CTNF 18/597,433 CTNF 79760 DETAILED ACTION Preliminary Remarks 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Specification 06-16 Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc. The abstract comprises the phrase, “Approaches presented herein provide systems and methods…” (lines 1-2) which can be implied and therefore should be omitted. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 9-14 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. In reference to claim 9, claim 9 comprises the phrase “…the processing task…” (see last line of the claim) of which lacks sufficient antecedent basis within the claim since the claim previously recites both of, “a first processing task” and “a second processing task” (see lines 4-5 and 6-7). Therefore, the term “…the processing task…” lacks proper antecedent basis in order to properly refer back thereto one of the previously recited “first” or “second” “processing tasks.” Note, claims 10-14 depend upon claim 9 and are therefore also inherently included herein. Lastly note, as per prior art rejection purposes, the Examiner will do his best to interpret the language of the claim to any applicable prior art however clarifications to the language of the claim are warranted. Claims 11 and 12 recite the limitations "the first request" and “the second request” in line 1 of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 9, 13-16, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Song (CN-115858114-A) (see accompanying machine translation via ESPACENET) . In reference to claim 9, Song discloses a processor, comprising: one or more circuits (see paragraphs 4, 22, 154 and Figure 7 wherein Song discloses an electronic device which comprises at least one processor that performs scheduling of idle tasks and solved the problem that the execution of idle tasks affects the timeliness of the execution of normal messages in a computing environment. Note, it is clear that the “at least one processor” in Song at least inherently comprises “one or more circuits” as such “processor(s)” are formulated as hardware devices comprising transistors, interconnects, logic gates, memory elements etc. of which can all be considered functionally equivalent to “one or more circuits.”) to: determine a processing unit has a processing capacity with at least a threshold quantity of idle time between a first operation and a second operation of a first processing task (see paragraphs 37, 39, 70, 154 and Figure 2 wherein Song discloses the processor scheduling tasks of a main thread of an application, the scheduling comprising maintain a task queue which comprises idle tasks and non-idle tasks which are added to the queue. Song discloses determining, for example, an execution time interval between a first non-idle task M5 and a second non-idle task M6. Song further discloses the task queue further comprises, for example, three idle tasks I1, I2, and I3. Song discloses determining whether the total of execution times of the idle tasks can be performed within the execution time interval determined between non-idle tasks M5 and M6 and if so, performs such tasks if not, Song further discloses determining if any of the one idle tasks can instead be executed in such execution time interval. Note, it is clear that the non-idle tasks M5 and M6 in this example of Song, are functionally equivalent to Applicant’s “first operation” and “second operation” of a “first processing task” or of the main thread application in Song. Lastly, it is clear that the execution time interval and idle task execution time comparisons based thereupon in Song can be seen as functionally equivalent to Applicant’s “threshold quantity of idle time between…”); assign a second processing task to the processing unit to be executed during the idle time (see paragraphs 37, 39, 70-75, 154 and Figures 2 & 3 wherein Song discloses determining whether the total of execution times of the idle tasks can be performed within the execution time interval determined between non-idle tasks M5 and M6 and if so, performs such tasks if not, Song further discloses determining if any of the one idle tasks can instead be executed in such execution time interval.); and cause the processing unit to sequentially execute the first operation, at least a portion of the processing task, and the second operation (see paragraphs 70-75, 83 and Figures 2 & 3 wherein Song discloses the actual execution of the scheduled idle tasks as discussed above including the, first, second non-idle tasks and the determined idle task(s)). In reference to claim 13, Song discloses all of the claim limitations of claim 9 in addition, Song discloses determining whether the total of execution times of the idle tasks can be performed within the execution time interval determined between non-idle tasks M5 and M6 and if so, performs such tasks if not, Song further discloses determining if any of the one idle tasks can instead be executed in such execution time interval (see paragraphs 37, 39, 70-75, 154 and Figures 2 & 3). Song further discloses determining a third idle task to fit within the execution time interval (see at least paragraphs 76-79). In reference to claims 14 and 20, Song discloses all of the claim limitations of claims 9 and 15 respectively in addition, Song further discloses the invention applicable specifically in mobile phones and/or tablets (see paragraph 37) of which the Examiner interprets as functionally equivalent to “a system for rendering graphical output.” Note, the Examiner points out the specific claim language of the claim that recites, the processor be comprised in “at least one of” a non-inclusive list of limitations of which requires teachings of “at least one of” by the prior art. In reference to claim 15, claim 15 is similar in scope to claim 9 and is therefore rejected under like rationale. In addition to the rationale as applied in the rejection of claim 9 above, claim 15 further recites, “A system comprising:…for a first user…” (lines 1-3). Since Song discloses the invention applicable specifically in mobile phones and/or tablets (see paragraph 37), the Examiner interprets the techniques of the invention are at least inherently disclose for “a first user’s” usage. In reference to claim 16, Song discloses all of the claim limitations of claim 15 above in addition, Song discloses determining, for example, an execution time interval between a first non-idle task M5 and a second non-idle task M6 (see paragraphs 39, 70-75 and Figure 2). In reference to claim 18, Song discloses all of the claim limitations of claim 15 above in addition, since Song discloses the invention performed using an electronic device such as a mobile phone or telephone with specific tasks for sending messages (e.g. “requests”) (see at least paragraphs 2, 5 and 37), the Examiner interprets such tasks all relating to the “common environment” of mobile messaging . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 11, 12 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song (CN-115858114-A) (see accompanying machine translation via ESPACENET) . In reference to claim 11, Song discloses all of the claim limitations of claim 9 above. Although Song discloses the invention performed using an electronic device such as a mobile phone or telephone with specific tasks for sending messages (e.g. “requests”) (see at least paragraphs 2, 5 and 37), Song does not explicitly disclose “different clients” submitting “first and second requests.” At the time the invention was filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to extend the task scheduling techniques of Song to a multi-user or multi-client environment as claimed. Applicant has not disclosed that particularly implementing the task scheduling techniques in a multi-client configuration provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the teachings of Song because the exact configuration/environment in which the methods are used is a matter of engineering design choice as preferred by the inventor and/or to which best suits the application at hand. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art to modify Song to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11. In reference to claims 12 and 19, Song discloses all of the claim limitations of claims 9 and 18 respectively above. Although Song discloses the invention performed using an electronic device such as a mobile phone or telephone with specific tasks for sending messages (e.g. “requests”) (see at least paragraphs 2, 5 and 37), Song does not explicitly disclose sharing a commonly accessible memory. It is well known in the art of computer processing and computer network architectures to utilizing a commonly accessible memory for sharing between data access/messaging/retrieval requests/queries. Using commonly accessible memory allows for data consistency, scalability through stateless operations and/or performance via low-latency caching techniques which all attribute to a more computational efficient environment (Official Notice). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for Song who already teaches utilizing task scheduling via the sending of messages within a mobile computing environment, to use commonly accessible memory architectures because using commonly accessible memory creates a more computational efficient environment by allowing for data consistency, scalability through stateless operations and/or performance via low-latency caching techniques . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-07 AIA 07-97 12-51-07 Claim s 1-8 are allowed. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In reference to claim 1, the Examiner makes note of a term/concept which, in combination and integration with the other limitations of the claims, is seen as the major novel aspect of the invention and which was not found in the prior art of record. The Examiner makes note of the term/concept determining that a processing unit assigned to perform a first request to graphically render a first sequence of frames representative of a scene has at least a threshold amount of available capacity and causing a second initial frame of a second sequence of frames to be rendered, using the processing unit, after a first initial frame of the first sequence of frames and before a subsequent frame of the first sequence of frames after the first initial frame. In reference to claims 2-8, these claims depend upon allowable claim 1 and are therefore also deemed allowable . 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim 17 is 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. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Antonio Caschera whose telephone number is (571) 272-7781. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday between 6:30 AM and 2:30 PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Said Broome , can be reached at (571) 272-2931. Any response to this action should be mailed to: Mail Stop ____________ Commissioner for Patents P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 or faxed to: 571-273-8300 (Central Fax) See the listing of “Mail Stops” at http://www.uspto.gov/patents/mail.jsp and include the appropriate designation in the address above. Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the Technology Center 2600 Customer Service Office whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600. /Antonio A Caschera/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2612 6/16/26 Application/Control Number: 18/597,433 Page 2 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/597,433 Page 4 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/597,433 Page 5 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/597,433 Page 6 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/597,433 Page 7 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/597,433 Page 8 Art Unit: 2612 Application/Control Number: 18/597,433 Page 9 Art Unit: 2612
Prosecution Insights