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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/28/26 is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because it recites “A computer-readable medium”. Applicant defines “computer-readable medium” include a communication medium such as a signal or carrier wave in the specification. Therefore, the claimed "computer-readable medium" encompasses ineligible subject matter of transitory media such as signals and carrier waves. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for encompassing nonstatutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 10 & 14 are 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.
Claim 10 cites limitation “an execution sequence of the execution for the program, or an execution flow of the execution for the program”. It is unclear what the difference between an execution sequence and an execution flow.
Claim 14 cites “compare, based on the determination, the updated representation of the execution for the program to the initial representation of the execution for the program”. It is noticed that the parent claim 1 recites “determine an updated representation of the execution for the program, wherein the updated representation of the execution for the program is different from the initial representation of the execution for the program” Here, the determination step is based on the comparison result. However, claim 14 recites the comparing step is based on the determination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claim recites the same subject matter as the claim from which it depends (Claim 1) and does not add any additional, limiting features. Applicant can cancel the claim(s),amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Purnomo et al. (US 2023/0140822 A1).
As to Claim 1, Purnomo teaches An apparatus for graphics processing, comprising:
at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the at least one memory (Purnomo, Fig 1), the at least one processor is configured to:
obtain an indication of an initial representation of an execution for a program, wherein the program is associated with the graphics processing (Purnomo discloses “As depicted in profiler user interface 285A, task occupancy from profile data 155 for various hardware resources of GPU 170 are illustrated in histogram form, which includes "Graphics" corresponding to graphics queue 172 and "Asynchronous Compute" corresponding to asynchronous compute 174… While a histogram is specifically used in profiler user interface 285A, any data representation may be utilized.” in [0022]);
determine an updated representation of the execution for the program, wherein the updated representation of the execution for the program is different from the initial representation of the execution for the program; and output an indication of the updated representation of the execution for the program (Purnomo discloses “Another execution attribute modification may include changing an execution order such that target tasks occur at different times and/or with greater parallelization with other tasks… The histogram may also be updated to reflect the proposed optimization” in [0027]; “Profiler user interfaces 285B-285C may reflect example updates of profiler user interface 285A after flow diagram 300 is performed with different user inputs indicating different proposed optimizations” in [0028].)
Claim 19 recites similar limitations as claim 1 but in a method form. Therefore, the same rationale used for claim 1 is applied.
Claim 20 recites similar limitations as claim 1 but in a computer readable medium form. Therefore, the same rationale used for claim 1 is applied.
Claims 1-16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Voorhees et al. (US 2017/0109933 A1).
As to Claim 1, Voorhees teaches An apparatus for graphics processing, comprising:
at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the at least one memory (Voorhees, [0023, 0047]), the at least one processor is configured to:
obtain an indication of an initial representation of an execution for a program, wherein the program is associated with the graphics processing (Voorhees discloses “Code is to be processed to prepare it to generate its graphical representation as well as to prepare it to visually track and animate execution of the code” in [0036]; “At 202, code to be graphically represented is processed. Examples of the code include code of a programming project, code of an application, object oriented programming language code, functional programming language code” in [0047]; graphics processing in [0044]);
determine an updated representation of the execution for the program, wherein the updated representation of the execution for the program is different from the initial representation of the execution for the program; and output an indication of the updated representation of the execution for the program (Voorhees discloses “When a user modifies a state of the graphical representation (e.g., user interacts with a node/object of the graphical representation), this modification may be indicated to server (102) by a client of the user that modified the state and an updated graphical representation is provided to all of the clients” in [0037]; “In some embodiments, server (102) also animates at least a portion of the graphical objects to visualize an execution of the computer code. In one embodiment, animation includes highlighting one or more graphical objects and graph edges associated between graphical objects to indicate a point of execution.” in [0038].)
As to Claim 2, Voorhees teaches The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the updated representation of the execution for the program includes dynamic information for the updated representation of the execution of the program (Voorhees discloses “In some embodiments, server (102) also animates at least a portion of the graphical objects to visualize an execution of the computer code. In one embodiment, animation includes highlighting one or more graphical objects and graph edges associated between graphical objects to indicate a point of execution” in [0038], see also [0072]; “a graphical animation of execution of the code is progressed over execution time, an indicator on timeline arc (741) that indicates a current execution time point is progressed along the timeline arc (741)” in [0140].)
