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 .
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.
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/27/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 2 and 4-6 are amended. Claim 10 is new. Claims 1-10 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Examiner’s Remarks - 35 USC § 103 – Independent claims 1 and 5
The examiner notes that the applicant has amended independent claims 1 and 5 by including the new claim feature(s) of, “determine an order in which to execute the plurality of modular executable computing algorithms in order to complete the computing task”. In view of claim amendment(s), the examiner introduces the teachings of prior art reference KIM et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2015/0106819) to the record. The examiner contends that Kim discloses providing task base algorithms. See rejection below.
Examiner’s Remarks - 35 USC § 103 – Independent claim 10
The examiner contends that the applicant has added new independent claim 10. The examiner notes that the newly added independent claim 10 recites similar claim feature(s) to applicant’s independent claims 1 and 5. The examiner contends that applicant’s newly added independent claim 10 is rejected under SAROSH (US Patent Publication No. 2016/0210592) in view of Taylor et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2015/0081363) and further in view of KIM et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2015/0106819 and KIM). See rejection below.
Examiner’s Remarks - 35 USC § 103 – Dependent claims 3 and 7
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 3 and 7 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection rely upon the teachings of newly introduced prior art reference, KIM et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2015/0106819). See rejection below.
Examiner’s Remarks - 35 USC § 103 – Dependent claims 2, 4, 6, 8 and 9
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The examiner notes that applicant’s newly added and amended claim limitation(s) of, “determine an order in which to execute the plurality of modular executable computing algorithms in order to complete the computing task” and “instantiate and execute the retrieved modular executable computing algorithms in the determined order using the input data to compute a solution to the computing task”, lacks support of applicant’s original disclosure.
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) 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SAROSH (US Patent Publication No. 2016/0210592) in view of Taylor et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2015/0081363 and Taylor hereinafter) and further in view of KIM et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2015/0106819 and KIM hereinafter).
As to claims 1 and 5, SAROSH teaches a system for crowdsource algorithm development with modular subtask execution, comprising:
a plurality of computing devices each comprising at least a processor, a memory, and a network interface (i.e., …illustrates in figure 8 …processor, memory and network interface);
wherein a plurality of programming instructions stored in one or more of the memories and operating on one or more of the processors of the plurality of computing devices causes the plurality of computing devices to (i.e., …teaches in par. 0122 the following: “an operating system or a specific application, component, program, object, module or sequence of instructions referred to as “computer programs.” The computer programs typically comprise one or more instructions (e.g., instructions 804, 808, 828) set at various times in various memory and storage devices in a computer, and that, when read and executed by one or more processing units or processors 802, cause the computer system 800 to perform operations to execute elements involving the various aspects of the disclosure.”.):
receive newly developed algorithms from freelance developers (i.e., …teaches in par. 0093 the following: “The freelancing platform also includes an interface that allows project managers to submit proposals for posted projects (FIG. 6J).” …teaches in par. 0098 the following: “Freelancers can then use tools available through the freelancing platform, as well as any other freelancers on the development team, to complete the development milestones set forth in the winning project manager's proposal”.);
store the newly developed algorithms in a non-volatile data storage device comprising a plurality of modular computing algorithms (i.e., …teaches in par. 0117 the following: “James can also lead the team by leveraging the freelancers and the tools provided through the freelancing platform. Once Sandeep has completed the design of the mobile application (i.e., Milestone 1), James can present the design to Jake. If Jake approves the design, Jake confirms the design milestone has been completed through the crowdsourcing platform.”);
receive input data from a client device for a computing task (i.e., …teaches in par. 0087 the following: “the customer can post a project by specifying various details, such as project title, project description, estimated time, estimated budget range, budget approval status, and expected start date (FIGS. 5B and 5I).” …teaches in par. 0117 the following: “James oversees Sandeep and Clifton as work on the mobile application begins and ensures that Sandeep and Clifton complete their individual milestones as the project progresses. James can also lead the team by leveraging the freelancers and the tools provided through the freelancing platform. Once Sandeep has completed the design of the mobile application (i.e., Milestone 1), James can present the design to Jake. If Jake approves the design, Jake confirms the design milestone has been completed through the crowdsourcing platform. The administrator then releases the payment to James and Sandeep upon determining that Jake has acknowledged completion of the milestone. The same process is performed for Milestones 2 and 3. That is, upon confirmation from Jake that the milestone has been completed, the administrator releases the payments to James and Clifton. Jake (or another representative of ABC Corp.) is responsible for ensuring that all deliverables are obtained before confirming (through the crowdsourcing platform) the milestones have been completed.”);
transmit the solution to the computing task to the client device (i.e., …teaches in par. 0090 the following: “For example, an email message could be generated by either platform and delivered to the customer when the project manager or an individual freelancer attempts to contact the customer or when the project manager has marked the project (or a milestone) as having been completed.”).
SAROSH does not expressly teach:
determine a plurality of computing subtasks required to complete the computing task,
wherein the computing subtask are represented by one or more of the plurality of modular executable computing algorithms,
for each of the plurality of computing subtasks, from the database retrieve at least one of the modular executable computing algorithms;
instantiate and execute the retrieved modular executable computing algorithms in the determined order using the input data to compute a solution to the computing task.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Taylor.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “determine a plurality of computing subtasks required to complete the computing task”, Taylor teaches in his abstract the following: “The software development project may be divided into a set of work packages”.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “wherein the computing subtask are represented by one or more of the plurality of modular executable computing algorithms”, Taylor discloses in par. 0027 the following: “The work packages may also be known as software modules. Work packages may be designed to segment tasks”.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “for each of the plurality of computing subtasks, from the database retrieve at least one of the modular executable computing algorithms”, Taylor teaches par. 0032 the following: “the work packages may be made visible to freelance development resources listed within a freelancer database.”.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “instantiate and execute the retrieved modular executable computing algorithms in the determined order using the input data to compute a solution to the computing task”, teaches in his abstract the following: “The work packages may be integrated into the software development project upon automatically testing a functionality of the work packages. The software development project that is completed according to the set of project parameters may be provided to a customer.”. Further teaches in par. 0034 the following: “Upon completion of a work package, the freelance developer can submit the work to an integrated development environment as defined by the architect. The completed work package can include implemented computer code and related documentation 124, as well as citations of any code reused from a code store. The team leader may orchestrate an integrated testing 126 of the work packages that have been developed to insure both that the independent work package functions properly, as well as integrates into the functionality 128 correctly. If a work package does not function as specified, the package may be immediately returned to the freelance developer for correction. If the integrated software product does not function, deviant work packages are identified and the freelance developers engaged may work together to remediate whatever issues keep the integrated product from working.”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of SAROSH with the teachings of Taylor by having their system comprise an enhanced freelancer development environment. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to create algorithms and strategies useful in a particular computing field, wherein the enhanced freelancer development environment helps facilitate better automated services and makes it easier to submit algorithms.
The system of SAROSH and Taylor do not expressly teach:
determine an order in which to execute the plurality of modular executable computing algorithms in order to complete the computing task.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference KIM.
KIM teaches in par. 0059 the following: “A task scheduling method for a priority-based RTOS in a multicore environment according to an embodiment of the present invention includes the step S10 of discovering scheduling algorithm candidates for each of sequential tasks and parallel (HPC) tasks, the step S12 of combining the scheduling algorithm candidates for the sequential tasks and the HPC tasks, the step S14 of evaluating the performances of the scheduling algorithm candidates based on the entire multicore task scheduling algorithm, and the step S16 of selecting a task scheduling algorithm having the optimal performance. Teaches in par. 0074 the following: “If the type of task T.sub.i is a sequential task, the L1 scheduler executes a sequential task scheduling algorithm at step S26, whereas if the type of task T.sub.i is a parallel (HPC) task, the L1 scheduler executes an HPC task scheduling algorithm at step S28.”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of SAROSH and Taylor with the teachings of KIM by having their system comprise an enhanced algorithm selection process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to upgrade system performance within a particular computing field, wherein the enhanced algorithm selection process helps facilitate better computing services and makes it easier to manage computer algorithm related data.
As to claims 2 and 6, the system of SAROSH, Taylor and Kim as applied to claim 1 above teaches a freelance developers database, specifically SAROSH teaches a system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of computing devices is further caused to:
provide the client device with a configuration interface comprising a first plurality of client-facing application programming interfaces (APIs) configured to minimize coding requirements and a domain-specific language (DSL) for defining the computing task and its computing subtask, the configuration interface being operable to receive and store in a configuration system a pipeline specification for the computing task (i.e., …teaches in as part of the their claim 1 claim element the following: “a first platform configured to receive, from a user device of a customer via a computer network, a project specification for a project to be outsourced by the customer; and a second platform communicatively coupled to the first web-based platform and accessible to a plurality of project managers who compete for selection by the customer to manage the project, the second platform configured to: receive the project specification from the first platform, post the project specification for review by the plurality of project managers, receive, via the computer network, a plurality of proposals for completing the project from the plurality of project managers,”);
provide a second plurality of application programming interfaces configured to facilitate construction of the computing task, (i.e., …teaches in par. 0058 the following: “A freelancing platform, meanwhile, allows project managers to submit proposals for projects and execute projects (e.g., by selecting freelancers for the team and assigning tasks to those freelancers). For example, project managers, each of whom are verified by an administrator that manages the crowdsourcing and freelancing platforms, can submit proposals to a customer for a posted project specification and, if awarded the project, identify and select freelancers (e.g., developers, designers, testers, etc., who may also be verified by the administrator) required to execute the project. The freelance platform can then be used by the project manager to manage the selected freelancers throughout the lifespan of the project, and to communicate the status of a project to the customer.”);
and when a computing subtask requires a modular computing algorithm that is not contained in the database, allow the client to post a request for development of a new modular computing algorithm for that computing subtask for a fee (i.e., …teaches in par. 0077 the following: “, the crowdsourcing platform may be configured to deduct fees and pay the project manager and freelancers (step 324) when the customer accepts the deliverable(s) (step 322) and acknowledges (e.g., through the crowdsourcing platform) that a milestone has been completed (step 323). If a freelancer becomes unavailable or does not perform to expectations during execution of the project, the crowdsourcing platform may refrain from making a payment to the freelancer. In such a scenario, the project manager could also remove the freelancer and target a new freelancer to fill in as a replacement.”).
The system of SAROSH does not expressly teach:
wherein the computing task and computing subtasks are defined using the domain-specific language and pipeline specification.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Taylor.
Taylor teaches in par. 0092 the following: “Components or modules discussed in this description that may be implemented in the form of software using high programming level languages that are compiled, interpreted or executed using a hybrid of the methods.”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of SAROSH with the teachings of Taylor by having their system comprise an enhanced freelancer development environment. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to create algorithms and strategies useful in a particular computing field, wherein the enhanced freelancer development environment helps facilitate better automated services and makes it easier to submit algorithms.
