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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to an election filed, without traverse, on 02/24/2026 of a newly filed application in which claims 1-19 of the instant application are pending. After the rejoinder of claims 2, 6, and 12, claims 15-16 remain withdrawn.
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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 19 is directed to a computer program. Since a program exemplifies software, the computer program is not, by itself, statutory. Examiner suggests applicant amend the claim so that the claim as a whole positive recites a statutory machine.
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 14, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dash (US 2020/0043123) in view of Hakke Patil (US 2023/0185641).
As to claim 14, Dash teaches a method of operating a graphics processing unit, comprising:
receiving a graphics processing unit work request to process data; distinguishing a request requiring visual data processing from requests requiring only processing by an execution unit and/or a neural network unit; retrieving data from an integrated cache memory of the graphics processing unit ([0035], [0057]-[0058], [0068], and [0096]; also see FIGs. 9 and 10 and the paragraphs corresponding to the respective figures).
Dash does not teach scheduling work in the graphics processing unit according to the request to perform visual data processing in parallel with, and independently of, other graphics processing unit operations; wherein performing visual data processing comprises executing image processing instructions.
However, Hakke Patil teaches scheduling work in a graphics processing unit to perform visual data processing in parallel with, and independently of, other graphics processing unit operations; wherein performing visual data processing comprises executing image processing instructions ([0118], [0121], [0181], [0183], [0234]-[0235], and [0238]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Dash’s system with Hakke Patil’s system to show scheduling work in the graphics processing unit according to the request to perform visual data processing in parallel with, and independently of, other graphics processing unit operations; wherein performing visual data processing comprises executing image processing instructions in order to provide applications and computing resources that can use image and video formats that are different to enable interoperability (Hakke Patil; [0002]).
As to claim 17, the combination of Dash and Hakke Patil teaches supplying processed image data to a machine-learning neural network engine for inferencing (Dash; [0070] and [0129]-[0134]; Hakke Patil; [0190], [0226], [0246], [0258], [0268], [0357], and [0361]-[0362]).
As to claim 19, the combination of Dash and Hakke Patil teaches a computer program comprising computer program code to, when loaded into a computer and executed thereon, cause the computer to perform the steps of the method according to claim 14 (see rejection for claim 14).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-13 are allowable.
Claims 2, 6, and 12, previously withdrawn from consideration as a result of a restriction requirement, require all the limitations of an allowable claim. Pursuant to the procedures set forth in MPEP § 821.04(a), the restriction requirement between inventions I and II, as set forth in the Office action mailed on 12/31/2025, is hereby withdrawn and claims 2, 6, and 12 are hereby rejoined and fully examined for patentability under 37 CFR 1.104. In view of the withdrawal of the restriction requirement, applicant(s) are advised that if any claim presented in a divisional application is anticipated by, or includes all the limitations of, a claim that is allowable in the present application, such claim may be subject to provisional statutory and/or nonstatutory double patenting rejections over the claims of the instant application. Once the restriction requirement is withdrawn, the provisions of 35 U.S.C. 121 are no longer applicable. See In re Ziegler, 443 F.2d 1211, 1215, 170 USPQ 129, 131-32 (CCPA 1971). See also MPEP § 804.01.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The closest prior art of record, considered individually or in combination, fails to teach or reasonably suggest all the claimed features of claim 1, structurally and functionally interconnected with other limitations in the manner as cited in the claim and dependent claims.
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIHAN ZHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-7284. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays-Fridays 8:30am-5pm.
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, Christopher Kelley can be reached at 571-272-7331. 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.
/ZHIHAN ZHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights