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 therefore, 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), 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 resource 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 07/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not deemed to be persuasive.
Applicants argued:
The Examiner argues that claims 10-20 are patent-ineligible because they are directed to an abstract idea. The Examiner reaches this conclusion because the claims allegedly recite steps that can be performed mentally and that involve accessing, determining, collecting/comparing, and organizing information.
A process that cannot practically be performed in the human mind does not recite a mental process. …The human mind cannot determine whether a first computing resource has a dependency on a second computing resource. The human mind cannot verify whether the second computing resource has been granted access to write to a shared resource. And critically, the human mind cannot grant or deny access to the shared resource. A computer is strictly required to perform these steps. Not only can the human mind not perform these processes in any practical sense, but these steps cannot be performed with the assistance of a generic processor or computer. Rather, the steps are to be performed by a particular computer that has multiple computing resources, a shared resource, and a way to gatekeep access to the shared resource.
The Examiner disagrees with the above statement. As explained in the rejection above, 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 narrated mentally.
Applicants argued:
At least because the complete method of claim 10 cannot be practically performed in the human mind, and further because claim 10 recites limitations beyond simple data gathering or analysis by performing an application in the form of denying or granting access to the shared resource, claim 10 is not directed to an abstract idea. Because claim 10 is not directed to an abstract idea, claim 10 is patent-eligible. Because claim 10 is patent- eligible, claims 11-20 are also patent-eligible.
The Examiner disagrees with the above statement. As explained in the claims rejection, the recited method steps are interpreted as abstract ideas which could be narrated mentally.
Applicants argued:
Independent claim 1 recites a semaphore manager configured to, "responsive to a first computing resource writing to a last pointer allocated to the first computing resource " The Examiner contends that Sandri describes this feature in paragraph 0033, lines 6-13. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Paragraph 0033 merely describes writing a lock value (a "1" bit) to a semaphore register to lock access to a shared resource descriptor 106. The logical processor 101 is not "writing to a last pointer allocated to" the logical processor 101. Paragraph 0033 does not describe pointers at all, and certainly not a "last pointer" of any kind. It merely describes registers, and registers are not necessarily pointers.
The Examiner disagrees with the above statement. Sandri teaches writing to a last pointer allocated to the first computing resource (i.e.-writing a lock value into a semaphore register that is allocated to either processor 101 or processor 102). Please see page 2, ¶31, lines 1-4, page 3, ¶33, lines 6-13).
Applicants argued:
Independent claim 1 further recites "determining whether the first computing resource has a dependency on a second computing resource that has been granted access to the shared resource " The Examiner argues that Sandri teaches this feature in paragraphs 0031 and 0034. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Paragraphs 0031 and 0034 explain that the semaphore 105 allows either the processor 101 and 102 (but not both) to reserve exclusive access to resource descriptor 106. If one of them has the lock, the other of them cannot obtain it. There is no description whatsoever about determining dependencies, e.g., whether processor 101 is dependent on processor 102 or vice versa.
The Examiner disagrees with the above statement. Sandri teaches “Whether logical processor 101 is able to obtain the semaphore lock may depend upon whether another logical processor (say, 102) already has the semaphore lock. If logical processor 102 already has the lock, logical processor 101 cannot obtain it…. Please see page 3, ¶34, lines 1-5.
Applicants argued:
In these claim limitations, the language is concerned with whether the first computing resource is dependent on the second computing resource, and if there is such a dependency, denying access, and if there is no such dependency, granting access. The Examiner has only cited language in Sandri where access is denied to a processor 102 if processor 101 already has a semaphore lock. But there is no mention at all of dependency of one of the processors 101 or 102 on the other processor 101 or 102.
The Examiner disagrees with the above statement. Again, as explained above, Sandri teaches “Whether logical processor 101 is able to obtain the semaphore lock may depend upon whether another logical processor (say, 102) already has the semaphore lock. If logical processor 102 already has the lock, logical processor 101 cannot obtain it…. Please see page 3, ¶34, lines 1-5.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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.
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
Prosecution Insights