As to Claim 3, Voorhees teaches The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the dynamic information for the updated representation of the execution of the program includes at least one of: an instruction for the updated representation of the execution of the program, an animation for the updated representation of the execution of the program, or interactive information for the updated representation of the execution of the program (Voorhees discloses “At 212, the execution is visually rendered and animated. For example, the rendered view of the graphical representation of the code enters execution visualization mode from code exploration mode (e.g., mode change visually indicated with 3D environment background color change) and flow of execution through rendered objects is visually indicated through animation of changes in the colors, highlights, positional movements, sizes and/or hierarchical level expansions/collapses of the rendered nodes and connections/edges… For example, when a method is called, the node corresponding to the method is displayed (e.g., higher level nodes of this method node are expanded in visual animation to reveal the method node) and highlighted (e.g., change color, change size/shape/thickness, movement, etc. in animation) during execution of the code belonging to the method” in [0072].)
As to Claim 4, Voorhees teaches The apparatus of claim 1, wherein a length of the updated representation of the execution for the program is different from a length of the initial representation of the execution for the program (Voorhees discloses “When a method of program object node 784 was executed, the method created a new program object and a node corresponding to this new object is visually shown as node 785” in [0135]; see also Fig 7D-7E.)
As to Claim 5, Voorhees teaches The apparatus of claim 4, wherein the length of the updated representation of the execution for the program is at least one of: less than the length of the initial representation of the execution for the program, greater than the length of the initial representation of the execution for the program, or equal to the length of the initial representation of the execution for the program (Voorhees discloses node disappear, adding or just highlighting in Fig 7D-7E.)
As to Claim 6, Voorhees teaches The apparatus of claim 1, wherein to determine the updated representation of the execution for the program, the at least one processor is configured to: configure the initial representation of the execution for the program (Voorhees discloses “At 204, the processed code is utilized to generate a hierarchical graphical representation data of the code.” in [0050]; “At 208, a configuration associated with execution of the code to be visualized is received” in [0064].)
As to Claim 7, Voorhees teaches The apparatus of claim 6, wherein to configure the initial representation of the execution for the program, the at least one processor is configured to: adjust the initial representation of the execution for the program (Voorhees discloses “At 604, every time the debugger is paused at a location in the program, information is displayed in the virtual graphical environment (e.g., 316) via an animation corresponding to a stack trace for each thread at the instant in time during which the program is paused” in [0111]; “At 606, the user is permitted to use standard/traditional controls for a debugger, including without limitation being able to: step over, step into, step out, continue, stop, pause, set breakpoint, remove breakpoints, etc.” in [0112].)
As to Claim 8, Voorhees teaches The apparatus of claim 1, wherein to determine the updated representation of the execution for the program, the at least one processor is configured to: determine, at a processor, the updated representation of the execution for the program (Voorhees discloses “In some embodiments, executing the code includes receiving an output of the execution associated with a modified version of the code (e.g., the modified version includes inserted code to output execution state information at desired points of execution) to detect execution state (e.g., execution location, field/variable values, etc.)” in [0067]; animation in [0072], see also Fig 6A.)
As to Claim 9, Voorhees teaches The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the updated representation of the execution for the program includes a directional bar for the updated representation of the execution for the program, wherein the directional bar for the updated representation of the execution for the program includes at least one of a horizontal bar, a vertical bar, a line, or a figure (Voorhees discloses black line 745 or 747 in Fig 7F.)
As to Claim 10, Voorhees teaches The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the updated representation of the execution for the program includes at least one of: an execution sequence of the execution for the program, or an execution flow of the execution for the program (Voorhees discloses “FIG. 7E is an illustration of an embodiment of a rendered animation visualization of an execution of computer code in functional paradigm mode. FIG. 7E shows a sequence of events of four images: (720), (725), (730), and (735).” in [0136]. , see also [0072].)
