DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This action is responsive to the application filed March 29, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending and are presenting for examination.
Drawings
3. The drawings are objected to because they are blurry and unable to be read. Specifically, Fig. 11 is pixelated, making it difficult to see and/or unable to be deciphered.
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
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-20 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 (line 15), “the cells” might be unclear whether it refers “a sequence of cells” in line 2, “a subsequence of cells” in line 8 or both. For the examination purposes, it will be treated as referring both.
As to claim 7 (line 4), recites the following limitation “the particular cell”, it is unclear of which “the particular cell” is being referred to, for example, is the “particular cell” that being identified at line 2 of claim 7 itself, or is the “particular cell” that being referred to and depended upon at line 9 of claim 1, instead?
As to claim 8, line 3, recites the following limitation “the particular cell”, it is unclear of which “the particular cell” is being referred to, for example, is the “particular cell” that being identified at line 2 of claim 8 itself, or is the “particular cell” that being referred to and depended upon at line 9 of claim 1, instead?
As to claim 10 (line 17), “the cells” might be unclear whether it refers “a sequence of cells” in line 4, “a subsequence of cells” in line 10 or both. For the examination purposes, it will be treated as referring both.
As to claim 16 (line 4), recites the following limitation “the particular cell”, it is unclear of which “the particular cell” is being referred to, for example, is the “particular cell” that being identified at line 3 of claim 16 itself, or is the “particular cell” that being referred to and depended upon at line 11 of claim 10, instead?
As to claim 17, line 4, recites the following limitation “the particular cell”, it is unclear of which “the particular cell” is being referred to, for example, is the “particular cell” that being identified at line 3 of claim 17 itself, or is the “particular cell” that being referred to and depended upon at line 11 of claim 10, instead?
As to claim 19 (line 20), “the cells” might be unclear whether it refers “a sequence of cells” in line 6, “a subsequence of cells” in line 13 or both. For the examination purposes, it will be treated as referring both.
As to claim 20 (line 4), recites the following limitation “the particular cell”, it is unclear of which “the particular cell” is being referred to, for example, is the “particular cell” that being identified at line 3 of claim 20 itself, or is the “particular cell” that being referred to and depended upon at line 14 of claim 19, instead?
As to claims 2-6, 9, 11-15, and 18 depend on the rejected claims and inherit the same issues.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 1, 10, and 19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
7. Claims 7-8, 16-17, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
8. Claims 2-6, 9, 11-15, and 18 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.
9. The following is an Examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior arts of record or made of record, taken alone or in combination do not disclose and/or suggest, and/or motivation to combine, at least “ generating based on the cells, a directed acyclic graph comprising an edge from a first cell to a second cell if the second cell depends on execution of the first cell, the generating comprising: identifying a subsequence of cells belonging to the sequence of cells; determining that a particular cell from the subsequence is unsafe for parallelization; and introducing at least one of (1) an edge from a cell of the subsequence that occurs before the particular cell to the particular cell, or 2) an edge from the particular cell to a cell of the subsequence that occurs after the particular cell; and executing the cells in an order determined by the directed acyclic graph, wherein a plurality of cells is executed in parallel responsive to each cell of the plurality of cells being unreachable from remaining of the plurality of cells by following edges of the directed acyclic graph” as limitations recited in as such manners as in independent claim 1 or variants thereof in other independent claims 10, and 19.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon (cited on 892 form) is considered pertinent to application disclosure.
Takahashi et al. (US-12045239-B1) disclose dynamic data warehouse computational offloading in directed acyclic graph-driven notebook environment.
Srinivasan et al. (US-6832370-B1) disclose an acyclic scheduling (or list scheduling) phase builds a dependence acyclic graph (DAG) based on the data and control dependences in the loop body and then performs instruction scheduling based on this DAG.
Eichenberger et al. (US-8214831-B2) disclose a runtime dependence-aware scheduling of independent iterations so that the independent iterations are scheduled and executed ahead of time in parallel with other iterations using a dependence Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) to describe dependent relationships among iterations.
Inagaki et al. (US-6931635-B2) disclose program optimization for ensuring the parallel execution of instructions for a program that includes an instruction that may generate an exception (hereinafter referred to as an exception generative instruction).
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARINA LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1648. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday (8 am to 4: 30 pm).
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, Hyung S. Sough can be reached on (571)-272-6799. 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.
/MARINA LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights