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 .
Claims 1-7 are pending.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Drawing
The drawings are objected to because of the following minor informalities:
-- dashed line -- and -- solid line -- has not been labelled in figs. 2-3 to make distinction between dashed line and solid line.
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
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.
Claims 1-7 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 joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following claim language is not clearly understood:
Claim 1 recites “when a second program is being executed for more than a predetermined time after a first program calls the second program … to construct in a stack area for the first program”. It is unclear construction of the stack frame is performed before the execution of second program, at the time of start of execution of the second program, or after the second program execution exceed the predetermined amount of time.
Claim 1 recites “restoring an execution state of the first program before the execution suspension”. It is unclear how the restoration of a program happens before the suspension, or the claim is referring to restoring execution state of the first program corresponding/ representing the state of execution of the first program before suspension.
Claim 1 recites “configuration of a used stack frame” without clearly reciting the configuration i.e. what constitutes the configuration configuring the stack frame.
Claim 1 recites “head address value” without clearly reciting head address value is the address of what.
Claim 2 recites “before the execution suspension”. It is unclear if the execution suspension is referring to the suspension of first or second or third program.
Claim 3 recites “execution of third program” has completed without clearly reciting the starting of the third program.
Claims 6 and 7 recite elements of claim 1 and have similar deficiency as claim 1. Therefore, they are rejected for the same rational. Remaining dependent claims 2-5 are also rejected due to similar deficiency inherited from the rejected independent 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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more or integrating into practical application.
Claims 1-7 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. Examples of abstract ideas include at least Mathematical concepts, Mental process and Certain Methods of organizing human activity.
Step 1
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claim 1 recites a computer, which falls within the “machine” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 6 recites a method, which falls within the “process” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 7 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium, which falls within the “machine / manufacture” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Thus, the analysis determines whether the claims recite a judicial exception and fail to integrate the exception into practical application. See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Re. 54-55. If both elements are satisfied, the claims are directed to a judicial exception under the first step of the Alice/Mayo test, See id.
Step 2A Prong One
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2A of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-78, 101 USPQ2d at 1967-68).
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Claim Elements
i
1. A computer comprising: processing circuitry:
common computer
ii
to perform context switching, using a stack frame indicated by a stack pointer value;
common computing method
iii
when a second program is being executed for more than a predetermined time after a first program calls the second program by a function call and the first program suspends execution,
mental process abstract idea
iv
to construct in a stack area for the first program, a first program stack frame which is a stack frame for restoring an execution state of the first program before the execution suspension, in accordance with a configuration of a used stack frame; and
common computing method
v
to set to the stack pointer value, a head address value of the first program stack frame.
The process described by step [iii] describes “concepts performed in the human mind” or “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion.” Thus steps [iii] recite the abstract concept of [m]ental processes.” Id. For example, step [iii] recites “when a second program is being executed for more than a predetermined time after a first program calls the second program by a function call and the first program suspends execution”, which is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, and may be performed by human mind. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Thus, claim 1 recites a judicial exception. For these same reasons, claims 6-7 recite judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2A of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-78, 101 USPQ2d at 1967-68).
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Because claims 1 and 6-7 recite a judicial exception, analysis determines if the claims recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into practical application. In addition to the limitations of claim 1 discussed above that recite the abstract concepts, claim 1 also recites additional steps [i]-[ii] and [iv]-[v]. Claim 1 in step [i] recites a computer, which is a generic computing system and are not considered an improvement in the functioning of a computer or technology or technical field. See MPEP § 2106.04(d). Claim 1 in step [ii] recites “to perform context switching, using a stack frame indicated by a stack pointer value”, which is directed to context switching using state frame/pointer value, and is performed commonly in the field of computing and is neither inventive nor provides improvement to the field of computing. Claim 1 step [iv] recites “to construct in a stack area for the first program, a first program stack frame which is a stack frame for restoring an execution state of the first program before the execution suspension, in accordance with a configuration of a used stack frame”, which is common computing method for context saving/ restoring/ switching, and is neither inventive nor provides improvement to the field of computing. Claim 1 step [v] recites “to set to the stack pointer value, a head address value of the first program stack frame”, which is adding the resuming address to the stack frame and is also common computing method for context saving/ restoring/ switching, and is neither inventive nor provides improvement to the field of computing. The Specification doesn’t provide additional details that would distinguish the additional limitations recited in claim 1 steps [i]-[ii], [iv]-[v] from a generic implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, the claim elements recited in steps [i]-[ii], [iv]-[v] , under broadest reasonable interpretation, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Thus, claim 1 recites a judicial exception without integrating into practical application. For these same reasons and based on similar analysis as above, claims 6-7 also recites judicial exception without integrating into practical application.
Step 2B
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2B of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the second part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012)).
Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Because claims 1, 6 and 7 are directed to judicial exception, analysis must determine, according to Alice, whether these claims recite an element, or combination of elements that is enough to ensure that the claim is directed to significantly more than a judicial exception.
The Memorandum, Section III (B) (footnote 36) states:
In accordance with existing guidance, an Examiner’s conclusion that an additional element (or combination of elements) is well understood, routine, conventional activity must be supported with a factual determination. For more information concerning evaluation of well-understood, routine, convention activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d), as modified by the USPTO Berkheimer Memorandum.
The Berkheimer Memorandum, Section III(A)(1) states:
A Specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, on in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 §U.S.C. 112(a). A finding that an element is well-understood, routine, or conventional cannot be based only on the fact that the specification is silent with respect to describing such element.
Claim 1 step [i] recites “computer comprising processing circuitry”, which is generic computing component, as recognized by one of ordinary skills in the art, and doesn’t amount to significantly more. Claim 1 step [ii] recites “to perform context switching, using a stack frame indicated by a stack pointer value”, which is common computing method as recognized by one ordinary skills in the art (see cited prior arts PTO-892), and doesn’t amount to significantly more. Claim 1 in step [iv] recites “to construct in a stack area for the first program, a first program stack frame which is a stack frame for restoring an execution state of the first program before the execution suspension, in accordance with a configuration of a used stack frame”, which is also commonly performed by the computer system (see cited prior arts PTO-892), as recognized by one of ordinary skills in the art, and does not amount to significantly more. Claim 1 step [v] recites “to set to the stack pointer value, a head address value of the first program stack frame”, which is directed to insignificant extra solution activity of setting a value, and also commonly performed by the computer system (see cited prior arts PTO-892), as recognized by one of ordinary skills in the art, and does not amount to significantly more. These limitations either alone or in combination simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. Further, the Specification doesn’t provide additional details that would distinguish the additional limitations as recited in the claim from a generic implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, Claims 1 is not directed to significantly more than a patent ineligible concept. For these same reasons and based on similar analysis as above, claims 6-7 also recites judicial exception without integrating into practical application, and either alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the processing circuitry refers to the stack pointer value at a time point when resumption of the execution of the first program is scheduled, and restores the execution state of the first program before the execution suspension, using the first program stack frame, based on the head address value of the first program stack frame set to the stack pointer value”, which is directed to common computing method of resuming task after context switching as recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art, and is neither inventive nor provide improvements to technology.
Claim 3 is directed to scheduling the resumption of the execution after the execution of third program, which can be conceptually performed by a combination of one or more of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion and can be conceptually performed by human mind with or without the help of pen and paper, and is considered to be directed to mental process abstract idea.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the processing circuitry saves in a storage area other than the stack area of the first program, the execution state of the first program before the execution suspension, and constructs the first program stack frame in the stack area for the first program, using the execution state of the first program before the execution suspension saved in the storage area”, which is directed to context saving/restoring and is commonly performed in the computing system as recognized by one of ordinary skills in the art, and do not make the claim patent eligible.
Claim 5 recites “saves in the storage area, at least one of: a value of the first program before the execution suspension in a control register included in the computer; a value of the first program before the execution suspension in a state register included in the computer; and a value of the first program before the execution suspension in a general purpose register included in the computer, as at least a part of the execution state of the first program before the execution suspension”, which is directed to storing program value at different location, which is commonly performed in the field of computing and can’t be considered inventive/improvement or amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the claim(s) 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to judicial exception without integrating into practical application or amount to significantly more.
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 1-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalman et al. (US 2005/0102650 A1, hereafter Kalman) in view of Nilsen (US 2021/0208886 A1).
As per claim 1, Kalman teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a computer comprising: processing circuitry ([0001]):
to perform context switching, using a stack frame indicated by a stack pointer value ([0016] context switch, separate stack for each task [[0052] stack pointer, start/resume address [0025] task control block, assigned, each task);
when a second program is being executed for more than a predetermined time after ([0013] multitasking, control task execution based on, amount of time each task is allowed to run [0014] how long any operation will take [0015] context switch, occur, variety of reasons, desire to delay a task for a specified time interval, context switch occurs at any random time [0016] only occur when when/where, requested, /allowed to occur) a first program calls the second program by a function call ([0047] scheduler dispatching single task i.e. first task, task begins running, task in turn calls subroutines A, B i.e. second task; fig. 4) and the first program suspends execution ([0047] after calling subroutines B, task performs a context switch [0010] context switch, suspends or stops one task and resumes or starts another task), to construct in a stack area for the first program ([0019] call…return stack, unique, task T1, T1 resumes, return to position from where it was called [0041] single call…return stack, irrespective of number of task [0042] dedicates a single task control block for each task ), a first program stack frame which is a stack frame for restoring an execution state of the first program before the execution suspension ( [0016] task, pre-empted, return address, kept on a stack, separate stack for each task, task resume, context sensitive information e.g. task’s resume address and register values, saved, task stack), in accordance with a configuration of a used stack frame ([0021] stacks or similar memory blocks, saving return addresses[0042] task stack, each task, task, task control block to each task, task control block, contains, task resume address, context saving information, other task specific information); and
to set to the stack pointer value, a head address value of the first program stack frame ([0025] task control block, assigned to each task, single task resume address is saved [0026] task-resume address, label at the point where the task is to resume, obtaining the address of the label and storing that address as task-resume address [0052] stack pointer, start/resume address).
