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
This office action is in response the preliminary amendment filed on 2/11/25, claims 1 and 9-10 are amended, claim 8 is cancelled, claims 11-21 are newly added therefore claims 1-7 and 9-21 are being examined.
Drawings
Figure 3 of the drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: Steps S302-S306, S402-S406, S502-S508, S602-S608, S702-S708 and S802-S808 as mentioned in the description pertaining to Figure 3. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “a target processor from a multi-core processor” and/or “all processors in the multi-core processor”, namely a multi-core processor having more than a single “processor” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “a target processor from a multi-core processor” and/or “all processors in the multi-core processor”, namely a multi-core processor having more than a single “processor” as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 and 9-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 1, the limitation “a target processor from a multi-core processor” renders the claim unclear. More specifically, the selection of a target processor from a multi-core processor implies that there are more than a single processor within a multi-core processor (i.e. claims 4-7) which contradicts with the multi-core processor being a single processor having multiple cores/engines as understood by the examiner and further supported by applicant’s specification [paragraph 22], for examination purpose the limitation “target processor” is treated in light of applicant’s specification as directed to processor core(s) of a multi-core processor [paragraph 28] for the remainder of this office action.
As to claims 2-7, these claims depend on claim 1 and failed to cure the deficiency of claim 1, therefore they are rejected for the same reason.
As to claims 9-21, these claims are rejected for the same reason as claims 1-7 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
(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.
Claim(s) 1 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US PG Pub. 2019/0087224 to Vrind et al. (hereafter Vrind).
As to claim 1, Vrind teaches the invention as claimed including a multi-core processor task scheduling method [task scheduling in a multicore processor, abstract], comprising:
acquiring a target task to be executed;
selecting, based on attribute information of the target task, a target processor from a multi-core processor, wherein the attribute information comprises binding relationship information and priority information, the binding relationship information is used for describing whether the target task needs to be run on a processor having a binding relationship, and the priority information is used for describing a priority of the target task;
scheduling the target task to the target processor; and
running the target task on the target processor [scheduling for execution, hence acquired, CPU-bound and non-CPU-bound tasks at a particular order having associated priority by particular core of a multicore processor (i.e. CPU) based in part on the priority as well as whether the task is CPU-bound or not, Figs. 1-2 and corresponding text; paragraph 7].
As to claim 9, Vrind teaches the invention as claimed including a multi-core processor task scheduling method in claim 1, therefore, Vrind teaches a non-transitory storage medium, comprising a stored program, wherein the program, when run, controls a device where the non-transitory volatile storage medium is located to perform the method.
As to claim 10, Vrind teaches the invention as claimed including a multi-core processor task scheduling method in claim 1, therefore, Vrind teaches device to perform the method.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 and 11-21 would be allowable by overcoming the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph rejection above and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Scheduling CPU-bound and non-CPU-bound tasks having associated priority and binding/affinity to a particular core of a multicore processor (i.e. CPU) based in part on the priority and CPU affinity [Figs. 1-2 and corresponding text; paragraph 7]; determining the presence or absence of binding relationships, comparing priority of target task with priority of task currently executing in a CPU, and scenarios where the priority of the target task is higher than the priority of the current task [task T10-F is not bound to any CPU, task T10-C1 bound to CPU1 and T4-C0 bound to CPU0, paragraphs 63-65 and 68-70] was disclosed in US PG Pub. 2019/0087224. Task scheduling based on processor affinities and task priority, preemption of lower priority task by higher priority task by sending an inter-processor interrupt to a processor executing the lower priority task was disclosed in US Patent 9,298,504. The prior arts of record when taken individually or in combination do not expressly teach or render obvious the invention as a whole as recited in claims 2-7 and 11-21.
Neither a reference uncovered that would have provided a basis of evidence for asserting a motivation, nor one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, knowing the teaching of the prior arts of record would have combined them to arrive at the present invention as recited in claims 2-7 and 11-21 as a whole.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QING YUAN WU whose telephone number is (571)272-3776. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-6PM EST.
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached on 571-272-3759. 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.
/QING YUAN WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199