DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-12 are pending.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delpech et al. (US 2020/0310870 A1) in further view of Koski et al. (US 2019/0220792 A1).
Delpech and Koski were cited in the previous Office Action.
Regarding claim 1, Delpech teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a system for optimizing an execution of a [task scheduling] genetic algorithm, comprising a computing device having a processor ([0038] The invention is intended to be implemented by a multicore processor) programmed to:
prior to the execution of a [task scheduling] genetic algorithm, locate at least one fixed task among a plurality of tasks needed to complete a job among a plurality of jobs (Abstract: the microcontroller, termed a “multicore” microcontroller, including a plurality of cores, each of which is capable of processing regular functions and one-off functions, each one-off function including a plurality of tasks to be executed, each of which is identified by an identifier; [0056] It should be noted that, optionally, the one-off function FS may also include what are called “fixed” tasks (not shown) TF1, TF2 and TF3, which may be empty (i.e. require no processing), which must imperatively be run on a particular core C1, C2, C3 (for example for reasons of memory protection between the cores) before the implementation of the dynamic tasks T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7, T8, T9. Task TF1 may thus represent the fixed task of the one-off function FS associated with the first core C1, task TF2 the fixed task of the one-off function FS associated with the second core C2 and task TF3 the fixed task of the one-off function FS associated with the third core C3.);
block off a necessary time and at least one necessary resource for the at least one fixed task ([0056] It should be noted that, optionally, the one-off function FS may also include what are called “fixed” tasks (not shown) TF1, TF2 and TF3, which may be empty (i.e. require no processing), which must imperatively be run on a particular core C1, C2, C3 (for example for reasons of memory protection between the cores) before the implementation of the dynamic tasks T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7, T8, T9…However, they will be carried out before the common management function starts; wherein by requiring execution prior to T1-9 correspond to setting aside a time for execution);
remove the at least one fixed task from a list of the plurality of tasks belonging to the plurality of jobs ([0056] These fixed tasks TF1, TF2, TF3, i.e. those linked to a core C1, C2, C3, do not appear in the list of task identifiers and are thus not managed by the common management function.);
generate at least one genome [list of tasks] from the remaining tasks ([0021]; [0025] According to one aspect of the invention, the method comprises a preliminary step of determining the ordered list of identifiers of the tasks of the one-off function.; [0049] As a prerequisite, it is assumed that the ordered list of task identifiers has already been determined.); and
initiate the [task scheduling] genetic algorithm to generate a schedule from the genome [list of tasks] of the remaining tasks from the list of the plurality of tasks such that the at least one fixed task will not be inserted into the genome [list of tasks] or considered by the [task scheduling] genetic algorithm ([0015] a step of said available core selecting, from a predetermined ordered list of identifiers of the tasks of the one-off function, the identifier of the first task which has not yet been processed by the other cores, and a step of said available core processing the task that corresponds to the selected identifier; [0056] These fixed tasks TF1, TF2, TF3, i.e. those linked to a core C1, C2, C3, do not appear in the list of task identifiers and are thus not managed by the common management function.).
While Delpech teaches a command management function to schedule tasks, Delpech does not explicitly teach a genetic algorithm and a genome.
However, Koski teaches a genetic algorithm (Abstract: a genetic algorithm, a task scheduling engine generates a population of tasks associated with an overall objective, identifies multiple jobs associated with an overall objective, compiles the multiple jobs into a genome, and assigns one or more tasks to each job of the multiple jobs.; [0009] a genetic algorithm recombines and mutates task schedules with task heuristics in order to increase the overall efficiency of the system) and a genome ([0037] Task scheduling engine 200 compiles the jobs into a genome (step 210). Task scheduling engine 100 compiles the jobs, which act as genes, into a genome randomly or subject to additional variables. For example, task scheduling engine 200 can compile a genome where jobs are grouped closer together on the genome based on shared traits, such as a manufacturing step shared by each job.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Koski’s genetic algorithm and genomes approach with the scheduling techniques of Delpech to order lists of tasks after removing fixed tasks that are to be performed prior to dynamic tasks. The modification would have been motivated by the desire of combining known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Delpech teaches wherein the at least one fixed task comprises a task from at least one of an in-progress task, an anchored task ([0056] It should be noted that, optionally, the one-off function FS may also include what are called “fixed” tasks (not shown) TF1, TF2 and TF3, which may be empty (i.e. require no processing), which must imperatively be run on a particular core C1, C2, C3 (for example for reasons of memory protection between the cores) before the implementation of the dynamic tasks T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7, T8, T9. Task TF1 may thus represent the fixed task of the one-off function FS associated with the first core C1, task TF2 the fixed task of the one-off function FS associated with the second core C2 and task TF3 the fixed task of the one-off function FS associated with the third core C3. These fixed tasks TF1, TF2, TF3, i.e. those linked to a core C1, C2, C3, do not appear in the list of task identifiers and are thus not managed by the common management function. However, they will be carried out before the common management function starts.), a hot task, a dispatch task, an unprioritized hot task, and a bus scheduled task.
Regarding claim 3, Delpech teaches wherein the processor programmed to locate of the at least one fixed task comprises the processor programmed to:
create a timeline for each resource (Fig. 5, shows a timeline for each resource Cores 1-3);
determine, through at least one heuristic, at least one task from the plurality of tasks that can be scheduled for execution before the initiation of the genetic algorithm ([0056] It should be noted that, optionally, the one-off function FS may also include what are called “fixed” tasks (not shown) TF1, TF2 and TF3, which may be empty (i.e. require no processing), which must imperatively be run on a particular core C1, C2, C3 (for example for reasons of memory protection between the cores) before the implementation of the dynamic tasks T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7, T8, T9. Task TF1 may thus represent the fixed task of the one-off function FS associated with the first core C1, task TF2 the fixed task of the one-off function FS associated with the second core C2 and task TF3 the fixed task of the one-off function FS associated with the third core C3. These fixed tasks TF1, TF2, TF3, i.e. those linked to a core C1, C2, C3, do not appear in the list of task identifiers and are thus not managed by the common management function. However, they will be carried out before the common management function starts.); and
schedule the at least one task as the at least one fixed task before the initiation of the genetic algorithm ([0056] These fixed tasks TF1, TF2, TF3, i.e. those linked to a core C1, C2, C3, do not appear in the list of task identifiers and are thus not managed by the common management function. However, they will be carried out before the common management function starts).
Regarding claim 4, Delpech teaches wherein the at least one task from the plurality of tasks is determined based on a status associated with the at least one task ([0057] In the example of FIG. 5, at the start, the first core C1 selects the first identifier from the ordered list of identifiers of the tasks relating to the associated one-off function, and starts to execute the corresponding task T1 at a time t.sub.10. At the same time, the second core C2 selects the second identifier from the ordered list of identifiers of the tasks relating to the associated one-off function, and starts to execute the corresponding task T2 at time t.sub.10. At the same time, the third core C3 selects the third identifier from the ordered list of identifiers of the tasks relating to the associated one-off function, and starts to execute the corresponding task T3 at time t.sub.10. It goes without saying that any other scheme for initially allocating tasks to the cores C1, C2, C3 could be used (for example, the third core C3 could process task T1 first while the second core C2 would process task T3 and the first core C1 would process task T2). Next, the core C1, C2, C3 which finishes executing task T1, T2, T3 first will select (step E4) and execute (step E5) the task of which the next identifier is stored in the ordered list after the identifiers of the tasks selected previously and hence of the tasks which have already been processed.).
Regarding claim 5, Delpech teaches further comprising the processor programed to store at least one of the timeline for each resource or the at least one fixed task ([0008] A one-off initialization or transition function comprises a plurality of tasks which are run in parallel on the different cores, each core being responsible for some of the tasks. The distribution of these tasks between the different cores is predetermined, for example in the factory or when the software is generated, and is stored in a memory region of the microcontroller. In other words, the distribution of tasks and of one-off functions is static and is therefore always performed in the same way over the service life of the software.).
Regarding claim 6, Koski teaches further comprising the processor programmed to use the generated at least one timeline for at least one successive generation of genetic algorithm execution ([0009] a genetic algorithm recombines and mutates task schedules with task heuristics in order to increase the overall efficiency of the system.; [0030]; [0046]).
Regarding claims 7-12, they are system type claims having similar limitations as claims 1-6 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/31/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In Remarks, Applicant argues:
(I) Delpech does not disclose a “blocking off” of a particular time and resource for the task. In Delpech, the “fixed tasks” do not require a necessary time or resource – they “may be empty (i.e. require no processing)” (see para [0056]) – thus they would not need a resource. Additionally, the fixed tasks in Delpech are carried out immediately upon their appearance – even before any of the “regular” tasks T1-T9 (see para [0056]) – thus there is no necessary time that needs to be blocked off because they are carried out immediately.
Because Delpech’s fixed tasks do not require a particular time or resource, the conclusion of obviousness is factually unsupported as required for a prima facie rejection under 35 USC 103. Additionally, it would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine any reference with Delpech to arrive at the claimed invention because there is no need to do this in Delpech – therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not think to do this modification. Therefore, the teachings of Koski fail to remedy the deficiencies of Delpech.
(II) The Examiner asserts Delpech to teach “generate a schedule from a [list of tasks]…”. (2026 July OA, page 4) Applicant respectfully disagrees.
Delpech merely distributes tasks as they need to be done to each of the cores C1-C3. Delpech does not generate a schedule. As discussed above, it merely processes the tasks in real-time as they need to be performed (see para [0005] – one-off events performed as they occur; see also para [0009], claim 1). The overall invention in Delpech is for controlling motors in motor vehicles – so it makes sense that the intent is to perform the tasks in sequential order as quickly as possible. There is no need to generate a schedule, let alone using a genome, as the tasks in a motor vehicle are “on-demand”.
In view of the arguments above, examiner submits the following:
As to point (I)
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant. Delpech as cited teaches in [0056]
“It should be noted that, optionally, the one-off function FS may also include what are called “fixed” tasks (not shown) TF1, TF2 and TF3, which may be empty (i.e. require no processing), which must imperatively be run on a particular core C1, C2, C3 (for example for reasons of memory protection between the cores) before the implementation of the dynamic tasks T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6, T7, T8, T9. Task TF1 may thus represent the fixed task of the one-off function FS associated with the first core C1, task TF2 the fixed task of the one-off function FS associated with the second core C2 and task TF3 the fixed task of the one-off function FS associated with the third core C3.
As shown above, Delpech as cited blocks/sets a time for execution of tasks, that being scheduling tasks before the implementation of dynamic tasks T1-T9. Also, Delpech assigns at least one resource, that being a particular core C1, C2 or C3 as cited. Accordingly, Delpech explicitly teaches blocking a time before the execution of dynamic tasks and assigning a specific core to each of the fixed tasks similar to what is claimed. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and therefore the rejection is maintained.
As to point (II)
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant. Applicant argues that Delpech does not teach “generate a schedule”. It is respectfully submitted that the claim does not recite a schedule, it recites “at least one genome from the remaining tasks” Application specification in at least [0053] recites “A genome as discussed herein can be considered to be a list of tasks.” Accordingly, Delpech teachings if an ordered list of identifiers of the tasks of the one-off function explicitly teach the claimed limitation. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE A CHU JOY-DAVILA whose telephone number is (571)270-0692. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 6:00am-5:00pm.
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, Aimee J Li can be reached at (571)272-4169. 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.
/JORGE A CHU JOY-DAVILA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195
