DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action based on the application filed November 30, 2023.
Claims 25-43 are pending and have been examined.
Claims 1-24 have been cancelled by preliminary amendment.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed 10/09/2024 has been considered. An initialed copy of Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 25-43 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 13, 14, 17, 19, 20, and 23 of U.S. Patent No. 10,671,457. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is anticipated by the reference claims. The examined application claims are anticipated by the reference claims in, because all the features recited in claims 25-43 of this application can also be found in the claims of the reference patent as per the following mappings. Claims 1, 2, and 4 of the reference patent anticipate the examined application’s claim 25. Claim 4 of the reference patent anticipates the examined application’s claims 27-29. Claim 2 of the reference patent anticipates the examined application’s claims 30 and 31. Claims 19, 20, and 23 of the reference patent anticipate the examined application’s claim 32. Claim 23 of the reference patent anticipates the examined application’s claims 34-36. Claim 20 of the reference patent anticipates the examined application’s claims 37 and 28. Claims 13, 14, and 17 of the reference patent anticipate the examined application’s claim 39. Claim 17 of the reference patent anticipates the examined application’s claims 41-43.
Claims 25-43 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4, 10-13, 15, 20, and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,989,599. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the examined application claim is anticipated by the reference claims. The examined application claims are anticipated by the reference claims in, because all the features recited in claims 25-43 of this application can also be found in the claims of the reference patent as per the following mappings. Claims 1 and 10 of the reference patent anticipate the examined application’s claims 25 and 39. Claim 1 of the reference patent anticipate the examined application’s claims 26 and 40. Claim 11 of the reference patent anticipates the examined application’s claims 27-29. Claims 2 and 4 of the reference patent anticipate the examined application’s claims 30 and 31, respectively. Claims 12 and 20 of the reference patent anticipate the examined application’s claim 32. Claims 12, 13, and 15 of the reference patent anticipate the examined application’s claims 33, 37, and 38, respectively. Claim 21 of the reference patent anticipates the examined application’s claims 34-36.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 25-29, 32-36, and 39-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dinan (Enabling MPI Interoperability Through Flexible Communication Endpoints).
Regarding claim 25, Dinan discloses:
interface circuitry; machine-readable instructions; and at least one processor circuit to be programmed by the machine-readable instructions to (see at least Abstract; section 1, paragraph 3, MPI interface, interoperability of threads with MPI):
detect a first outbound communication and a second outbound communication from first core circuitry to second core circuitry (see at least section 5.1, paragraph 2, number of cores drives the number of threads; section 3, paragraph 1, MPI endpoint, one or more threads attached to an endpoint, communication endpoints);
label the first outbound communication with a first context, the first outbound communication associated with a first operation to be executed on the second core circuitry; label the second outbound communication with a second context, the second outbound communication associated with a second operation to be executed on the second core circuitry (see at least section 3.2, paragraph 1, MPI communicators provide unique communication context to perform matching between operations and distinguish communication operations; page 15, left column, paragraphs 2-4, creating communicators, communicator handle);
cause a blocking operation on the second core when the first context is the same as the second context; and bypass the blocking operation on the second core when the first context is different than the second context (see at least page 15, right column, paragraph 3, thread calling a blocking operation must make progress on its endpoints, enables MPI library to allow multiple threads to drive communication on different endpoints concurrently, MPI hint provided that enables the MPI implementation to avoid locking when accessing that endpoint’s state; also see page 15, left column, paragraph 7, discusses aggregating endpoint free requests to avoid deadlock)
Regarding claim 26, the rejection of claim 25 is incorporated, and Dinan further discloses:
wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to cause the first context to have a same label as the second context based on a similarity between the first operation and the second operation (see at least page 14, left column, paragraph 3, matched operations when multiple threads share MPI rank; section 3.2, paragraph 1, MPI communicators provide a unique communication context that is used to perform matching between operations and to distinguish communication operations that arise from different components)
Regarding claim 27, the rejection of claim 25 is incorporated, and Dinan further discloses:
wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to prevent the second operation from executing on the second core in response to the blocking operation (see at least page 15, right column, paragraph 3, thread calling a blocking operation must make progress on its endpoints, enables MPI library to allow multiple threads to drive communication on different endpoints concurrently, MPI hint provided that enables the MPI implementation to avoid locking when accessing that endpoint’s state; also see page 15, left column, paragraph 7, discusses aggregating endpoint free requests to avoid deadlock)
Regarding claim 28, the rejection of claim 27 is incorporated, and Dinan further discloses:
wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to permit the second operation to execute on the second core when the first operation is complete (see at least page 15, right column, paragraph 3, thread calling a blocking operation must make progress on its endpoints, enables MPI library to allow multiple threads to drive communication on different endpoints concurrently, MPI hint provided that enables the MPI implementation to avoid locking when accessing that endpoint’s state; also see page 15, left column, paragraph 7, discusses aggregating endpoint free requests to avoid deadlock)
Regarding claim 29, the rejection of claim 25 is incorporated, and Dinan further discloses:
wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to permit the second operation to execute on the second core at the same time the first operation executes on the second core when the blocking operation is bypassed (see at least page 15, right column, paragraph 3, thread calling a blocking operation must make progress on its endpoints, enables MPI library to allow multiple threads to drive communication on different endpoints concurrently, MPI hint provided that enables the MPI implementation to avoid locking when accessing that endpoint’s state; also see page 15, left column, paragraph 7, discusses aggregating endpoint free requests to avoid deadlock)
Regarding claims 32-36 and 39-43, the scope of the instant claims does not differ substantially from that of claims 25-29. Accordingly, claims 32-36 and 39-43 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejections of claims 25-29, respectively.
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.
Claims 30, 31, 37, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinan (Enabling MPI Interoperability Through Flexible Communication Endpoints) in view of Huang (US 2008/0127203).
Regarding claim 30, the rejection of claim 25 is incorporated. However, Dinan does not explicitly disclose, but Huang discloses:
wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to increment a sent messages counter based on detecting the first outbound communication or the second outbound communication from the first core circuitry to the second core circuitry (see at least paragraph 29, synchronization functions required by the MPI standard are implemented by comparing local and remote counts of completed operations and waiting until the counts are equal; figure 2, origin started increment the counter, call with the send)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dinan by adapting the teachings of Huang to include MPI standard synchronization functionality including message counters. The combination allows for synchronization between processes to prevent conflicts in the communication system.
Regarding claim 31, the rejection of claim 30 is incorporated. However, Dinan does not explicitly disclose, but Huang discloses:
wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to compare a value of the sent messages counter to a value of a received acknowledgements counter to determine access count values (see at least paragraph 29, synchronization functions required by the MPI standard are implemented by comparing local and remote counts of completed operations and waiting until the counts are equal; figure 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dinan by adapting the teachings of Huang to include MPI standard synchronization functionality including message counters. The combination allows for synchronization between processes to prevent conflicts in the communication system.
Regarding claims 37 and 38, the scope of the instant claims does not differ substantially from that of claims 30 and 31 and they are rejected for the same reasons, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Archer discloses nodes communicating using MPI and discusses contexts ¶77-87.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIMBERLY L JORDAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5481. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday 9am-3pm.
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, Kevin Young can be reached on (571) 270-3180. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/KIMBERLY L JORDAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights