Response to Amendment
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 .
This action is responsive to amendment filed on 6/30/26 and claims 21-40 pending for examination.
Abstract analysis: Claims comprise practical application by executing a write by a processor to a to a plurality of data accessors by initiating a blocking indicator to prevent access and perform the write.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 21-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Larson et al (USPN. 8799591) in view of Steinmacher-Burow (USPN. 2015/0205733, herein “Stein”).
Regarding claims 21, 28 and 35, Larson discloses A system, method and non-transitory medium, the system comprising: one or more computing devices (fig. 1, item 100, 120-135);
wherein the one or more computing devices include instructions that upon execution on or across one or more processors cause a writer of a plurality of data accessors to perform a write to a shared data object, wherein to perform the write, the writer is configured to (figs. 1 and 2, writer 130 and 135):
acquire a read-write lock associated with the shared data object, the acquiring comprising waiting for a reader of the plurality of data accessors to release the read-write lock (fig. 1, spinlock 105, col. 5, lines 27-49, writer waits for spinning readers based on number of read waiters field 153 to obtain a read lock, perform access of the shared object 110 and then release read the lock wherein all waiting readers go through), wherein the read-write controls non-global access to the shared data object to only a portion of the plurality of data accessors executing on a first processor core of the plurality of processor cores (col. 5, lines 27-49, access is non-global as only local to the system waiting readers have access). However, to the degree that the “portion of the plurality of data accessors” may have a specific number of data accessors, Stein teaches in the context of reader-writer lock a threshold count of a count of requests of the set of requests to be processed (par. 15, Stein). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to limit a set of reader-writer accesses based on a subset of requestors as done in Stein. One would have been motivated to do so in Larson to have read-write requests split up to active and inactive groups of requestors to ease up resources (par. 15, “active” and “inactive” pools split up resources, Stein).
Larson in view of Stein teach,
set a blocking indicator, different from the read-write lock, to prevent one or more readers of the plurality of data accessors from obtaining read access to the shared data object (fig. 1, writer sets the read flow field 151 to a value that blocks new readers, Larson); and
perform a write critical section on the shared data object (col. 5, lines 54-67, writer has guard lock 145 and performs a write to object when fields 153 equals field 154 meaning all readers have read, Larson).
22. Larson in view of Stein teach, wherein the writer is further configured to wait, subsequent to setting the blocking indicator and prior to performing the write critical section, for one or more additional readers of the plurality of data accessors to release the read-write lock (fig. 1, spinlock 105, col. 5, lines 27-49, writer waits for spinning readers based on number of read waiters field 153 to obtain a read lock, perform access of the shared object 110 and then release read the lock wherein all waiting readers go through, Larson).
23. Larson in view of Stein teach, wherein the writer is further configured to: subsequent to performing the write critical section: clear the blocking indicator and release the read-write lock (col. 6, lines 1-7, writer 130 after performing write releases guard lock 145 to permit readers read the shared object, Larson).
24. Larson in view of Stein teach, wherein the plurality of data accessors run in a computing environment comprising a particular count of processing elements individually comprising one of a CPU (central processing unit), a core or a NUMA (non- uniform memory access) node (fig. 1, readers and writers 120, 125, 130 and 135 run as a CPU, see col. 3, reader 120 a CPU, Larson).
25. Larson in view of Stein teach, wherein the read-write lock is one of a number of locks acquired by the writer to perform the write, the number based at least in part on the particular count (col. 5, lines 14-27, writer has a number of locks comprising a guard lock and write-lock, Larson).
26. Larson in view of Stein teach, wherein to set the blocking indicator the writer is configured to store, using an atomic modification operation, an entry in a data structure representing at least a portion of the read-write lock (col. 3, lines 26-44, a writer uses fetch and add instructions which modifies the contents of the memory location, Larson).
27. Larson in view of Stein teach, wherein the data structure comprises a plurality of bits, and wherein to store the entry the writer is configured to modify, using a fetch and add operation, one bit of the data structure without modifying other bits of the data structure (fig. 1, col. 3, lines 26-49, fetch and add instructions are atomic adding +1 operation 160, Larson).
Regarding method claims 29-34 and medium claims 36-40, they comprise substantially the same subject matter as rejected system claims 22-27 and are therefore rejected on the merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21-40 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in the field of read/write lock systems:
USPN. 2013/0290583 pars. 172 and 178, CAS, lock in write mode, wait time limit.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCIN R FILIPCZYK whose telephone number is (571)272-4019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4 EST.
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, Kavita Stanley can be reached at 571-272-8352. 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.
September 9, 2026
/MARCIN R FILIPCZYK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2153
Prosecution Insights