DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
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
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application (63/512,239) under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0004], line 2, it appears that “have” should be replaced with
--has--.
In paragraph [0036], replace “a awaken” with --an awaken--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
FIGs.1, 2A-B, and 5 are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference characters not mentioned in the description:
In FIG.1, numbers 105 and 144.
In FIG.2A, numbers 241 and 243.
In FIG.2B, numbers 254, 256, 258, 260, 262, and 264.
In FIG.5, number 560. Should the first instance of 562 in paragraph [0039] be replaced with 560?
All FIGs are objected to for failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(a)(1) and 37 CFR 1.84(l), which requires the drawings be in black, and that all drawings be made by a process which will give them satisfactory reproduction characteristics. Every line, number, and letter must be durable, clean, solid black (except for color drawings), sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined. The weight of all lines and letters must be heavy enough to permit adequate reproduction. This requirement applies to all lines however fine, to shading, and to lines representing cut surfaces in sectional views. The drawings are pixelated, because applicant did not use black (RGB = 000), despite the drawings appearing black to the naked eye. This has been confirmed by the examiner via a color inspection of applicant’s submitted pdf file. In such a case, the dithering used to convert applicant's grayscale image to black and white will add white pixels to try to estimate applicant's "gray" color, and the final drawings may not print properly or may print with reduced quality. Therefore, applicant must be sure to use only black and white. Applicant may try the following process to correct the color content:
1. Open the drawings PDF file with Adobe Acrobat Pro DC (a similar Adobe product may work, but the examiner has only tested this in Adobe Acrobat Pro DC);
2. Click “File” and then click “Print”;
3. Select “Adobe PDF” as the printer. If not available, “Microsoft Print to PDF” may also work, though this has not been tested. If neither option is available, this process may not be applicable, and applicant should try to find an alternate way to print in only black and white.
4. Uncheck “Print in grayscale (black and white)”;
5. Uncheck “Save ink/toner”;
6. Click “Advanced”;
7. Under “Color Management”, for the “Color Profile” field, select “Black & White” near the bottom of the list. The examiner also had “Treat grays as K-only grays” checked, and “Preserve Black” checked.
8. Click “OK” and then click “Print”. The resulting PDF should comprise only black and white drawings. Please review the final drawings for potential unintended consequences of this process.
NOTE: The examiner notes that this particular process is customized to this particular set of drawings. It may not work on other sets of drawings in other applications. If applicant is unable to perform the above conversion, the examiner would be willing to perform the conversion and email the resulting pdf file to applicant for formal filing once all other objections are resolved, provided an Authorization for Internet Communications (PTO/SB/439) is on record (see MPEP 502.03).
FIG.2B is objected to for failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(i), which requires that words appear in a horizontal, left-to-right fashion when the page is either upright or turned so that the top becomes the right side. Note, from 37 CFR 1.84(f), that the top of the sheet is regarded as one of the shorter sides. Please rotate “Network Boundary” 180 degrees.
FIG.2B is objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters 218 and 255 are both associated with the same part.
FIG.4 is objected to because of the following minor informalities:
It appears that “thread data” on line 406 should be replaced with
--main_thread_data--.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) and/or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” 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 Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Where applicant states “a first of which…” and “a second of which”, is applicant is referring to the nodes or to the two link domains? The way the claim is worded, the examiner assumes applicant is referring to the latter. However, applicant should make this explicit within the claim.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, insert a colon after “wherein”.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, insert a colon after “wherein”.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Where applicant states “a first of which…” and “a second of which”, is applicant is referring to the nodes or to the two link domains? The way the claim is worded, the examiner assumes applicant is referring to the latter. However, applicant should make this explicit within the claim.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, insert a colon after “wherein”.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, insert a colon after “wherein”.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 3, replace “comprise” with --comprises--.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, insert a colon after “wherein”.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 1, insert a colon after “wherein”.
Claims 6, 14, and 18-20 are objected to for being dependent on a claim objected to.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
At least one claim is identified as including non-limiting contingent limitations. “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed.” See MPEP 2111.04(II).
Regarding claim 8, only the issuing step (last line) is required if a notification to wake up is not received. If a notification to wake up is received, but the stored value is not a first value, only lines 1-3 and the last line are required by the method.
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.
Claims 8 and 16 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.
The claims recite the following limitations for which there is a lack of antecedent basis:
In claims 8 and 16, “the application link domain”. No such specific domain was previously set forth.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0210649 A1.
Referring to claim 1, Wan has taught a method of allocating thread local storage (FIGs.10A-C) to a first thread (FIGs.10A-C, T1) having a second thread (FIGs.10A-C, T2) created as a watcher thread of the first thread (paragraph [0170], thread T1 creates a clone/watcher thread T2 via a clone() system call), wherein the first thread executes code from first and second link domains sharing a memory address space (the shared memory space is the entirety of FIGs.10B-C (or just the portion between addresses 0 and 1<<32), for instance. The first thread executes code that accesses memory 181a or 181d (exclusive of 182d) (this code is in the first link domain) (paragraph [0170]), and code that accesses memory 182d (this code is in the second link domain) (paragraphs [0174]-[0175]), said method comprising:
initially allocating a thread local storage having a first base address in the shared memory address space to the first thread (see FIGs.8 and 10A, where thread local storage 181a having base address 1<<32 is allocated to T1. Further, storage 181d with base address 0 is also allocated to T1 since it is shared space (e.g. paragraph [0152])) and a thread local storage having a second base address in the shared memory address space to the second thread (see FIG.10C, where thread local storage 182d having its own base address (bottom of the shaded area) is allocated to the second thread (paragraph [0173]));
determining that the first thread has made a transition from executing code from the first link domain to executing code from the second link domain (from paragraph [0174], ultimately thread T1 will transition from executing code in the first link domain to access data outside of 182d to executing code in the second link domain to access data in 182d) and, in response thereto, allocating the thread local storage having the second base address to the first thread (when T1 needs to access 182d, it will be allocated access to 182d. This can be done by modifying the base register (paragraph [0165])); and
determining that the first thread has resumed executing code from the first link domain and, in response thereto, allocating the thread local storage having the first base address to the first thread (from paragraph [0175], only the portions of code that need access to 182d will result in allocating access to 182d to the first thread. Any time it resumes executing code that only accesses data outside of 182d, e.g. in 181a (or 181d exclusive of 182d), it will be re-allocated use of 181a (or 181d)).
Claim 9 is mostly rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1. Wan has further taught a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions to be executed in a processor of a computer system to carry out the method (see paragraph [0085], which sets forth RAM/main memory/cache/etc., at least one of which stores a program that causes the functionality to occur).
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.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wan in view of the examiner’s taking of Official Notice.
Claim 17 is mostly rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1. Wan has further taught a computer system (FIG.1) configured to co-execute an application across a plurality of compute nodes that includes at least a first node and a second node comprising: a plurality of processors (abstract, processor P1, P2, P3); and a system memory that stores code executed by the processors (abstract, paragraph [0085], main memory/RAM/cache/disc/etc., all of which store code to be executing by the processor system), wherein code executed by the processors carries out the method.
While Wan has taught a plurality of processors, Wan has not taught wherein each of the compute nodes comprises a plurality of processors and a system memory that stores code executed by the processors. However, Official Notice is taken that forming a system from multiple multi-processor/multi-core nodes, each with multiple processors and instruction memory therein was well known in the art before applicant’s invention. The more multi-processor nodes, the more parallelism that could be achieved to increase performance/throughput. As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wan such that each of the compute nodes comprises a plurality of processors and a system memory that stores code executed by the processors.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable over the prior art if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sapronov et al., 2011/0055487, is an example of multiple multi-core processors, each with a memory.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David J. Huisman whose telephone number is 571-272-4168. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:00 am-5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jyoti Mehta, can be reached at 571-270-3995. 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.
/David J. Huisman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2183
Prosecution Insights