As to Claim 11, Voorhees teaches The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the updated representation of the execution for the program is an updated version of the initial representation of the execution for the program, and wherein the updated version is at least one of: a simplified version of the initial representation, or an optimized version of the initial representation (Voorhees discloses Fig 7E shows a simplified visual compared with the full hierarchical view, and Fig 7D shows an optimized view where only active objects are displayed.)
As to Claim 12, Voorhees teaches The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the updated representation of the execution for the program is a data representation of the execution for the program (Voorhees discloses “In some embodiments, server (102) also animates at least a portion of the graphical objects to visualize an execution of the computer code. In one embodiment, animation includes highlighting one or more graphical objects and graph edges associated between graphical objects to indicate a point of execution” in [0038], see also Fig 2.)
As to Claim 13, Voorhees teaches The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the updated representation of the execution for the program includes at least one of:
a set of characteristics of the execution for the program, a set of colors to represent the set of characteristics of the execution for the program, a set of words to represent the set of characteristics of the execution for the program, or a set of figures to represent the set of characteristics of the execution for the program (Voorhees discloses “At 212, the execution is visually rendered and animated. For example, the rendered view of the graphical representation of the code enters execution visualization mode from code exploration mode (e.g., mode change visually indicated with 3D environment background color change) and flow of execution through rendered objects is visually indicated through animation of changes in the colors, highlights, positional movements, sizes and/or hierarchical level expansions/collapses of the rendered nodes and connections/edges. In some embodiments, rendering the execution includes visually highlighting one or more nodes and/or edges associated with a current execution state.” in [0072].)
As to Claim 14, Voorhees teaches The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
compare, based on the determination, the updated representation of the execution for the program to the initial representation of the execution for the program (Voorhees discloses “At 602 the user's compiled code is run in a customer debugger. At 604, every time the debugger is paused at a location in the program, information is displayed in the virtual graphical environment (e.g., 316) via an animation corresponding to a stack trace for each thread at the instant in time during which the program is paused” in [0111]. Here, the debugger compares current state with previous state to decide what to animate.)
As to Claim 15, Voorhees teaches The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
identify a difference between the updated representation of the execution for the program and the initial representation of the execution for the program (Voorhees, Fig 6A and 7F.)
As to Claim 16, Voorhees teaches The apparatus of claim 15, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
adjust the initial representation of the execution for the program or the updated representation of the execution for the program based on the difference between the updated representation and the initial representation (Voorhees discloses the visual representation is updated on color, size, or position change in Fig 6A.)
Claim 19 recites similar limitations as claim 1 but in a method form. Therefore, the same rationale used for claim 1 is applied.
Claim 20 recites similar limitations as claim 1 but in a computer readable medium form. Therefore, the same rationale used for claim 1 is applied.
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 of this title, 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 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voorhees et al. (US 2017/0109933 A1) in view of Purnomo et al. (US 2023/0140822 A1).
As to Claim 17, Voorhees teaches The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to:
obtain an indication of the program prior to the obtainment of the initial representation of the execution for the program, wherein to obtain the indication of the program, the at least one processor is configured to: receive, from a graphics processing unit (GPU) or a central processing unit (CPU), the indication of the program (Purnomo discloses GPU in [0023].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Voorhees with the teaching of Purnomo so as to represent in-flight GPU programs over time (Purnomo, [0023]).
As to Claim 18, Voorhees teaches The apparatus of claim 1, wherein to obtain the indication of the initial representation of the execution for the program, the at least one processor is configured to:
receive, from a processor, the indication of the initial representation of the execution for the program, wherein the processor includes at least one of:
a graphics processing unit (GPU),a central processing unit (CPU), a display processing unit (DPU), a neural processing unit (NPU),a digital signal processor (DSP), or a microprocessor (Purnomo discloses GPU in [0023].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Voorhees with the teaching of Purnomo so as to represent in-flight GPU programs over time (Purnomo, [0023]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEIMING HE whose telephone number is (571)270-1221. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Tammy Goddard can be reached on 571-272-7773. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WEIMING HE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2611
Prosecution Insights