DETAILED ACTION
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(s) (IDS) submitted on 05/08/2026 and 06/02/2026 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
In response to communication filed on 08/05/2026, claims 1-20 have been amended per the Applicant’s request. Claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
The previous claims rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. The independent claims have been amended to include new limitations that were never previously presented; thereby, these amendments change the scope of the claims. However, newly found prior art is applied.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8-10, 12-17, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kelly et al. (U.S. PG Pub. No. 2024/0394076 A1, hereinafter “Kellye”).
Regarding claim 1, Kelly teaches one or more processors (Kelly Fig. 5), comprising:
circuitry to, in response to an application programming interface (API) call, store an indication of one or more resources from one or more references to resources used by runtime software to manage execution of one or more software workloads (Kelly ¶0164, i.e., API call to generated different VDI environments based on (the functionalities/capabilities/features of recommended) vendor-provided APIs; and ¶0119, i.e., the VDI environment manager managing the execution of operation on VDs, managing workload placement among VDs).
As to claim 2, Kelly also teaches the one or more processors of claim 1, wherein the API call comprises one or more parameters indicating a memory location usable to store the indication of the one or more resources (Kelly ¶0114, i.e., store (temporarily or permanently) information/data related to (i)-(xvii) in the database (212) in the back-end device 200 (see also Kelly ¶0128, i.e., the database is stored in physical storage/memory device)).
As to claim 3, Kelly also teaches the one or more processors of claim 1, wherein the API call comprises one or more parameters indicating a context associated with the one or more references to resources usable to execute the one or more software workloads (Kelly ¶0119).
As to claim 5, Kelly also teaches the one or more processors of claim 1, the circuitry is to cause one or more data structures comprising the stored indication of the one or more resources to be used by another second API to allocate the indicated one or more resources to execute the one or more software workloads (Kelly ¶0119, i.e., the VDI environment).
Regarding claim 8, Kelly teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving an application programming interface (API) call indicating one or more references to resources used by runtime software to manage execution of one or more software workloads and a storage location (Kelly ¶0164, i.e., API call to generated different VDI environments based on (the functionalities/capabilities/features of recommended) vendor-provided APIs); and
in response to the API call, storing an indication one or more resources from the one or more references to resources in the storage location (Kelly ¶0114, i.e., store (temporarily or permanently) information/data related to (i)-(xvii) in the database (212) in the back-end device 200 (see also Kelly ¶0128, i.e., the database is stored in physical storage/memory device)).
Claim 9 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 2 and is similarly rejected.
As to claim 10, Kelly also teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein the API call comprises one or more arguments indicating a sub-context associated with the one or more references to resources usable to manage execution of the one or more software workloads threads (Kelly ¶0119, i.e., the VDI environment).
Claim 12 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 5 and is similarly rejected.
As to claim 13, Kelly also teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein the indication of the one or more resources is included in a context of one or more processors, to execute the one or more software workloads (Kelly ¶0119).
As to claim 14, Kelly also teaches the computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein the indication of the one or more resources is included in a sub-context of one or more processors to execute the one or more software workloads (Kelly ¶0119).
Claim 15 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 16 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 2 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 17 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 3 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 19 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 5 and is similarly rejected.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 6-7, 11, 18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelly in view of YANG et al. (CN 107357661 B, hereinafter “Yang”).
As to claim 4, Kelly teaches the one or more processors of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the indicated one or more resources include one or more streaming multiprocessors (SMs) available to be used to execute the one or more software workloads. However, in the same field of endeavor, Yang teaches the indicated one or more resources include one or more streaming multiprocessors (SMs) available to be used to execute the one or more software workloads (Yang page 12, i.e., “The invention claims a capacity-based streaming multiprocessor (StreamingMultiprocessor, hereinafter referred to as SM) abstract model CapSM, the CapSM as the resource management of the basic unit, one CapSM and one SM on the capacity equivalent to the maximum number of thread blocks that one CapSM is in the active state of the equivalent of the original SM. when the off-line application and online application when the GPU task submitted by a resource management API, will first analyzes the resource request from the resource management API provided by the information resource and then based on the type of task, resource request and the current system resource state of the GPU to determine final is the task distribution”, and Claim 5, i.e., “obtaining provided by each SM in the maximum active threads of the block number of the API to calculating each SM or CapSM that can be accommodated by the maximum active thread block number MaxActivePBlocki”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kelly by incorporating the teachings of Yang. The motivation would be for providing a resource management and task scheduling that not only can ensure online task performance, but also can make full use of GPU resources (Yang Abstract).
As to claim 6, Kelly teaches the one or more processors of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the indication of the one or more resources is included in a context of the one or more processors. However, in the same field of endeavor, Yang teaches the indication of the one or more resources is included in a context of the one or more processors (Yang page 3, fourth paragraph, i.e., a CUDA context). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kelly by incorporating the teachings of Yang. The motivation would be for providing a resource management and task scheduling that not only can ensure online task performance, but also can make full use of GPU resources (Yang Abstract).
As to claim 7, Kelly teaches the one or more processors of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the indication of the one or more resources is included in a sub-context of the one or more processors. However, in the same field of endeavor, Yang teaches the indication of the one or more resources is included in a sub-context of the one or more processors (Yang page 3, fifth paragraph, i.e., GPU resources for online and offline tasks). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kelly by incorporating the teachings of Yang. The motivation would be for providing a resource management and task scheduling that not only can ensure online task performance, but also can make full use of GPU resources (Yang Abstract).
Claim 11 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 4 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 18 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 4 and is similarly rejected.
Claim 20 recites the limitations substantially similar to those of claim 7 and is similarly rejected.
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER KHONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7127. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm 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, Charles Rones can be reached on (571)272-4085. 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.
/ALEXANDER KHONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2168
Prosecution Insights