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 § 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 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors, claims 10-20 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below: One of the factors weighing against eligibility is that there is no recitation of a machine or transformation.
In this particular case, the method steps of claim 10 of:
“determining dependencies between a first computing resource and a plurality of computing resources; responsive to a request from the first computing resource to access a shared resource, determining whether the first computing resource has a dependency on a second computing resource of the plurality of computing resources that has been granted access to write to the shared resource; responsive to the first computing resource not having a dependency on the second computing resource, granting access by the first computing resource to write to the shared resource; and responsive to the first computing resource having the dependency on the second computing resource, denying access by the first computing resource to the shared resource.” are directed to an abstract idea. NOTE: there is no device/apparatus/machine recited in the claims (e.g.-claim 10) and/or there is no practical transformation of a machine that is tied to the claims due to the execution of the recited method steps, hence, the recited method steps are interpreted as abstract ideas which could be performed/narrated mentally. Accordingly, for the reasons provided above, claims 10-20 are directed to an abstract idea, hence, not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Independent claims 10 is directed to an abstract idea of collecting data, and analyzing the data to provide certain results. For instance, in Electric Power Group, the concept of collecting information, analyzing the collected information, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis were found to be abstract.
In analyzing claim 10 of the instant application, the limitations “determining dependencies between a first computing resource and a plurality of computing resources; responsive to a request from the first computing resource to access a shared resource, determining whether the first computing resource has a dependency on a second computing resource of the plurality of computing resources that has been granted access to write to the shared resource; responsive to the first computing resource not having a dependency on the second computing resource, granting access by the first computing resource to write to the shared resource; and responsive to the first computing resource having the dependency on the second computing resource, denying access by the first computing resource to the shared resource.” are directed to an abstract idea. The abstract idea of the instant application is substantially similar to the court identified abstract idea found in Electric Power Group. It is similar because it accesses data, determines/identifies certain data (analysis), and accesses the determined/identified certain data. Other court identified abstract idea are related to the abstract idea identified in the instant application, such as collecting and comparing known information (Classen), obtaining and comparing intangible data (CyberSource) and organizing information through mathematical correlations (Digitech).
Therefore, the claimed invention as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite no additional limitation that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea defined in its respective independent claim. Accordingly, for the reasons provided above, claims 10-20 are directed to an abstract idea, hence, not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
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 1, 8-10, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sandri et al. (US 2003/0105796), hereinafter referred to as Sandri in view of Jones (US 9,892,063), hereinafter referred to as Jones.
Referring to claim 1. Sandri teaches, as claimed, a circuit, comprising: a shared resource; and a semaphore manager (see fig. 1 and page 2, ¶30 and ¶31) configured to manage access to a shared resource by: responsive to a first computing resource writing to a last pointer allocated to the first computing resource (i.e.-writing lock value into a semaphore register, page 3, ¶33, lines 6-13), determining whether the first computing resource has a dependency on a second computing resource that has been granted access to the shared resource (i.e.-determining if processor 102 has access to descriptor 106 while processor 101 is granted the access, page 2,¶31, lines 1-4; page 3, ¶34, lines 1-5 and),responsive to the first computing resource not having a dependency on the second computing resource, granting access by the first computing resource to the shared resource (i.e.-if processor 101 already has the semaphore lock, processor 101 obtains exclusive access to resource descriptor 106, page 3, ¶35, lines 1-2 and ¶40); and responsive to the first computing resource having the dependency on the second computing resource, denying access by the first computing resource to the shared resource (i.e.- while processor 101 has the semaphore lock, processor 101 blocks access to shared resource 106, page 3, ¶35, lines 3-5; and ¶34, lines 1-5).
However, Sandri does not teach wherein a spare pointer of the shared resources references a memory address of the shared resource.
On the other hand, Jones discloses a multiprocessor device having a processor core sharing at least one region of a shared memory location, wherein a spare pointer of the shared resources references a memory address of the shared resource (i.e.- Address1 that is stored in blocking buffer CBB 111 refers to memory address of shared memory location, col. 1, line 67 to col. 2, line 1; and col. 6, lines 13-15; 27-28 & 37-38).
Therefore, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Sandri and so that the spare pointer of the shared resources references a memory address of the shared resource, as taught by Jones. The motivation for doing so would have been to avoid memory contention when different processor cores attempt to access the same memory location concurrently.
As to claim 8, the modified Sandri teaches the circuit of claim 1, wherein determining whether the first computing resource has a dependency on a second computing resource which has been granted access to write to the spare pointer of the shared resource comprises determining whether the spare pointer is included in a first spare pointer list of the first computing resource and in a second spare pointer list of the second computing resource (see Sandri, page 3, ¶44, lines 8-11).
As to claim 9, the modified Sandri in view of Jones teaches the circuit of claim 1, wherein responsive to the first computing resource clearing a memory location corresponding to the last pointer, the semaphore manager is configured to release the spare pointer allocated to the first computing resource (see Sandri, page 4, ¶59, lines 7-12; and See Jones, col. 2, lines 15-19 & col. 6, lines 3-6).
Referring to claims 10, 17 and 18, the claims are substantially the same as claims 1, 8 and 9, hence the rejection of claims 1, 8 and 9 is applied accordingly.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-7, 11-16, 19 and 20 are 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.
Examiner’s note:
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references 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, 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 passages as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ravan (US 7,454,579), Ton et al. (US 7,353,515), Armstrong et al. (US 7,328,438), Falik (US 6,263,425), Tavallaei et al. (US 6,134,579), Kloinummi et al. (US 7,062,583) and Inoue et al. (US 7,386,687) do teach methods and system for managing shared resources in multi-processor system that implements semaphores.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIAS MAMO whose telephone number is (571)270-1726. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu, 7 AM - 5 PM.
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, HENRY TSAI can be reached at 571-272-4176. 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.
/Elias Mamo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2184