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 . This Office Action is in reply to communication filed on 07/14/2024.
Allowed Claims
Claims 1-11 and 14-19 are allowed.
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.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by, Munshi et al., US 9,740,464 B2.
Regarding claim 12, Munshi teaches: A device (figs 1-5), comprising: a compiler to: receive source code for different software handlers; and perform compilation processes (abstract) to:
(a) compile the source code of the different software handlers to yield respective compiled software handlers (col. 4, lines 46-56; Source code 510 containing a plurality of kernels and shaders/handlers; compiler compiles AIR file into multiple binaries 526A-526N; and each binary, 9526A-526N, contains compiled kernels and shaders/handlers from the source code 510); (b) define different hardware-software interfaces between a hardware processor and a processing unit for use by the respective compiled software handlers; and a memory to store the compiled software handlers (abstract; fig. 6; col. 4, lines 46-66; col. 9, lines 35-53; col. 7, lines 37-40; see that the different software handlers are the kernels and shaders, functions of the application program 210 that are executed/compiled on the developer’s device to create executable form of the representation kernels/shaders/handlers destined to be stored in memory and processing elements that can quickly accessed and run.
20. A method, comprising: receiving source code for different software handlers; performing compilation processes to: (a) compile the source code of the different software handlers to yield respective compiled software handlers (col. 4, lines 46-56; Source code 510 containing a plurality of kernels and shaders/handlers; compiler compiles AIR file into multiple binaries 526A-526N; and each binary, 9526A-526N, contains compiled kernels and shaders/handlers from the source code 510); and (b) define different hardware-software interfaces between a hardware processor and a processing unit for use by the respective compiled software handlers; and storing the compiled software handlers (abstract; fig. 6; col. 4, lines 46-66; col. 9, lines 35-53; col. 7, lines 37-40; The patent describes kernels and shaders as distinct software routines/handlers, functions of the application program 210 that are executed/compiled on the developer’s device to create executable form of the representation kernels/shaders/handlers destined to be stored in memory and processing elements that can quickly accessed and run. The compiler generates separate binary outputs (each potentially containing different subsets of handlers), which aligns with the requirement of producing respective compiled handlers.
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 13 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Munshi, in view of Huima, US 20040015905 A1.
Regarding claim 13, Munshi teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Munshi discloses the device according to claim 12, but fails to disclose a device wherein: the hardware processor includes packet processing hardware and the compiled software handlers are to perform packet processing tasks. This feature is well-known in the art, as evidenced Huima (see par. 0033, 0034, and 0060). In the same field of source code compiling invention, Huima teaches a rule compiling entity and a packet processing entity (engine) using a kernel mode process with memory means to store and process the data packet.
Accordingly, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate the packet processing hardware and software handlers of Huima within the system of Munshi because the person would have realized that the remaining element would perform the same functions as before. “Omission of element and its function in combination is obvious expedient if the remaining elements performs the same functions as before.” See In re Karlson (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184, decide Jan 16, 1963, Appl. No. 6857, U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. While Huima provides means for identifying each piece of code, such as each page of compiled code, with a reference number and using the reference numbers to ascertain that any jumps between pieces of code are not backward jumps in the sense of the main direction of the execution path of the code, allowing for fast and frequent updates of the filter code without disturbing the processing of data packets as stated (par. 0019-0021), Munshi provides software to a source code language-independent runtime environment without the source code used to generate the shader or kernel code (col. 2, lines 35-39). The combination shows complementarity in the rejection of the claim. y this rationale, claim 13 is rejected.
Regarding claim 21, the combination Munshi-Huima teaches:
21. The method according to claim 20, wherein the compiled software handlers are to perform packet processing tasks (see par. 0033, 0034, and 0060). The same motivation/reason to combine used for the rejection of claim 13 is also valid for this claim. By this rationale, claim 21 is rejected.
CONCLUSION
This Action is Non-Final. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jude Jean-Gilles whose telephone number is 571-272-3914. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri, from 9:00AM-5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tonia Dollinger can be reached on 571-272-4170. 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.
/JUDE JEAN GILLES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459