As to claims 3 and 7, the system of SAROSH, Taylor and Kim as applied to claim 1 above teaches a freelance developers database, specifically neither SAROSH nor Taylor teaches a system of claim 1,
wherein the plurality of computing devices is further caused to verify the modular executable computing algorithm's ability to reach a solution to a computing subtask,
wherein the verification of the modular executable computing algorithm's ability to reach a solution to a computing subtask is determined by whether or not the execution of the algorithm on an exemplary computing subtask is achievable within a specified time complexity, or space complexity, or result accuracy, or result precision, or any combination thereof.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference KIM.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “wherein the plurality of computing devices is further caused to verify the modular executable computing algorithm's ability to reach a solution to a computing subtask”, KIM teaches in par. 0059 the following: “A task scheduling method for a priority-based RTOS in a multicore environment according to an embodiment of the present invention includes the step S10 of discovering scheduling algorithm candidates for each of sequential tasks and parallel (HPC) tasks, the step S12 of combining the scheduling algorithm candidates for the sequential tasks and the HPC tasks, the step S14 of evaluating the performances of the scheduling algorithm candidates based on the entire multicore task scheduling algorithm, and the step S16 of selecting a task scheduling algorithm having the optimal performance. Teaches in par. 0074 the following: “If the type of task T.sub.i is a sequential task, the L1 scheduler executes a sequential task scheduling algorithm at step S26, whereas if the type of task T.sub.i is a parallel (HPC) task, the L1 scheduler executes an HPC task scheduling algorithm at step S28.”.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “wherein the verification of the modular executable computing algorithm's ability to reach a solution to a computing subtask is determined by whether or not the execution of the algorithm on an exemplary computing subtask is achievable within a specified time complexity, or space complexity, or result accuracy, or result precision, or any combination thereof”, KIM teaches in par. 0059 the following: “A task scheduling method for a priority-based RTOS in a multicore environment according to an embodiment of the present invention includes the step S10 of discovering scheduling algorithm candidates for each of sequential tasks and parallel (HPC) tasks, the step S12 of combining the scheduling algorithm candidates for the sequential tasks and the HPC tasks, the step S14 of evaluating the performances of the scheduling algorithm candidates based on the entire multicore task scheduling algorithm, and the step S16 of selecting a task scheduling algorithm having the optimal performance. Teaches in par. 0074 the following: “If the type of task T.sub.i is a sequential task, the L1 scheduler executes a sequential task scheduling algorithm at step S26, whereas if the type of task T.sub.i is a parallel (HPC) task, the L1 scheduler executes an HPC task scheduling algorithm at step S28.”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of SAROSH and Taylor with the teachings of KIM by having their system comprise an enhanced algorithm selection process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to upgrade system performance within a particular computing field, wherein the enhanced algorithm selection process helps facilitate better computing services and makes it easier to manage computer algorithm related data.
As to claims 4 and 8, the system of SAROSH, Taylor and Kim as applied to claim 1 above teaches a freelance developers database, specifically SAROSH teaches a system of claim 1 wherein the plurality of computing devices is further caused to approve payment to the developer of a new modular executable computing algorithm when the new modular computing algorithm is used for completion of a computing subtask of the computing task (i.e., …teaches par. 0112 – 0116 teaches in the following: “[0113] Milestone 1: (Customer Milestone: Milestone 2): [0114] Demonstration and testing of the mobile application ($8,000) [0115] Milestone 2: (Customer Milestone: Milestone 3): [0116] Completion of the mobile application ($12,000)”).
As to claim 9, the system of SAROSH, Taylor and Kim as applied to claim 1 above teaches a freelance developers database, specifically SAROSH teaches a one or more non-transitory computer-storage media having computer-executable instructions embodied thereon that, when executed by one or more processors of a computing system, cause the computing system to perform the method of claim 5 (i.e., …teaches in par. 0121 the following: “and storage medium 826 (also called a “machine-readable medium) are shown to be a single medium, the term “machine-readable medium” and “storage medium” should be taken to include a single medium or multiple media (e.g., a centralized or distributed database, and/or associated caches and servers) that store one or more sets of instructions 828. The term “machine-readable medium” and “storage medium” shall also be taken to include any medium that is capable of storing, encoding, or carrying a set of instructions for execution by the computer system and that cause the computer system to perform any one or more of the methodologies of the presently disclosed embodiments.”).