Kalman doesn’t specifically teach program is executed more than a predetermined time.
Nilsen, however, teaches program is executed more than a predetermined time ([0121] bound the amount of execution time between preemption-safe points [0127] determining whether an estimated execution time of a control path exceeds a preemption latency parameter, latency parameter is a maximum allowable preemption points between preemption points, violates the preemption latency parameter, placing an explicit preemption point ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine the teachings of Kalman with the teachings of Nilsen of determining whether execution time exceeds a maximum allowable time between preemption points to improve efficiency and allow determining if program is executed more than a predetermined time to the method of Kalman as in the instant invention.
The combination of cited prior art would have been obvious because applying the known method of placing explicit preemption point based on determination that control path exceeds the maximum allowable execution point as taught by Nilsen to the method of Kalman of context switching to yield expected result and improved efficiency.
As per claim 2,Kalman teaches wherein the processing circuitry refers to the stack pointer value at a time point when resumption of the execution of the first program is scheduled ([0010] task switches, context switch, resumes or starts another ), and restores the execution state of the first program before the execution suspension ([0010] saves the context of the suspended task so that teach, when, resume, continue where it was suspended with its entire context), using the first program stack frame, based on the head address value of the first program stack frame set to the stack pointer value ([0052] stack pointer, start/resume address, the return address of the preempted task is obtained from the stack via the stack pointer and stored in task-specific memory).
As per claim 3, Kalman teaches wherein when execution of a third program whose priority is higher than that of the first program is scheduled before the resumption of the execution of the first program (fig. 3 task priority-time [0010] ensure highest priority task is always one about to run or actually [0011] task B initially runs to completion because its priority exceeds that of task C, task B runs it is suspended while the higher-priority task A runs to completion, whereupon task B resumes running.), the processing circuitry restores the execution state of the first program before the execution suspension at the time point when the resumption of the execution of the first program is scheduled after the execution of the third program has completed ([0011] task B runs it is suspended while the higher-priority task A runs to completion, whereupon task B resumes running).
As per claim 4, Kalman teaches wherein the processing circuitry saves in a storage area other than the stack area of the first program, the execution state of the first program before the execution suspension ([0010] task switch, saves the context of the suspended task [0016] often also saved on the call stack), and constructs the first program stack frame in the stack area for the first program, using the execution state of the first program before the execution suspension saved in the storage area ([0010] saves the context of the suspended task so that the task, when resumed, may continue where it was suspended with its entire context).
Nilsen teaches remaining claim elements of saves in storage area other than the stack area of the first program, the execution state ([0282] performing context switch, saving one or more values, context registers, values, may be saved, cache, other RAM, to disk storage).
As per claim 5, Kalman teaches wherein the processing circuitry saves in the storage area, at least one of: a value of the first program before the execution suspension in a control register included in the computer; a value of the first program before the execution suspension in a state register included in the computer; and a value of the first program before the execution suspension in a general purpose register included in the computer, as at least a part of the execution state of the first program before the execution suspension ([0010] saves the context of suspended task [0016] context sensitive information, register values [0074] task, state).
Nilsen teaches saves at least one of: a value of the first program before the suspension in a control register, a value in state register, and in a general purpose register ([0282] context switch, saving one or more values stored in context registers, values of the registers may also be saved to a cache, to other Random-Access Memory (RAM), to disk storage, or otherwise saved [0153] general purpose register).
Claim 6 recites a control method comprising: by a processor included in a computer that performs elements similar to claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 7 recites non-transitory computer readable medium storing a control program for causing a computer to execute elements similar to claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Examiners Note
Applicant is further reminded of that the cited paragraphs and in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant(s) and although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider all of the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chrabieh (US 2006/0107268 A1) teaches method for task management of computer operations.
Kobayashi (US 2007/0226747 A1) teaches method of task execution environment switch in multitask system
Pizzi et al. (US 2004/0172633 A1) teaches single stack kernel to store the runtime context for selected suspended task.
Sundaram et al. (US 2004/0055003 A1) teaches uniprocessor operating system design facilitating fast context switching
Authorization for Internet Communication
Applicant is encouraged to submit an authorization to communicate with the Examiner via the internet by making the following statement (MPEP 502.03)
“Recognizing that internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only by submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner’s Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABU GHAFFARI whose telephone number is (571)270-3799. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 14:00 - 15:00 Hrs.
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 Lee can be reached on 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 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. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/ABU ZAR GHAFFARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195
Prosecution Insights