous vehicle has a controller.
a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; (Fig. 1 and [0118] “FIG. 1 shows a highly schematic block diagram of a runtime stack 100 for an autonomous vehicle (AV), also referred to herein as an ego vehicle (EV). The run time stack 100 is shown to comprise a perception system 102, a prediction system 104, a planner 106 and a controller 108.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the autonomous vehicle has a perception system.
a system for performing simulation operations;
a system for performing digital twin operations;
a system for performing light transport simulation;
a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets;
a system for performing deep learning operations;
a system for presenting at least one of augmented reality content, virtual reality content, or mixed reality content;
a system for hosting one or more real-time streaming applications;
a system implemented using an edge device;
a system implemented using a robot;
a system for performing conversational AI operations;
a system for performing one or more generative AI operations;
a system implementing one or more large language models (LLMs);
a system for generating synthetic data;
a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs);
a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or
a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add wherein the system is comprised in at least one of: a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a system for performing simulation operations; a system for performing digital twin operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets; a system for performing deep learning operations; a system for presenting at least one of augmented reality content, virtual reality content, or mixed reality content; a system for hosting one or more real-time streaming applications; a system implemented using an edge device; a system implemented using a robot; a system for performing conversational AI operations; a system for performing one or more generative AI operations; a system implementing one or more large language models (LLMs); a system for generating synthetic data; a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs); a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources as seen in Eiras’s invention into Brandt’s and Burger’s inventions because these modifications allow the simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results such that a system for executing a plurality of tasks by different systems at the same time could be handled in many systems including autonomous/semi-autonomous machinery.
Conclusion
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Such prior art includes:
Bahl et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0117504) which discloses computation job execution scheduling including in the environment of autonomous vehicles.
Booman et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0092275) which discloses a system meant to allocate resources for executing multiple applications at the same time.
Binns et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0120661) which discloses inserting non-essential tasks into an execution schedule when idle time is available.
Prakash et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0110506) which discloses transitions between a plurality of tasks from different origins being handled by vGPUs.
Simons et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,887,174) which discloses combining two schedules where instructions are moved into idle slots to decrease overall execution time for the two separate schedules.
Hossain et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0359675) which discloses scheduling to reuse resource leakage that assigns tasks in idle time slots between two already scheduled tasks on a core, which minimizes the idle periods.
Zomaya et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0239017) which discloses adopting task insertion so that a task can be scheduled in the idle time slot between two consecutive tasks already assigned to the processor as long as no violation of precedence constraints is made.
Fishel et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0340014) which discloses task switching between task queues. The neural task manager can cause the neural processor circuit to task switch and execute one or more tasks of a second task list in a second task queue due to a task queue having a higher priority parameter than a task queue that is being executed.
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraphs/sections and line numbers in the references applied and not relied upon to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in 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.
When responding to the Office action, applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the reference(s) cited or the objections made. A showing of how the amendments avoid such references or objections must also be present. See 37 C.F.R. 1.111(c).
When responding to this Office action, applicant is advised to provide the line and page numbers in the application and/or reference(s) cited to assist in locating the appropriate paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL B TRAINOR whose telephone number is (571)272-3710. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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.
/D.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2198
/Adam Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Prosecution Insights