DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 1, the specification does not appear to disclose “data associated with a primary instruction pipeline … if the data has changed from being full to not being full …” as in claim 1. The terminology of full/fullness were refereeing to a workload state of pipeline rather than data itself.
Independent claims 7 and 14 have the same issue. Dependent claims 2-3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-13, 15-17 and 19 are rejected for the same reason as above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) 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.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
In claim 1, it is unclear how data can be changed its fullness state. Data itself is not a storage, and does not represent fullness.
Independent claims 7 and 14 have the same issue. Dependent claims 2-3, 5-6, 8-10, 12-13, 15-17 and 19 are rejected for the same reason as above.
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 1, 7-8 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Burke (US 10,672,175).
Referring to claims 1, 7 and 14, Burke discloses a method of scheduling instructions (fig. 9D, scheduler 954) within a parallel processing unit (fig. 2A, parallel processor 200), comprising:
decoding, in an instruction decoder (fig. 22, opcode decode 2240; 51:63-67, instruction decode), an instruction (31:8-10, specialized code, shaders) in a scheduled task (fig. 9D, ring buffer 952 scheduling) for a targeted arithmetic logic unit ALU (fig. 3A, graphics multiprocessor 325);
determining whether the scheduled task is already associated with a primary instruction pipeline (fig. 5, graphics processing pipeline 500) from data (fig. 5, instruction stream and parameters) associated with the primary instruction pipeline and;
sending the decoded instruction to the primary instruction pipeline (fig. 9D, consume ring buffer 952 at rasterizer 953); and
if the data has changed from being full to not being full (fig. 9D, data consumed by rasterizer 953 consume at ring buffer 952),
triggering a scheduler (fig. 9D, scheduler 954) to re-activate (31:27-46, consume again) an oldest scheduled task (fig. 9D, front of ring buffer 952 waiting for rasterizer 953) waiting (31:27-46, control ring buffer 952 dispatch) for the primary instruction pipeline.
As to claims 8 and 15, Burke discloses the instruction controller of claim 7, wherein the data comprises the data associating the scheduled tasks with the primary instruction pipeline (fig. 9D, data to ring buffer 952 for rasterizer 953; fig. 5, instruction stream to pipeline 500 and rasterizer 522).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 9-10, 12-13, 16-17 and 19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the prior art on record discloses the limitations of the scheduled tasks and primary instruction pipeline as required in claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but they are not deemed to be persuasive.
Applicant argues that the graphic pipeline does not disclose a scheduled task is already associated with it according to data associated with the pipeline (p.6).
The scheduled task is associated with graphics processing pipeline 500 is associated because the scheduled task is scheduled to use the pipeline as instruction stream and parameters are determined to be used in graphics processing pipeline execution steps.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not describe re-activating an oldest scheduled task if the primary instruction pipeline is full (p.6).
Initially, the re-activating is interpreted as starting another data consumption in the pipeline. The ring buffer provides data in first-in-first-out, thus, oldest scheduled is activated/consumed. Further, the claim does not require the re-activation/consumption “only if” the pipeline is full. The prior art’s pipeline continue consumes buffer data if pipeline is full.
Applicant argues that the prior art does not discloses re-activation, and asserts the term implies the oldest scheduled task is deactivated (p.6).
As explained above, examiner interprets the activation as consume data from buffer in pipeline, the re-activation is a subsequent data consumption. The end of previous consumption can be understood as the deactivation.
Applicant argues that the ring buffer data does not correspond to instructions in a pipeline (p.7).
The claim requires “a scheduled task associated with a pipeline. The claim does not require instruction in the pipeline as argued. Scheduling data to be processed by ALU as required by instructions can be understood as scheduled tasks.
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 in three months from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filled 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 of the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to examiner Cheng-Yuan Tseng whose telephone number is (571)272-9772, and fax number is (571)273-9772. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 09:00 to 17:30 Eastern Time. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alicia Harrington can be reached on (571)272-2330. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866)217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800)786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571)272-1000.
/CHENG YUAN TSENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2615
Prosecution Insights