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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Applicant’s Remarks dated January 6th, 2026 responding to the Office Action provided in the rejection of claims 1, 5-7, 11-13, 17-19, and 23-24.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7, 9-10, 13, 15-16, 19, and 21-22 have been amended.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-13, 15-19, and 21-24 are remain pending in the application and which have been fully considered by the examiner.
Claims 1, 7, 13, and 19 are in independent form.
Claims 1, 5-7, 11-13, 17-19, and 23-24 are finally rejected.
Claims 3-4, 9-10, 15-16, and 21-22 are objected.
The Objection to claims 4, 10, 16, and 22 has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
The 35 USC § 112(f) claim interpretation to claims 13 and 15-18 has been maintained.
The 35 USC § 101 rejection to claims 1, 5-7, 11-13, 17-19, and 23-24 has been maintained.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant 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.
REMARKS
Applicant's traversal of the claim rejections, with respect to prior art, primarily consists of the following arguments, which will be addressed below:
Argument #1: Independent claims 1, 7, 13 and 19 have been amended to include all of the limitations of allowable claims 2, 8, 14 and 20, respectively. As such, independent claims 1, 7, 13 and 19 are now allowable (See Remarks, page 7).
Response to Argument #1: As set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed on December 18th, 2025, the allowable subject matter indicated claims 2-4, 8-10, 14-16, and 20-22 are allowable, however, Applicant only incorporated claims 2, 8, 14, and 20 into independent claims 1, 7, 13, and 19, respectively. The incorporated limitation has been considered but are moot in view of FIGS. 1 and 3 of Lapounov (Pub. No.: US 2007/0245330 – art made of record) and paragraphs [0046] – [0052] in detailed rejection below.
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the 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.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claims 13-18 are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, as reciting means-plus functions.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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, 5-7, 11-13, 17-19, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 1, 3-6 and 13, 15-18 are directed to apparatus and fall within the statutory category of machines; Claims 7, 9-12 are directed to methods and fall within the statutory category of processes; and Claims 19, 23-24 are directed to non-transitory computer-readable medium and fall within the statutory category of articles of manufacture. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Claims 1, 7, 13, and 19: recite the limitations of
to receive input program code;
to generate a polyhedral representation of the input program code to obtain an iteration space and a data space;
to identify dead iterations within the iteration space based on the data space and a specified output data space, the dead iterations comprising iterations not contributing to the specified output data space;
to generate, based on the input program code, output program code without the dead iterations; and
to build an inverted data dependence graph.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Steps (a), (b), (c), and (e) as drafted, can be done in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper (mental process).
Therefore, Yes, claims 1, 7, 13, and 19 recite judicial exceptions.
The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1, 7, 13, and 19: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional elements - “at least one memory,” “at least one processor,” “dead iterations,” “iteration space,” “data space, “non- transitory computer-readable medium having program code recorded,” “processor-implemented method,” “apparatus,” and “inverted data dependence graph,” which are merely recitations of generic computing components merely applying the abstract idea using (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Furthermore, steps (c) and (d) are merely applying the abstract idea and field of use/technological environment.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1, 7, 13, and 19 not only recites a judicial exception but that the claim is directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 7, 13, and 19: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 7, 13, and 19 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 5, 11, 17, and 23, they recite additional element recitations of “output a dead iteration space specification” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claims 5, 11, 17, and 23 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 5, 11, 17, and 23 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 5, 11, 17, and 23 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding claims 6, 12, 18, and 24, they recite additional element recitations of “receive a specification of a desired output data space, the specified output data space being based on the specification of the desired output data space and a live-out analysis” which is merely a field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Moreover, claims 6, 12, 18, and 24 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 6, 12, 18, and 24 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as they have not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 6, 12, 18, and 24 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C § 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.
Claims 1, 5-7, 11-13, 17-19, and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Eichenberger et al. (Pub. No. US 2009/0307673 – hereinafter, Eichenberger) in view Zhang et al. (Patent No. US 9,268,537 – hereinafter, Zhang) and further in view of Lapounov et al. (Pub. No.: US 2007/0245330 – hereinafter, Lapounov).
Regarding claim 1:
Eichenberger discloses an apparatus comprising: at least one memory (FIG. 4 – 408, 424, 426, 430); and at least one processor (FIG. 4 – 406, 410) coupled to the at least one memory, the at least one processor configured:
to receive input program code (“receiving source code for a program in a compiler” (See para [0022]));
to generate a polyhedral representation of the input program code to obtain an iteration space and a data space (FIG. 8 and associated text, such as, “As shown in FIG. 8, the polyhedral code generator 840 of the illustrative embodiments converts the program statement view 820 of the source code into a program loop view or AST 850. In this view of the source code, each loop is associated with a set of statements that iterates over the same number of iteration points as experienced at a given depth level in the loop nest hierarchy. An example of the program statement view 820 is the data gathered in FIG. 6B. An example of the program loop view or AST 850 is shown in FIG. 7C” (See para [0106]). “As discussed above, with polyhedral loop transformations, statements are represented as polyhedrons representing the iteration space of the loops associated with the statement.” (See para [0108]));
to generate, based on the input program code, output program code without the dead iterations (“generate optimized code and outputting the optimized code to a compiler for use in generating executable code for execution on a computing device” (See para [0022])).
But Eichenberger does not explicitly teach:
to identify dead iterations within the iteration space based on the data space and a specified output data space, the dead iterations comprising iterations not contributing to the specified output data space;
However, Zhang discloses:
to identify dead iterations within the iteration space based on the data space and a specified output data space, the dead iterations comprising iterations not contributing to the specified output data space (FIG. 2 and associated text, such as, “code generator 225 may formulate a search of effective optimization orderings and parameterizations as an optimization problem, and may adaptively solve the optimization problem. For example, code generator 225 may encode an optimization ordering search space so that the optimization ordering space may be explored with methods, such as a genetic algorithm. As such, code generator 225 may explore the optimization ordering space to determine an effective ordering for a particular characterization. Furthermore, given an effective optimization ordering for a class of regions sharing the same characterization, code generator 225 may explore the search space, starting from an effective ordering, to find an effective ordering for a slightly different characterization.” (See Col. 17, lines 27-40));
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhang into the teachings of Eichenberger because that would have generated efficient code that is tailored towards particular efficiency metrics, and may enable control of time and memory used to generate the code as suggested by Zhang (See Col. 3, lines 39-41).
But, Eichenberger and Zhang do not explicitly teach:
to build an inverted data dependence graph.
However, Lapounov discloses:
to build an inverted data dependence graph (FIGS. and associated text, such as, “According to step 102 in FIG. 1, one embodiment may conduct a reverse call-graph construction for templates …Referring to FIG. 3, refer to our explanation for the inter-template focus inference on the sample templates ‘caller’ and ‘callee’. In one embodiment, this flow analysis is automated as follows, with the ultimate goal of detecting which templates really need implicit position/last according to step 303. Step 301 entails building the reverse call-graph for the templates for the XSLT stylesheets. A note on terminology: a ‘normal’ call graph displays caller-callee dependencies; then the reverse one charts callee-caller dependencies” (See paras [0046] – [0052])).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lapounov into the teachings of Eichenberger and Zhang because that would have been effectively refine the established technique for control-flow graphs and data-flow analysis. Our flow analysis need not deal with low-level def/use paths; it can rather deal with high-level "focus use" as suggested by Lanoupov (See para [0027]).
Regarding claim 5:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, but Eichenberger does not explicitly teach:
in which the at least one processor is further configured to output a dead iteration space specification.
However, Zhang discloses:
output a dead iteration space specification (FIG. 2 and associated text, such as, “code generator 225 may formulate a search of effective optimization orderings and parameterizations as an optimization problem, and may adaptively solve the optimization problem. For example, code generator 225 may encode an optimization ordering search space so that the optimization ordering space may be explored with methods, such as a genetic algorithm. As such, code generator 225 may explore the optimization ordering space to determine an effective ordering for a particular characterization. Furthermore, given an effective optimization ordering for a class of regions sharing the same characterization, code generator 225 may explore the search space, starting from an effective ordering, to find an effective ordering for a slightly different characterization.” (See Col. 17, lines 27-40)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhang into the teachings of Eichenberger because that would have generated efficient code that is tailored towards particular efficiency metrics, and may enable control of time and memory used to generate the code as suggested by Zhang (See Col. 3, lines 39-41).
Regarding claim 6:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, but Eichenberger does not explicitly teach:
in which the at least one processor is further configured to receive a specification of a desired output data space, the specified output data space being based on the specification of the desired output data space and a live-out analysis.
However, Zhang discloses:
receive a specification of a desired output data space, the specified output data space being based on the specification of the desired output data space and a live-out analysis (FIG. 2 and associated text, such as, “code generator 225 may formulate a search of effective optimization orderings and parameterizations as an optimization problem, and may adaptively solve the optimization problem. For example, code generator 225 may encode an optimization ordering search space so that the optimization ordering space may be explored with methods, such as a genetic algorithm. As such, code generator 225 may explore the optimization ordering space to determine an effective ordering for a particular characterization. Furthermore, given an effective optimization ordering for a class of regions sharing the same characterization, code generator 225 may explore the search space, starting from an effective ordering, to find an effective ordering for a slightly different characterization.” (See Col. 17, lines 27-40)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Zhang into the teachings of Eichenberger because that would have generated efficient code that is tailored towards particular efficiency metrics, and may enable control of time and memory used to generate the code as suggested by Zhang (See Col. 3, lines 39-41).
Regarding claim 7:
This is a processor-implemented method version of the rejected apparatus claim 1 above, wherein all the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 11:
The rejection of base claim 7 is incorporated. All the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 5, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 12:
The rejection of base claim 7 is incorporated. All the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 6, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 13:
This is another apparatus version of the rejected apparatus claim 1 above, wherein all the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 17:
The rejection of base claim 13 is incorporated. All the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 5, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 18:
The rejection of base claim 13 is incorporated. All the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 6, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 19:
This is a non-transitory computer-readable medium version of the rejected apparatus claim 1 above, wherein all the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 23:
The rejection of base claim 19 is incorporated. All the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 5, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Regarding claim 24:
The rejection of base claim 19 is incorporated. All the limitations of this claim have been noted in the rejection of claim 6, and is therefore rejected under similar rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
The combination of claims 3+4, 9+10, 15+16, and 21+22 are objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims 1, 7, 13, and 19, respectively, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claims and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANH THI MINH BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-1976. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 7-3.
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 S. 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.
/HANH THI-MINH BUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192 February 15th, 2026