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 1, 3-5, 7, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process without significantly more.
Claim 1 is a method (Step 1, Yes) that is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (Step2A Prong One, Yes) because a person can mentally perform the steps of “compiling the first source file to generate a first instruction executable by the first; translating the first source file to a second source file configured for execution by a second processor, including generating a predication instruction for execution by the second processor to mask off select lanes of registers of the second processor; compiling the second source file to generate a second instruction executable by the second processor;” as the acts of compiling and translating files can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. The claim recites the additional elements of “receiving, by a first processor, a first source file configured for execution by the first processor;” and “executing, by the second processor, the second instruction.” The additional element of “receiving, by a first processor, a first source file…” amounts to mere data gathering, which is recognized as insignificant extra solution activity, and the additional element of “executing, by the second processor, the second instruction” amounts to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, the additional elements do not alone or in combination integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two, No). At Step 2B, the additional element of “receiving…”, which amounts to mere data gathering, has been recognized as insignificant extra-solution activity (well-understood, routine, and conventional), see MPEP 2106.05(g), and the additional element of “executing…” amounts to simply applying the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, the additional elements do not alone or in combination amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B, No).
The additional element of claim 3 merely describes the particular technological environment that the abstract idea is linked to. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements that, alone or in combination, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two, No) or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
The additional element of claim 4 merely describes the first instruction that is part of the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements that, alone or in combination, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two, No) or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (Step 2B).
The additional element of claim 5 merely describes the particular technological environment that the abstract idea is linked to. Therefore, the claim does not include additional elements that, alone or in combination, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional element of claim 7 describes compilers to perform the compiling recited in claim 1. However, these additional elements are generically recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. They do not alone or in combination integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two, No). At Step 2 B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either alone or in combination. The analysis for Step 2B is the same as for Step 2A.
Claim 15 is a device (Step 1, Yes) that is directed to the abstract idea of a mental process (Step2A Prong One, Yes) because a person can mentally perform the step “to translate a first source file directed to the first processor to generate a second source file directed to the second processor and to generate a predication instruction to mask one or more lanes of each source register of the second set of source registers” and “to compile the second source file to generate an interleave instruction executable by the second processor” as the acts of compiling and translating files can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. The claim recites the additional elements of “a first processor including a first set of source registers, each having a first size; a second processor including a second set of source registers, each having a second size that is larger than the first size;” However, these additional elements amount to generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The claim further recites the additional elements of a translator and a compiler, however, these additional elements are generically recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Thus, the additional elements recited in claim 15 do not alone or in combination integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two, No). At Step 2 B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, either alone or in combination. The analysis for Step 2B is the same as for Step 2A.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-14 are allowed.
Claims 2 and 16-20 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.
While no prior art rejection is given for claims 1 and 15, these claims are currently rejected under 101 and are not allowable at the current point.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KASIM ALLI whose telephone number is (571)270-1476. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am 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, Jyoti Mehta can be reached at (571) 270-3995. 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.
/KASIM ALLI/Examiner, Art Unit 2183
/JYOTI MEHTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2183
Prosecution Insights