DETAILED ACTION
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 .
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.
(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(s) 1, 5, 11, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1)/(a2) as being anticipated by Sivaramakrishnana et al. (US 11,182,264).
Regarding claim 1, Sivaramakrishnana et al. discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising: executing an application by a Central Processing Unit (CPU) of a computing system, wherein the application includes a first set of operations and a second set of operations [Col. 63: 1-26]; executing, under control of the CPU, the first set of operations by a Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) of the computing system [FIG. 25; Col. 40: 27-36; Col. 63:1-26]; and executing, under control of the CPU, the second set of operations by a Smart Network Interface Controller (SNIC) of the computing system [Col. 63: 34-41].
Regarding claim 5, Sivaramakrishnana et al. discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, comprising: providing first output data generated through execution of the first set of operations from the GPU to the SNIC, wherein the second set of operations use the first output data as input; generating second output data by the SNIC [FIG. 25; Col. 40: 27-36; Col. 63:1-26]; and providing the second output data from the SNIC to a client device [Col. 63:34-61].
Regarding claim 11, the rationale in the rejection of claim 1 is herein incorporated.
Regarding claim 15, the rationale in the rejection of claim 5 is herein incorporated.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-10, 12-4, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sivaramakrishnana et al. (US 11,182,264) and Lee et al. (US20240281300).
Regarding claim 2, Sivaramakrishnana et al. discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first set of operations comprise colocated operations and the second set of operations comprise non-colocated operations.
Lee et al., however, discloses wherein the first set of operations comprise colocated operations and the second set of operations comprise non-colocated operations [FIGs. 4, 5C, 6; ¶0002].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the first set of operations comprise colocated operations and the second set of operations comprise non-colocated operations in order to achieve high compute performance (¶0002).
Regarding claim 3, Lee et al. discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the first set of operations comprise graphics rendering pipeline operations and the second set of operations comprise neural post-processing operations [¶0049].
Regarding claim 4, Lee et al. discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein the neural post-processing operations comprise execution of at least a portion of a neural network [¶0107].
Regarding claim 6, Sivaramakrishnana et al. discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, comprising: offloading, by the SNIC, one or more second operations of the second set of operations to a client device [Col. 63: 34-41].
Regarding claim 7, Lee et al. discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein the offloading by the SNIC of the one or more second operations is initiated in response to detecting a match between client offloading criteria and offloading metrics [¶0037].
Regarding claim 8, Lee et al. discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 1, comprising: offloading, by the SNIC, one or more second operations of the second set of operations to at least one other SNIC [¶0037].
Regarding claim 9, Lee et al. discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 8, wherein the offloading by the SNIC of the one or more second operations is initiated in response to detecting a match between SNIC offloading criteria and offloading metrics [¶0037].
Regarding claim 10, Sivaramakrishnana et al. discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 8, comprising: generating, by the SNIC or the at least one other SNIC, aggregated output data by aggregating output data generated by the SNIC with output data generated by the at least one other SNIC [FIG. 3A, Col. 11: 25-57]; and providing the aggregated output data to a client device [FIG. 3A-3B, Col. 10: 1-29].
Regarding claim 12, the rationale in the rejection of claim 2 is herein incorporated.
Regarding claim 13, the rationale in the rejection of claim 3 is herein incorporated.
Regarding claim 14, the rationale in the rejection of claim 4 is herein incorporated.
Regarding claim 16, the rationale in the rejection of claim 6 is herein incorporated.
Regarding claim 17, the rationale in the rejection of claim 7 is herein incorporated.
Regarding claim 18, the rationale in the rejection of claim 8 is herein incorporated.
Regarding claim 19, the rationale in the rejection of claim 9 is herein incorporated.
Regarding claim 20, the rationale in the rejection of claim 10 is herein incorporated.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fan et al. (US12,423,074) discloses neural network, combining sets of operations, colocation of operations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARDOCHEE CHERY whose telephone number is (571)272-4246. The examiner can normally be reached 900-500.
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, Rocio del Mar Perez-Velez can be reached at (571) 270-5935. 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.
/MARDOCHEE CHERY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2133
Prosecution Insights