As to claim 10, SAROSH teaches a system for crowdsourced algorithm development with modular subtask execution, comprising:
a plurality of computing devices each comprising at least a processor, a memory, and a network interface (see figure 8 of SAROSH);
wherein a plurality of programming instructions, stored in one or more of the memories and operating on one or more of the processors of the plurality of computing devices (i.e., …teaches in par. 0122 the following: “an operating system or a specific application, component, program, object, module or sequence of instructions referred to as “computer programs.” The computer programs typically comprise one or more instructions (e.g., instructions 804, 808, 828) set at various times in various memory and storage devices in a computer, and that, when read and executed by one or more processing units or processors 802, cause the computer system 800 to perform operations to execute elements involving the various aspects of the disclosure.”., causes the plurality of computing devices to:
receive newly developed algorithms from freelance developers (i.e., …teaches in par. 0093 the following: “The freelancing platform also includes an interface that allows project managers to submit proposals for posted projects (FIG. 6J).” …teaches in par. 0098 the following: “Freelancers can then use tools available through the freelancing platform, as well as any other freelancers on the development team, to complete the development milestones set forth in the winning project manager's proposal”.);
store the newly developed algorithms in a non-volatile data storage device comprising a plurality of modular executable computing algorithms (i.e., …teaches in par. 0117 the following: “James can also lead the team by leveraging the freelancers and the tools provided through the freelancing platform. Once Sandeep has completed the design of the mobile application (i.e., Milestone 1), James can present the design to Jake. If Jake approves the design, Jake confirms the design milestone has been completed through the crowdsourcing platform.”);;
receive input data from a client device for a computing task (i.e., …teaches in par. 0087 the following: “the customer can post a project by specifying various details, such as project title, project description, estimated time, estimated budget range, budget approval status, and expected start date (FIGS. 5B and 5I).” …teaches in par. 0117 the following: “James oversees Sandeep and Clifton as work on the mobile application begins and ensures that Sandeep and Clifton complete their individual milestones as the project progresses. James can also lead the team by leveraging the freelancers and the tools provided through the freelancing platform. Once Sandeep has completed the design of the mobile application (i.e., Milestone 1), James can present the design to Jake. If Jake approves the design, Jake confirms the design milestone has been completed through the crowdsourcing platform. The administrator then releases the payment to James and Sandeep upon determining that Jake has acknowledged completion of the milestone. The same process is performed for Milestones 2 and 3. That is, upon confirmation from Jake that the milestone has been completed, the administrator releases the payments to James and Clifton. Jake (or another representative of ABC Corp.) is responsible for ensuring that all deliverables are obtained before confirming (through the crowdsourcing platform) the milestones have been completed.”);
and transmit the solution to the computing task to the client device (i.e., …teaches in par. 0090 the following: “For example, an email message could be generated by either platform and delivered to the customer when the project manager or an individual freelancer attempts to contact the customer or when the project manager has marked the project (or a milestone) as having been completed.”).
The system of SAROSH does not expressly teach:
determine a plurality of computing subtasks required to complete the computing task,
wherein the computing subtasks are represented by one or more of the plurality of modular executable computing algorithms;
for each of the plurality of computing subtasks, retrieve, from the database, at least one of the modular executable computing algorithms;
instantiate and execute the retrieved modular executable computing algorithms using the input data to compute a solution to the computing task.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference Taylor.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “determine a plurality of computing subtasks required to complete the computing task”, Taylor teaches in his abstract the following: “The software development project may be divided into a set of work packages”.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “wherein the computing subtasks are represented by one or more of the plurality of modular executable computing algorithms”, Taylor discloses in par. 0027 the following: “The work packages may also be known as software modules. Work packages may be designed to segment tasks”.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “for each of the plurality of computing subtasks, retrieve, from the database, at least one of the modular executable computing algorithms”, Taylor teaches par. 0032 the following: “the work packages may be made visible to freelance development resources listed within a freelancer database.”.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “instantiate and execute the retrieved modular executable computing algorithms using the input data to compute a solution to the computing task”, teaches in his abstract the following: “The work packages may be integrated into the software development project upon automatically testing a functionality of the work packages. The software development project that is completed according to the set of project parameters may be provided to a customer.”. Further teaches in par. 0034 the following: “Upon completion of a work package, the freelance developer can submit the work to an integrated development environment as defined by the architect. The completed work package can include implemented computer code and related documentation 124, as well as citations of any code reused from a code store. The team leader may orchestrate an integrated testing 126 of the work packages that have been developed to insure both that the independent work package functions properly, as well as integrates into the functionality 128 correctly. If a work package does not function as specified, the package may be immediately returned to the freelance developer for correction. If the integrated software product does not function, deviant work packages are identified and the freelance developers engaged may work together to remediate whatever issues keep the integrated product from working.”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of SAROSH with the teachings of Taylor by having their system comprise an enhanced freelancer development environment. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to create algorithms and strategies useful in a particular computing field, wherein the enhanced freelancer development environment helps facilitate better automated services and makes it easier to submit algorithms.
