Ve to 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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 26, 2024, and January 14, 2025, are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-9, 11-13, 19, 21-22, and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 13, replace “the corresponding” with --the associated--.
Claim 2, line 7, before “configuration information”, -- the -- should be inserted.
Claim 9, lines 2-3, “the expiration lists” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claim 19, line 4, before “configuration information”, -- the -- should be inserted.
Claim 11, line 10, replace “the corresponding” with --the associated--.
Claim 25, line 2, “the expiration lists” lacks proper antecedent basis.
Claims 3-8, 12, 13, 21-22 depend on objected claims and inherit the same issues as objected claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2, 5-7, 12, and 19-23 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.
Regarding claim 2, “the timer pool” in lines 7, 8, 10, and 11 are unclear whether they refer to “a timer pool” in line 6 of claim 2 or “a timer pool” in line 6 of claim 1. For the following prior art rejection, “per a timer pool” in line 6 of claim 2 will be interpreted as --for the timer pool-- and “per a timer pool” in line 6 of claim 1 will be interpreted as --for a timer pool--.
Regarding claim 5, “the request” in lines 8, 9, 10, and 11 are unclear whether they refer to “a request” in line 7 or line 5 of claim 5. For the following prior art rejection, “per a request” in line 7 of claim 5 will be interpreted as --for the request--.
Regarding claim 5, “the expiration time” in line 8 is unclear whether it refers to “an expiration time” in lines 5-6 of claim 5 or “an expiration time” in line 12 of claim 1. For the following prior art rejection, “the expiration time” in line 8 of claim 5 will be interpreted as --the expiration time indicated in the request--.
Regarding claim 6, “the event lists” in line 5 is unclear whether it refers to “event lists” in line 11 of claim 1 or lines 4-5 of claim 3. For the following prior art rejection, “event lists” in lines 4-5 of claim 3 will be interpreted as --the events lists--.
Regarding claim 7, “the pointers” in line 2 is unclear whether it refers to “first pointers” in line 7 of claim 1, “second pointers” in line 11 of claim 1, or both. For the following prior art rejection “the pointers” in line 2 of claim 7 will be interpreted as --the first pointers and the second pointers--.
Regarding claim 12, “the timer pool” in lines 5 and 7, it is unclear whether it refers to “a timer pool” in line 4 of claim 12 or “a timer pool” in lines 3-4 of claim 11. For the following prior art rejection, “per a timer pool” in line 4 of claim 12 will be interpreted as --for the timer pool-- and “per a timer pool” in lines 3-4 of claim 11 will be interpreted as --for a timer pool--.
Regarding claim 19, “the apparatus” in line 2 is unclear whether it refers to “an apparatus” in line 2 of claim 19 or “an apparatus” in line 2 of claim 16. For the following prior art rejection “an apparatus in line 2 of claim 19 will be interpreted as --the apparatus--.
Regarding claim 19, “the timer pool” in lines 5, 7, and 8 are unclear whether they refers to “a timer pool” in line 4 of claim 19 or “a timer pool” in line 5 of claim 16. For the following prior art rejection, “per a timer pool” in line 4 of claim 19 will be interpreted as --for the timer pool-- and “per a timer pool” in line 5 of claim 16 will be interpreted as --for a timer pool--.
Regarding claim 20, “the apparatus” in line 2 is unclear whether it refers to “an apparatus” in line 2 of claim 20 or “an apparatus” in line 2 of claim 16. For the following prior art rejection “an apparatus in line 2 of claim 20 will be interpreted as --the apparatus--.
Regarding claim 21, “the apparatus” in line 2 is unclear whether it refers to “an apparatus” in line 2 of claim 21 or “an apparatus” in line 2 of claim 16. For the following prior art rejection “an apparatus in line 2 of claim 21 will be interpreted as --the apparatus--.
Regarding claim 21, “the request” in lines 5, 7, and 8 are unclear whether they refer to “a request” in line 5 or line 3 of claim 21. For the following prior art rejection, “per a request” in line 5 of claim 21 will be interpreted as --for the request--.
Regarding claim 21, “the expiration time” in line 6 is unclear whether it refers to “expiration time” in line of claim 21, “expiration time” in line 13 of claim 19, or “one expiration time” in line 9 of claim 16. For the following prior art rejection, “the expiration time” in line 6 of claim 21 will be interpreted as --the expiration time indicated in the request--.
Regarding claim 22, “the apparatus” in line 2 is unclear whether it refers to “an apparatus” in line 2 of claim 22 or “an apparatus” in line 2 of claim 16. For the following prior art rejection “an apparatus in line 2 of claim 22 will be interpreted as --the apparatus--.
Regarding claim 22, “the event lists” in line 3 is unclear whether it refers to “event list” in line 13 of claim 19 or “event lists” in line 8 of claim 16. For the following prior art rejection “event lists” in line 13 of claim 19 will be interpreted as --the event lists--.
Regarding claim 22, “the event list” in line 4 is unclear whether it refers to “event list” in line 13 of claim 19 or “event list” in line 9 of claim 16. For the following prior art rejection “event list” in line 13 of claim 19 will be interpreted as --the event list--.
Regarding claim 23, “the apparatus” in line 2 is unclear whether it refers to “an apparatus” in line 2 of claim 23 or “an apparatus” in line 2 of claim 16. For the following prior art rejection “an apparatus in line 2 of claim 23 will be interpreted as --the apparatus--.
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 16 is directed to “The computer program”. However, claims 24 and 25 recite apparatus being at least one chip and a memory that is external to the at least one chip. Thus, they do not further limit the claimed computer program. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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, 3-5, 8-9, 11, and 13, 16, and 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11, 13, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes.
Claims 1-9 are directed to a machine and claims 11-13 are directed to a process.
Claim 1 recites (also claim 16):
access first level look-up-tables, a first level look-up table per a timer pool, the first level look-up table comprising for the timer pool a plurality of rows for first pointers to second level look-up tables;
access, using the first pointers, the second level look-up tables, a second level look-up table comprising M or less rows for second pointers to event lists with expiration times, wherein an event list is associated with one expiration time, and comprises a plurality of single-shot timing events scheduled at the corresponding expiration time; and
access, using the second pointers, the event lists to add or cancel single-shot timing events in the event lists.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, abstract ideas.
The “access” limitation above in a, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “access” in the context of this claim encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper.
The “access” limitation above in b, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “access” in the context of this claim encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper.
The “access” limitation above in c, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “access” in the context of this claim encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The claim recites the following additional elements:
at least one processor
at least one memory
instructions
first pointers
second pointers
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components) such that they amount to no more than linking the judicial exception to a technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than employing generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment. Mere linking the judicial exception to a technological environment using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim 3 recites (also claim 20):
add single-shot timing events to event lists using pointers in the first level tables and pointers in the second level look-up tables.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the abstract ideas of claim 1 as referenced above.
The “add” limitation above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “add” in the context of this claim encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The claim recites the following additional elements:
pointers
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components) such that they amount to no more than linking the judicial exception to a technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than employing generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment. Mere linking the judicial exception to a technological environment using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim 4 recites:
cancel single-shot timing events from event lists using pointers in the first level tables and pointers in the second level look-up tables.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the abstract ideas of claim 1 as referenced above.
The “cancel” limitation above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “cancel” in the context of this claim encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The claim recites the following additional elements:
pointers
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components) such that they amount to no more than linking the judicial exception to a technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than employing generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment. Mere linking the judicial exception to a technological environment using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim 5 recites:
receive requests to add or cancel single-shot timing events, a request indicating a timer pool, a timing event and an expiration time;
estimate, per a request, whether there is time to perform the request before the expiration time is met; and
determine to perform the request when there is time to perform the request and not to perform the request when there is no time to perform the request.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the abstract ideas of claim 3 as referenced above.
The “estimate” limitation above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “estimate” in the context of this claim encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper.
The “determine” limitation above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determine” in the context of this claim encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The “receive” limitation above, as claimed and under (BRI), is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “receive” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
With regard to the “receive” limitation above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)).
Claim 8 recites (also claim 24):
wherein the apparatus comprises at least one chip.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the abstract ideas of claim 1 as referenced above.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The claim recites the following additional elements:
at least one chip
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components) such that they amount to no more than linking the judicial exception to a technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than employing generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment. Mere linking the judicial exception to a technological environment using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim 9 recites (also claim 25):
wherein the first level look-up tables, the second level look-up tables and the expiration lists are stored to a memory that is external to the at least one chip.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the abstract ideas of claim 8 as referenced above.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The “stored” limitation above, as claimed and under (BRI), is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “stored” in the context of this claim encompasses storing information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Additionally, the claim recites the following additional elements:
a memory
the at least one chip
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components) such that they amount to no more than linking the judicial exception to a technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
With regard to the “stored” limitation above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than employing generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment. Mere linking the judicial exception to a technological environment using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim 11 recites:
accessing first level look-up-tables, a first level look-up table per a timer pool, the first level look-up table comprising for the timer pool a plurality of rows for pointers to second level look-up tables, wherein N is a positive integer whose value is based on maximum timeout and resolution of the timer pool;
accessing the second level look-up tables, a second level look-up table comprising M or less rows for pointers to event lists with expiration times, wherein an event list is associated with one expiration time, and comprises a plurality of single-shot timing events scheduled at the corresponding expiration time; and
accessing the event lists to add or cancel single-shot timing events in the event lists.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, abstract ideas.
