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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 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.
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 therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
As per claim 11, electronic control unit and the embedded system can be seen as SW per se because the claim recites: “the embedded system comprises a plurality of software clusters”. Applicant is encouraged to claim HW constructs such as a processor to overcome this rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BORG et al (DE 102014217313) (hereinafter BORG).
As per claim 1, BORG teaches:
A computer-implemented method for a deterministic data communication in a partitioned embedded system, a software of the embedded system comprises a plurality of software clusters, each software cluster includes functional tasks and cross cluster communicational tasks, the method comprises:
providing an execution schedule (BORG , pg 2 —under BRI, an execution schedule can be a collection of time window + T1-n) ;
providing, in the execution schedule, predefined functional windows for the functional tasks of the plurality of the software clusters (BORG , pg 2—under BRI, predefined functional windows can be T1-n and time that events ABC occurred)
providing, in the execution schedule, dedicated cross cluster communicational windows for the cross cluster communicational tasks of the plurality of the software clusters (BORG, pg 2—under BRI, dedicated cross cluster communicational windows can be time window that was triggered by simultaneous events A, B, C) , the cross cluster communication tasks provide cross cluster communication (BORG, pg 2), the cross cluster communicational windows are distinct from the functional windows (BORG, pg 2);
executing the execution schedule, wherein the functional tasks of the plurality of the software clusters are executed in the predefined functional windows and the cross cluster communication tasks of the plurality of the software clusters are executed in the dedicated cross cluster communication windows (BORG, pg 2); and
realizing, the data communication in the partitioned embedded system for cross cluster communication by way of the execution schedule (BORG, pg 2).
BORG does not expressly teach:
wherein the data communication is deterministic;
However, BORG discloses in a separate embodiment:
wherein the data communication is deterministic (BORG, Abstract);
Both BORG and BORG pertain to the art of real-time systems.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use BROG’s method to perform deterministic execution because it is well-known in the art that deterministic execution ensures that the same sequence of inputs always produces the exact same sequence of outputs at precisely predictable times, thus providing benefits such as absolute predictability.
As per claim 11, see rejection on claim 1.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BORG/BORG as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of KAVERI et al (US 2020/0125405) (hereinafter KAVERI).
As per claim 2, BORG/BORG teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1).
BORG/BORG does not expressly teach:
wherein:
the functional tasks of the software clusters have a determined priority, the cross cluster communicational tasks of the software clusters have a determined priority, and
the priority of the cross cluster communicational tasks of the software clusters is higher compared to the priority of the functional tasks of the software clusters, so that a cross cluster communicational task is executed prior to a functional task, if they compete for computational resources.
However, KAVERI discloses:
wherein:
the functional tasks of the software clusters have a determined priority, the cross cluster communicational tasks of the software clusters have a determined priority (KAVERI, [0006]) and
the priority of the cross cluster communicational tasks of the software clusters is higher compared to the priority of the functional tasks of the software clusters, so that a cross cluster communicational task is executed prior to a functional task, if they compete for computational resources (KAVERI, [0006]).
Both KAVERI and BORG/BORG pertain to the art of real-time systems.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use KAVERI’s method to perform preemptive scheduling because it is well-known in the art that this ensures critical tasks meet their deadlines without waiting for a less important task to finish
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BORG/BORG as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al (WO 2021/208627) (hereinafter Wang).
As per claim 3, BORG/BORG teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1).
BORG/BORG does not expressly teach:
wherein:
the software clusters comprise one cross cluster communicational window for input communication and / or one cross cluster communicational window for output communication, in the cross cluster communicational window for input communication input communicational tasks read input data from at least one other software cluster, and in the cross cluster communicational window for output communication output communicational tasks write output data for at least one other software clusters.
However, Wang discloses:
wherein:
the software clusters comprise one cross cluster communicational window for input communication and / or one cross cluster communicational window for output communication (Wang, Summary of Invention), in the cross cluster communicational window for input communication input communicational tasks read input data from at least one other software cluster, and in the cross cluster communicational window for output communication output communicational tasks write output data for at least one other software clusters (Wang, Summary of Invention).
Both Wang and BORG/BORG pertain to the art of real-time systems.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Wang’s method to input preemptive scheduling because it is well-known in the art that preemptive scheduling of inputs allows a system to instantly pause a currently running task and redirect processor resources to a newly arrived, high-priority input (such as user keystrokes, network requests, or real-time sensor data). This prevents lower-priority processes from monopolizing computing power.
Claims 4 is, 6-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BORG/BORG as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sun et al (CN 113760559 ) (hereinafter Sun).
As per claim 4, BORG/BORG teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1 (See rejection on claim 1)
BORG/BORG does not expressly teach:
wherein a microprocessor of the partitioned embedded system comprises a plurality of cores and the cross cluster communicational tasks of the software clusters provide communication between different cores.
However, Sun discloses:
wherein a microprocessor of the partitioned embedded system comprises a plurality of cores and the cross cluster communicational tasks of the software clusters provide communication between different cores (Sun, Background).
Both Sun and BORG/BORG pertain to the art of real-time systems.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Sun’s method to perform inter core communications because it is well-known in the art that inter-core communication in real-time systems enables distinct processing units to exchange intermediate results and data with high speed. It prevents bottlenecks, allows complex tasks to be divided for faster processing, and supports parallel execution to meet strict timing deadlines
As per claim 6, BORG/BORG teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 4 (See rejection on claim 4), wherein all of the cross cluster communicational windows are provided on different cores of the microprocessor (BORG, pg 2).
As per claim 7, BORG/BORG teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 4 (see rejection on claim 4), wherein the dedicated cross cluster communicational window for input or output communication is followed by at least one functional window (BORG, pg 2).
As per claim 9, BORG/BORG teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 7 (see rejection on claim 7), wherein the execution schedule comprises execution periods in which predefined functional tasks are executed, each execution period comprises one or more cross cluster input communicational windows and / or one or more cross cluster output communicational windows (BORG, pg 2—under BRI, input or output communicational windows can be communication windows).
As per claim 10, BORG/BORG teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 4 (See rejection on claim 4), wherein at least two cross cluster communication windows are synchronized across at least two cores of at least one of the microprocessors (BORG, pg 2—under BRI, synchronized can be coordinated) .
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BORG/BORG as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Kim (KR 20140021433) (hereinafter Kim).
As per claim 5, BORG/BORG discloses:
The computer-implemented method of claim 4(See rejection on claim 4) .
BORG/BORG does not expressly teach:
wherein all of the cross cluster communicational windows are provided only on one specific core of the microprocessor
However, Kim discloses:
wherein all of the cross cluster communicational windows are provided only on one specific core of the microprocessor (Kim, DESCRIPTION-OF-EMBODIMENTS).
Both Kim and BORG/BORG pertain to the art of real-time systems.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Kim’s method to use a dedicated I/O processor because it is well-known in the art that a dedicated I/O processor manages data traffic between peripherals and the central system. In real-time systems, it guarantees deterministic performance and prevents CPU bottlenecks by offloading heavy peripheral polling, buffering, and format conversion from the main processor
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 12079113 teaches a method for assigning higher priority to input tasks
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLIE SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-5100. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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, Pierre Vital can be reached at (571) 272-4215. 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.
/CHARLIE SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Prosecution Insights