The system of SAROSH and Taylor do not expressly teach:
verify the modular executable computing algorithm's ability to reach a solution to a computing subtask, wherein the verification of the modular executable computing algorithm's ability to reach the solution to the computing subtask is determined by whether or not the execution of the algorithm on an exemplary computing subtask is achievable within a specified time complexity, a space complexity, or a combination thereof.
In this instance the examiner notes the teachings of prior art reference KIM.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “verify the modular executable computing algorithm's ability to reach a solution to a computing subtask”, KIM teaches in par. 0059 the following: “A task scheduling method for a priority-based RTOS in a multicore environment according to an embodiment of the present invention includes the step S10 of discovering scheduling algorithm candidates for each of sequential tasks and parallel (HPC) tasks, the step S12 of combining the scheduling algorithm candidates for the sequential tasks and the HPC tasks, the step S14 of evaluating the performances of the scheduling algorithm candidates based on the entire multicore task scheduling algorithm, and the step S16 of selecting a task scheduling algorithm having the optimal performance. Teaches in par. 0074 the following: “If the type of task T.sub.i is a sequential task, the L1 scheduler executes a sequential task scheduling algorithm at step S26, whereas if the type of task T.sub.i is a parallel (HPC) task, the L1 scheduler executes an HPC task scheduling algorithm at step S28.”.
With regards to applicant’s claim limitation element of, “wherein the verification of the modular executable computing algorithm's ability to reach the solution to the computing subtask is determined by whether or not the execution of the algorithm on an exemplary computing subtask is achievable within a specified time complexity, a space complexity, or a combination thereof”, KIM teaches in par. 0059 the following: “A task scheduling method for a priority-based RTOS in a multicore environment according to an embodiment of the present invention includes the step S10 of discovering scheduling algorithm candidates for each of sequential tasks and parallel (HPC) tasks, the step S12 of combining the scheduling algorithm candidates for the sequential tasks and the HPC tasks, the step S14 of evaluating the performances of the scheduling algorithm candidates based on the entire multicore task scheduling algorithm, and the step S16 of selecting a task scheduling algorithm having the optimal performance. Teaches in par. 0074 the following: “If the type of task T.sub.i is a sequential task, the L1 scheduler executes a sequential task scheduling algorithm at step S26, whereas if the type of task T.sub.i is a parallel (HPC) task, the L1 scheduler executes an HPC task scheduling algorithm at step S28.”.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the of the claimed invention was made to implement the teachings of SAROSH and Taylor with the teachings of KIM by having their system comprise an enhanced algorithm selection process. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a simple and effective means to upgrade system performance within a particular computing field, wherein the enhanced algorithm selection helps facilitate better computing services and makes it easier to manage algorithm related data.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRYAN F WRIGHT whose telephone number is (571)270-3826.
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, Eleni Shiferaw can be reached on (571)272-3867. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRYAN F WRIGHT/Examiner, Art Unit 2497
Prosecution Insights