The “accessing” limitation above in a, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “accessing” in the context of this claim encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper.
The “accessing” limitation above in b, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “accessing” in the context of this claim encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper.
The “accessing” limitation above in c, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “accessing” in the context of this claim encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The claim recites the following additional elements:
pointers
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components) such that they amount to no more than linking the judicial exception to a technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than employing generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment. Mere linking the judicial exception to a technological environment using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claim 13 recites:
receiving requests to add or cancel single-shot timing events, a request indicating a timer pool, a timing event and an expiration time;
using pointers in the first level tables and pointers in the second level look-up tables to add or cancel single-shot timing events in the event lists.
Step 2A, Prong I: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the abstract ideas of claim 11 as referenced above.
The “using” limitation above, as claimed and under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), is a mental process that covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “using” in the context of this claim encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No.
The “receive” limitation above, as claimed and under (BRI), is an additional element that is insignificant extra-solution activity. For example, “receive” in the context of this claim encompasses mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Additionally, claim recites the following additional elements:
pointers
These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components) such that they amount to no more than linking the judicial exception to a technological environment. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea(s) into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea(s).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No.
With regard to the “receive” limitation above, per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognized the following computer function as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity:
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added)).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the aforementioned additional elements amount to no more than employing generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment. Mere linking the judicial exception to a technological environment using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claims 16 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter.
Claim 16 recites “a computer program” featuring “instructions”, none of which are recited as embodying hardware or implemented by hardware components. Thus, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the computer program is purely software. It is suggested that Applicants amend this claim by reciting hardware components, such as a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, are used to implement the recited features.
Dependent claims 19-24 inherit the deficiency of claim 16 and, therefore, are also rejected.
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, 8, 16, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moscovici et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. US 20150363448 A1, hereinafter “Moscovici”) in view of Shah et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. US 20210191878 A1, hereinafter “Shah”), Matousek et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 20070261063 A1, hereinafter “Matousek”), and Ogus et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 20050050543 A1, hereinafter Ogus).
With regard to claim 1, Moscovici discloses:
An apparatus for managing timer pools and single-shot timing events within the timer pools (“a programmable apparatus”, para [0086]), the apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to (“The solution may also be implemented in a computer program for running on a computer system, at least including code portions for performing a method according to the invention when run on a programmable apparatus, such as a computer system or enabling a programmable apparatus to perform functions of a device or system according to the invention. The computer program may for instance include one or more of: a subroutine, a function, a procedure, an object method, an object implementation, an executable application, an applet, a servlet, a source code, an object code, a shared library/dynamic load library and/or other sequence of instructions designed for execution on a computer system. The computer program may be provided on a tangible and non-transitory data carrier, such as a CD-rom or diskette, stored with data loadable in a memory of a computer system, the data representing the computer program.”, para [0086]):
a second level look-up table comprising M or less rows for second pointers to event lists ("In the shown example, look-up table 11 comprises several table entries, such as the entry whose content is denoted A. Similarly, look-up table 12 comprises several table entries such as entry is denoted B in the example as shown. Each table entry is adapted to store a table content corresponding to, e.g., a list of tasks (or actions) to be performed on the packets which are processed in the system by following a processing path through the look-up tables. These tasks can be defined in any suitable manner, in particular for being stored in form of a list of actions stored in respective storage units of the system memory. The look-up table contents may correspond to a pointer to the storage unit storing the first action in the list, each storage unit further storing the pointer to another storage unit which stores the next action in the list.", para [0026]),
access, using the second pointers, the event lists to add or cancel single-shot timing events in the event lists ("The look-up table contents may correspond to a pointer to the storage unit storing the first action in the list, each storage unit further storing the pointer to another storage unit which stores the next action in the list.", para [0026]).
Moscovici does not disclose:
access first level look-up-tables, a first level look-up table per a timer pool, the first level look-up table comprising for the timer pool a plurality of rows for first pointers to second level look-up tables;
access, using the first pointers, the second level look-up tables,
event lists with expiration times, wherein an event list is associated with one expiration time, and comprises a plurality of single-shot timing events scheduled at the corresponding expiration time; and
Shah discloses:
access first level look-up-tables, a first level look-up table per a timer pool, the first level look-up table comprising for the timer pool a plurality of rows for first pointers to second level look-up tables ("the first table comprises a plurality of page table entries (PTEs), each including a pointer to one of the plurality of display page tables", para [0226]);
access, using the first pointers, the second level look-up tables ("the first table comprises a plurality of page table entries (PTEs), each including a pointer to one of the plurality of display page tables", para [0226]),
Both the systems of Moscovici and Shah deal with tables. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Moscovici in view of Shah to decrease access time.
Matousek discloses:
event lists with expiration times, wherein an event list is associated with one expiration time (“In some embodiments, all events of the same batch type and with the same, or similar, expiration time are grouped together.”, para [0063]),
Both the systems of Moscovici and Matousek deal with groups of events. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Moscovici in view of Matousek to improve efficiency.
Ogus discloses:
and comprises a plurality of single-shot timing events scheduled at the corresponding expiration time (“A typical timer system maintains scheduled events in a list sequenced by expiry time.", para [0004]); and
Both the systems of Moscovici and Ogus deal with groups of events. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Moscovici in view of Ogus to improve efficiency.
With regard to claim 8, Moscovici as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Moscovici further discloses:
wherein the apparatus comprises at least one chip (“systems on chip (SoC)”, para [0002]).
With regard to claim 16, the limitations except those addressed below are rejected using the mapping from analogous claim 1.
Moscovici discloses:
A computer program comprising instructions which, when executed by an apparatus, cause the apparatus to perform at least the following to manage timer pools and single-shot timing events within the timer pools (“The solution may also be implemented in a computer program for running on a computer system, at least including code portions for performing a method according to the invention when run on a programmable apparatus, such as a computer system or enabling a programmable apparatus to perform functions of a device or system according to the invention.”, para [0086]):
With regard to claim 24, Moscovici as modified discloses the computer program of claim 16.
The remaining limitations are rejected using the mapping from analogous claim 8.
Claims 7 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moscovici in view of Shah, Matousek, and Ogus as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Goldman et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. US 8457142 B1, hereinafter “Goldman”).
With regard to claim 7, Moscovici as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Moscovici as modified does not disclose however, Goldman discloses:
wherein the pointers are buffer pointers (“a notification buffer pointer”, col 9, lines 8-9), and wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, further cause the apparatus to:
allocate buffer pointers (“allocate a notification buffer pointer”, col 9, lines 8-9); and
deallocate buffer pointers (“may deallocate the notification buffer pointer”, col 9, lines 15-16).
Both the systems of Moscovici and Goldman deal with pointers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Moscovici as modified in view of Goldman to improve efficiency.
With regard to claim 23, Moscovici as modified discloses the computer program of claim 16.
The remaining limitations are rejected using the mapping from analogous claim 7.
Claims 9 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moscovici in view of Shah, Matousek, and Ogus as applied to claims 8 and 24 above, and further in view of NG et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 20200192825 A1, hereinafter “NG”).
With regard to claim 9, Moscovici as modified discloses the apparatus of claim 8.
Moscovici as modified does not disclose however, NG discloses:
wherein the first level look-up tables, the second level look-up tables and the expiration lists are stored to a memory that is external to the at least one chip (“data structures (e.g., tables, linked lists, etc.) that are stored in device memory 118.”, para [0048], “processor” 102, “memory” 118, fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
566
810
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Both the systems of Moscovici and NG deal with data structures. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Moscovici as modified in view of NG to increase memory capacity.
With regard to claim 25, Moscovici as modified discloses the computer program of claim 24.
The remaining limitations are rejected using the mapping from analogous claim 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sasaki (U.S. Patent Application No. US 20220404965 A1) discloses “Next, wider LBA ranges than those of the first LUT fragment table T411 described above are allocated to each of the plurality of second LUT fragment tables T412, and the second LUT fragment table T412 includes a plurality of entries C412. Further, for each of the plurality of entries C412 included in the second LUT fragment table T412, the LBA ranges allocated to the first LUT fragment table T411 corresponding to the lower hierarchy of the second LUT fragment table T412 are allocated, and the LUT pointer indicating (position) of the first LUT fragment table T411 is stored.”, para [0072].
Colrain (U.S. Patent Application No. US 20210081382 A1) discloses “In an embodiment, DBMS 140 calculates a metric for the estimated time for the request to execute and then compare it with the remaining time period until the drain timeout expiration.”, para [0137].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SELENA SABAH NAHRA whose telephone number is (571)272-6115. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00 AM -5:30 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 Sough can be reached at (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.
/S.S.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2192
/S. Sough/SPE, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights