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 .
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because
the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors, claim 19-25 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below: One of the factors weighing against eligibility is that there is no recitation of a machine or transformation.
In this particular case, the method steps of claim 19 of: “…receiving interrupt messages that include an indication of an interrupt priority of a plurality of interrupt priorities; and based on the interrupt messages, determining that an interrupt for a given interrupt priority was lost; and providing, to a computing core, respective lost interrupt information for the respective interrupt priorities, the lost interrupt information indicating whether an interrupt was lost.” are directed to an abstract idea. Furthermore, the method steps of claim 23 of: “…receiving external interrupt signals, each associated with an interrupt priority; based on the received interrupt signals, determining that an interrupt signal for a given interrupt priority has been lost; and providing an indication to a computing core that the interrupt signal for the given interrupt priority has been lost.” are directed to an abstract idea NOTE: there is no device/apparatus/machine recited in the claims (e.g.-claims 19 and 23) and/or there is no practical transformation of a machine that is tied to the claims due to the execution of the recited method steps, hence, the recited method steps are interpreted as abstract ideas which could be performed/narrated mentally. Accordingly, for the reasons provided above, claims 19-25 are directed to an abstract idea, hence, not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Independent claims 1 is directed to an abstract idea of collecting data and analyzing the data to provide certain results. For instance, in Electric Power Group, the concept of collecting information, analyzing the collected information, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis were found to be abstract.
In analyzing claim 19 of the instant application, the limitations “…receiving interrupt messages that include an indication of an interrupt priority of a plurality of interrupt priorities; and based on the interrupt messages, determining that an interrupt for a given interrupt priority was lost; and providing, to a computing core, respective lost interrupt information for the respective interrupt priorities, the lost interrupt information indicating whether an interrupt was lost.” are directed to an abstract idea. Furthermore, in analyzing claim 23 of the instant application, the limitations “…receiving external interrupt signals, each associated with an interrupt priority; based on the received interrupt signals, determining that an interrupt signal for a given interrupt priority has been lost; and providing an indication to a computing core that the interrupt signal for the given interrupt priority has been lost.” are directed to an abstract idea. The abstract idea of the instant application is substantially similar to the court identified abstract idea found in Electric Power Group. It is similar because it accesses data, determines/identifies certain data (analysis), and accesses the determined/identified certain data. Other court identified abstract ideas are related to the abstract ideas identified in the instant application, such as collecting and comparing known information (Classen), obtaining and comparing intangible data (CyberSource) and organizing information through mathematical correlations (Digitech).
Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite no additional limitation that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea defined in its respective independent claim. Accordingly, for the reasons provided above, claims 19-25 are directed to an abstract idea, hence, not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
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.
Claims 19 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Dusanapudi et al. (US 10,318,456), hereinafter referred to as Dusanapudi.
Referring to claim 19, Dusanapudi teaches, as claimed, a method, comprising: receiving interrupt messages that include an indication of an interrupt priority of a plurality of interrupt priorities (i.e.-receiving one or more interrupt triggers including its corresponding priorities, col. 1, lines 65-67; col. 4, lines 1-6; and col. 7, lines 63-66); and based on the interrupt messages, determining that an interrupt for a given interrupt priority was lost (i.e.-identifying/determining an undelivered or lost interrupt based on validating correctness of interrupt triggers and delivery, col. 4, lines 59-64 and col. 8, lines 49-56); and providing, to a computing core, respective lost interrupt information for the respective interrupt priorities, the lost interrupt information indicating whether an interrupt was lost (i.e.- presenting an error message indicating the lost interrupt, col. 8, lines 54-56 & 59-62; and col. 14, claim 7, lines 1-4).
Referring to claim 23, the claim is substantially the same as claim 19, hence the rejection of claim 19 is applied accordingly.
Examiner’s note:
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passages as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 20-22, 24 and 25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: the cited prior arts on record, alone or in combination, do not teach or fairly suggest a reduced instruction set computer-V (RISC-V) and an interrupt architecture, comprising hardware components arranged into one or more hardware threads (harts); an interrupt source configured to receive respective external interrupt signals indicative of respective interrupt events, each interrupt event having a corresponding interrupt target, wherein each interrupt target corresponds to an interrupt priority at a target hart of the one or more harts; based on the received interrupt signals, transmit message signaled interrupts (MSIs), wherein an MSI includes, for an interrupt event, information about the interrupt target of the interrupt event; an MSI controller configured to receive MSIs from the interrupt source; based on the received MSIs, store interrupt information for interrupt targets; determine that an interrupt event for an interrupt target has been lost; and in response, provide lost interrupt information to a target hart of the interrupt target, the lost interrupt information comprising an indication of one or more lost interrupt events, as claimed in claims 1 and 9.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Johnson et al. (US 5,768,620), Yudenfriend et al. (US 8,108,570), Marmash et al. (US 7,325,084), Hack et al. (US 2006/0085179), Subramanian (US 9,940,272), Greim et al. (US 6,163,829) and Raisch et al. (US 11,620,244) do teach method and system for validation and correctness of interrupt delivery and executions.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIAS MAMO whose telephone number is (571)270-1726. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu, 7 AM - 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicants are 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, HENRY TSAI can be reached at 571-272-4176.
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.
/Elias Mamo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2184
Prosecution Insights