Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This is the initial office action based on the application filed on August 13, 2024, which claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Status of Claims
3. Claims 1-20 are pending, of which claims, of which claim 1, 11 and 20 are in independent form.
Priority
4. No priority has been considered for this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. Information disclosure statement filed on 08/13/2024, 03/06/2025, 06/10/2025 and 06/17/2026, have been reviewed and considered by Examiner.
The Office's Note:
6. The Office has cited particular paragraphs / columns and line numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim(s), other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the Applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the cited passages as taught by the prior art or relied upon by the Examiner.
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.
7. Claims 1-20 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. According to paragraph [0002] of the specification, “A computer system can execute numerous programs simultaneously. In executing various programs, program code can make calls to software libraries to perform essential functions. A software library contains reusable routines, which consist of sets of instructions loaded into memory. While it is possible for the operating system (OS) to track how often a program has access to the central processing unit (CPU), it is not as easy to track how often a software library has access to the CPU, because a software library can be invoked by multiple programs.” Independent claims 1, 11, 20 neither specify "multiple programs", nor invocations of a software library by such "multiple programs", but merely specify one or more software objects, each comprising a workload type attribute and a software library comprising a set of instructions that are loaded into a memory and subsequently sampled.
Dependent claims 2/12 reproduced below further specify generation of the
"one or more software objects" to be sampled as containing "the object code of the software library":
“2. The computer program product of claim 1, the computer operations further comprising: generating the one or more software objects, the generating comprising:
for each software object:
obtaining the object code of the software library from a storage medium; analyzing the object code to determine a workload type attribute; and
utilizing a binder to link the object code to the workload type attribute, wherein the object code with the linked workload type attribute comprises the software object.“
Claims 2 and 12 neither specify "multiple programs", nor invocations of a software object (corresponding to a software library) by such "multiple programs".
Therefore, the technical problem mentioned in the description (reproduced above) cannot be credibly solved by the features present in dependent claims 2 and 12.
The same rejection applies to dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19, since none of said dependent claims specifies "multiple programs", nor invocations of a software object (corresponding to a software library) by such "multiple programs", nor further details of the "one or more software objects".
Appropriate correction is requested.
Inquiry
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUY KHUONG THANH NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7139. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 to 5.
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached on 5712723759. 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.
/DUY KHUONG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights