Patent Application 18077678 - DYNAMIC DAG PERFORMANCE SYSTEM - Rejection
Appearance
Patent Application 18077678 - DYNAMIC DAG PERFORMANCE SYSTEM
Title: DYNAMIC DAG PERFORMANCE SYSTEM
Application Information
- Invention Title: DYNAMIC DAG PERFORMANCE SYSTEM
- Application Number: 18077678
- Submission Date: 2025-05-15T00:00:00.000Z
- Effective Filing Date: 2022-12-08T00:00:00.000Z
- Filing Date: 2022-12-08T00:00:00.000Z
- National Class: 719
- National Sub-Class: 320000
- Examiner Employee Number: 87245
- Art Unit: 2195
- Tech Center: 2100
Rejection Summary
- 102 Rejections: 0
- 103 Rejections: 2
Cited Patents
The following patents were cited in the rejection:
- US 0012710đ
- US 0039239đ
- US 0406068đ
Office Action Text
DETAILED ACTION The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-20 are pending. Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following minor informalities: The language of the abstract should not repeat information given in the title. Correction is required. Drawing The drawings are objected to because of the following minor informalities: Fig. 2 and fig. 5A have same components and components are arranged similarly. Fig. 5A is marked prior art while fig. 2 is not marked as prior art. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as âamended.â If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either âReplacement Sheetâ or âNew Sheetâ pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. - An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. Absence of the word "means" (or âstep for") in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112 (f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function. Claims 1-3 recites a limitation âDAG management systemâŚis configured toâ perform various functions without reciting sufficient structure, and therefore DAG management system has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph. Since these claim limitations invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, claims 1-3 are interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure of DAG management system described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph limitation: Fig. 1 spec: [0023] If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examinerâs interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action. If applicant does not wish to have the claim limitation treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim so that it will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), sixth paragraph. For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.âThe 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention. The following claim language is not clearly understood: Claim 1 recites âdetermine âŚcompute system typeâŚto perform each of the plurality of DAG operationsâ. It is unclear if there are compute system type that may not be able to perform one or more of plurality of DAG operations and what is the criteria for determining which compute system is or is not able to perform the DAG operations e.g. based on resource or performance requirement. Claim 1 recites âidentify a subset...that each include one of the respective compute system typesâ. It is unclear if the subset contains only one type or one of each type of compute system within the subset. Claim 1 recites âselectâŚcompute system to perform each of the plurality of DAG operations. It is unclear what is the criteria for selection e.g. based on resource or performance requirement. Claims 7 and 14 recite elements of claim 1 and have similar deficiency as claim 1. Therefore, they are rejected for the same rational. Remaining dependent claims 2-6, 8-13 and 15-20 are also rejected due to similar deficiency inherited from the rejected independent claims. 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 1-20 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 or integrating into practical application. Based upon at least the decision by the United States Supreme Court in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014), post-Alice precedential court decisions, and 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, claims 1-20 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. Examples of abstract ideas include at least Mathematical concepts, Mental process and Certain Methods of organizing human activity. Independent claim 1 is directed to âdistributing DAG operations to the selected compute systemsâ at a high level of generality. Step 1 As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Claim 1 recites a DAG performance system without any hardware e.g. processor or memory, therefore claim 1 doesnât fall within one of the four statutory subject matter category. Claim 7 recites an IHS comprising processing and memory system, which falls within the âmachineâ category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 14 recites a method, which falls within the âprocessâ category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Thus, the analysis determines whether the claims recite a judicial exception and fail to integrate the exception into practical application. See Memorandum, 84 Fed. Re. 54-55. If both elements are satisfied, the claims are directed to a judicial exception under the first step of the Alice/Mayo test, See id. Step 2A Prong One As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2A of the Officeâs eligibility analysis is the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Courtâs "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-78, 101 USPQ2d at 1967-68). Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. Claim Elements i 1. A Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) performance system, comprising: Generic system ii a plurality of compute systems; and Generic computing components iii a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) management system that is coupled to each of the plurality of compute systems and that is configured to: General arrangement of computing systems iv store a dynamic DAG; Storing information v receive a request to perform the dynamic DAG; Gathering information vi identify a plurality of DAG operations included in the dynamic DAG; Mental process abstract idea vii determine a respective compute system type that is configured to perform each of the plurality of DAG operations; Mental process abstract idea viii identify a subset of the plurality of compute systems that each include one of the respective compute system types; Mental process abstract idea ix select, from the subset of the plurality of compute systems, a respective compute system to perform each of the plurality of DAG operations; and Mental process abstract idea x transmit a respective instruction to perform one of the plurality of DAG operations to each respective compute system that was selected to perform that DAG operation. Transmitting information The overall process described by steps [vi]-[ix] describes âconcepts performed in the human mindâ or âobservation, evaluation, judgement, opinion.â Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg, 52. Thus steps [vi]-[ix] recite the abstract concept of [m]ental processes.â Id. For example, step [vi]-[ix] recites limitations, which according to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, are a combination of one or more of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, and may be performed by human mind alone or with the help of pen. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Thus, claim 1 recites a judicial exception. For these same reasons, claims 7 and 14 also recite judicial exception. Step 2A, Prong Two As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2A of the Officeâs eligibility analysis is the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Courtâs "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-78, 101 USPQ2d at 1967-68). Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception. Because claims 1, 7 and 14 recite a judicial exception, Analysis determines if the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into practical application. In addition to the limitations of claim 1 discussed above that recite the abstract concepts, claim 1 also recites additional steps [i]-[v] and [x]. Claim 1 in steps [i]-[iii] recite limitations that are considered generic computing components/systems and cannot be considered either inventive and/or an improvement in the functioning of a computer or technology or technical field. See MPEP § 2106.04(d). Claim 1 in steps [iv]-[v] and [x] recite limitations that are considered insignificant extra solution activities that are commonly performed in the field of computing and are neither inventive nor an improvement in the functioning of a computer or technology or technical field. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) I. § 2106.05(g). The Specification doesnât provide additional details that would distinguish the additional limitations recited in claim 1 steps [i]-[v] and [x] from a generic implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, the claim elements recited in steps [i]-[v] and [x], under broadest reasonable interpretation, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Thus, claim 1 recites a judicial exception without integrating into practical application. For these same reasons and based on similar analysis as above, claims 7 and 14 also recites judicial exception without integrating into practical application. Step 2B As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2B of the Officeâs eligibility analysis is the second part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Courtâs "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012)). Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Because claims 1, 7 and 14 are directed to judicial exception, analysis must determine, according to Alice, whether these claims recite an element, or combination of elements that is enough to ensure that the claim is directed to significantly more than a judicial exception. The Memorandum, Section III (B) (footnote 36) states: In accordance with existing guidance, an Examinerâs conclusion that an additional element (or combination of elements) is well understood, routine, conventional activity must be supported with a factual determination. For more information concerning evaluation of well-understood, routine, convention activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d), as modified by the USPTO Berkheimer Memorandum. The Berkheimer Memorandum, Section III(A)(1) states: A Specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, on in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 §U.S.C. 112(a). A finding that an element is well-understood, routine, or conventional cannot be based only on the fact that the specification is silent with respect to describing such element. Claim 1 steps [i]-[iii] recites the generic computing component/systems arranged in the conventional manner. Claim 1 steps [iv]-[v] and [x] are directed to performing the conventional or generalized functions e.g. receiving/storing/transmitting information. Computing components in the claim are described reasonably in a manner that indicate that Specification discloses conventional component, and describes the component in a manner that indicates that these elements are sufficient well-known (background) that the Specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. §112(a). Further, the Specification does not provide additional details that would distinguish the recited components from generic implementation in the combination. As discussed above in step 2A prong two, additional claim elements recited in claim 1 are generic in nature and commonly occurring in the field of computer and computing technology (background) and considered an insignificant extra-solution activity. As such these additional claim elements are not directed to anything beyond conventional nature of these elements or otherwise more than well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field of computing. These limitations either alone or in combination simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception and are not amount to significantly more. Further, the Specification doesnât provide additional details that would distinguish the additional limitations as recited in the claim from a generic implementation of the abstract idea. As such, it has been recognized by court that receiving, processing, and storing data as well as receiving or transmitting data over a network are a well-understood, routine and conventional activities. Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (generic computer components, such as interface, ânetworkâ, and âdatabase,â fail to satisfy the inventive concept requirement); see also TLI Commcâns, 823 F.3d 607; Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1350. There is no indication that the recited claim elements override the conventional use of known features or involve an unconventional arrangement or combination of elements such that the particular combination of generic technology results in anything beyond well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and output. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (â[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.â) See also Customedia Techs. LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1366(Fed. Cir. 2020) (â[T]he invocation of âalready-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advanceâŚamounts to a recitation of what is well-understood, routine, and conventional.â)(quoting SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898F3.d 1161, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018)); and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355(Fed. Cir 2014)(âThat a computer receives and sends the information over a network -- with no further specification -- is not even arguably inventive.â). Thus, claim 1 and, based on similar analysis, claims 7 and 14 are directed to mental process abstract idea without integrating into practical application or significantly more than a patent ineligible concept. Dependent claims 2 and 4 are directed to generating command to perform DAG operations on the selected computing system and transmitting the command, which is generic in nature and either alone or in combination, do not add meaningful limitations in such a manner to make the abstract idea patent eligible. Dependent claims 3 and 5 are directed to retrieving and transmitting DAG operations instructions to the respective compute system, which is generic computing methods and either alone or in combination, do not add meaningful limitations in such a manner to make the abstract idea patent eligible. Dependent claim 6 is directed to further describe dynamic DAG without imposing further limitations on the abstract idea in such a manner to make the abstract idea patent eligible. Based on similar analysis as above, dependent claims 2-6, 8-13 and 15-20 recite claim elements that are either abstract idea and/or additional claim elements, that individually or in combination, are either generic computing methods/components or insignificant pre-post solution activity and neither integrate into practical application nor amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to judicial exception without integrating into practical application or significantly more. 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 1-12, 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amarnath et al. (US 2023/0012710 A1, hereafter Amarnath) in view of Chen et al. (US 2021/0406068 A1, hereafter Chen). As per claim 1, Amarnath teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) performance system, comprising ([0022] DAG, dynamically, scheduled, [0091] fig. 6 task, executed, completion 646): a plurality of compute systems ([0079] fig. 5 heterogeneous SoC 570 one or more processor elements, PE1-CPU core 572 PE2--GPU core 574 PEn-accelerator 576); and a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) management system that is coupled to each of the plurality of compute systems and that is configured to ([0079] scheduler 530 i.e. management system, DAG processor 540 task scheduler 560in communication with one or more processor elements 570 [0083] dynamic scheduling of DAGs): store a dynamic DAG (fig 5. Input DAG 510 [0081] DAGs, tasks, ready, queued 550); receive a request to perform the dynamic DAG ([0080] receive and schedule one or more real-time DAGs ); identify a plurality of DAG operations included in the dynamic DAG ([0022] tasks, DAGs, dynamically, scheduled i.e. identifying operation [0085] fig. 6 608); determine a respective compute system type that is configured to perform each of the plurality of DAG operations ([0017] computer systems, CPUs, GPUs, FPGAs, accelerators i.e. heterogeneous systems [0109] determine one or more processing elements of the heterogeneous system to execute the one or more tasks in the plurality of DAGs fig. 5 570 572 574 576); identify a subset of the plurality of compute systems that each include one of the respective compute system types ([0044] computing system environments or configurations [0061] configurations of heterogenous system fig. 5 570 572 574 576); select, from the subset of the plurality of compute systems, a respective compute system to perform each of the plurality of DAG operations ([0090] scheduler 560 determine a PE assignment e.g. determine which PE to assign the task [0091] task scheduler 560 determine, assign, task of the DAG to the PE fig. 6 636 644 ); and transmit a respective instruction to perform one of the plurality of DAG operations to each respective compute system that was selected to perform that DAG operation ([0090] scheduler 560 determine a PE assignment e.g. determine which PE to assign the task [0091] task scheduler 560 determine, assign, task of the DAG to the PE fig. 6 636 644). Amarnath doesnât specifically teach transmit a respective instruction to perform one of the plurality of DAG operations (although scheduling/assigning indirectly teach this limitations). Chen, however, teaches to transmit a respective instruction to perform one of the plurality of DAG operations ([0031] fig. 1 sending the DAG execution package to a job cluster S14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine the teachings of Amarnath with the teachings of Chen of sending the DAG execution package to the job cluster to improve efficiency and allow transmit a respective instruction to perform one of the plurality of DAG operations to the method of Amarnath as in the instant invention. The combination would have been obvious because supplementing the DAG processing method of Amaranth with the element of submission and running the DAG execution package to the job cluster as taught by Chen to yield predictable result with reasonable expectation of success and improved efficiency. As per claim 2, Amarnath teaches wherein the DAG management system is configured to (fig. 5 scheduler 530): generate, for each of the plurality of DAG operations, a respective DAG operation instruction set that is configured for execution by the respective compute system that was selected to perform that DAG operation (fig. 6 determine PE assignment 636, PE 644 [0082] fig. 6 method 600 dynamic scheduling, instruction [0115]); and provide each respective DAG instruction set in the respective instruction transmitted to each respective compute system ([0114] instructions, downloaded, respective e, computing/processing devices). Chen teaches remaining claim elements of generating a respective DAG operation instruction set that is configured for execution by the respective compute system ([0005] based on DAG provided, generating DAG job stream description information , encapsulating DAG job stream description into DAG execution package ); provide each respective DAG instruction set in in the respective instruction transmitted to each respective compute system ([0005] sending the DAG execution package to a job running cluster ). As per claim 3, Amarnath teaches wherein the DAG management system is configured to: retrieve, for each of the plurality of DAG operations, a respective DAG operation instruction set that is configured for execution by the respective compute system that was selected to perform that DAG operation (fig. 6 determine PE assignment 636, PE 644 [0082] fig. 6 method 600 dynamic scheduling, instruction [0114] instructions, downloaded, respective e, computing/processing devices [0115]); and provide each respective DAG instruction set in the respective instruction transmitted to each respective compute system ([0114] instructions, downloaded, respective e, computing/processing devices). Chen teaches remaining claim elements of retrieve a respective DAG operation instruction set that is configured for execution ([0005] based on DAG provided, generating DAG job stream description information , encapsulating DAG job stream description into DAG execution package [0047] obtain the generated job stream information); provide each respective DAG instruction set in in the respective instruction transmitted to each respective compute system ([0005] sending the DAG execution package to a job running cluster ). As per claim 4, Amarnath teaches wherein each respective compute system that was selected to perform one of the plurality of DAG operations is configured to: generate, for that DAG operation, a DAG operation instruction set that is configured for execution by that compute system to perform that DAG operation ( [0022] tasks, DAGs, dynamically, scheduled i.e. identifying operation [0085] fig. 6 608; [0109] determine one or more processing elements of the heterogeneous system to execute the one or more tasks in the plurality of DAGs fig. 5 570 572 574 576). Chen teaches remaining claim elements of generating a respective DAG operation instruction set that is configured for execution by the respective compute system ([0005] based on DAG provided, generating DAG job stream description information , encapsulating DAG job stream description into DAG execution package); As per claim 5, Amarnath teaches wherein each respective compute system that was selected to perform one of the plurality of DAG operations is configured to ([0109] determine one or more processing elements of the heterogeneous system to execute the one or more tasks in the plurality of DAGs): retrieve, for that DAG operation, a DAG operation instruction set that is configured for execution by that compute system to perform that DAG operation (fig. 6 determine PE assignment 636 assign to PE 644 626). Chen teaches remaining claim elements of retrieve a respective DAG operation instruction set that is configured for execution ([0005] based on DAG provided, generating DAG job stream description information , encapsulating DAG job stream description into DAG execution package [0047] obtain the generated job stream information); As per claim 6, Amarnath teaches wherein the dynamic DAG includes the plurality of DAG operations that each identify functional requirements for performing that DAG operation without identifying a compute system type configured to perform that DAG operation ([0022] tasks, directed acyclic graph DAG [0067] DAG, node, represent, tasks [0068] DAG, static in terms of constituent and dependencies, tasks, during runtime, DAG, execution, dynamic , priority and deadline, task, assigned, task scheduler 470 [0069] learning agent, scheduling services, determine task priorities, execution timeline, wait time and task deadline, rank one or more tasks [0070] scheduler component determine one or more processing elements of the heterogenous system to execute the one or more tasks in DAG based on ranking i.e. assignment is not known in advance [0062] dynamic real-time scheduler). Claim 7 recites an Information Handling System (IHS), comprising: a processing system; and a memory system that is coupled to the processing system and that includes instructions that, when executed by the processing system, cause the processing system to perform elements similar to claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale. Claim 8 recites IHS for elements similar to claim 2. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale. Claim 9 recites IHS for elements similar to claim 3. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale. Claim 10 recites IHS for elements similar to claim 4. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale. Claim 11 recites IHS for elements similar to claim 5. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale. Claim 12 recites IHS for elements similar to claim 6. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale. Claim 14 recites a method for elements similar to claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale. Claim 15 recites a method for elements similar to claim 2. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale. Claim 16 recites a method for elements similar to claim 3. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale. Claim 17 recites a method for elements similar to claim 4. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale. Claim 18 recites a method for elements similar to claim 5. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale. Claim 19 recites a method for elements similar to claim 6. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale. Claims 13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amarnath in view of Chen, and further in view of Saadat-Panah et al. (US 2017/0039239 A1, hereafter Saadat-Panah). As per claim 13, Amarnath teaches wherein the selecting, from the subset of the plurality of compute systems, the respective compute system to perform each of the plurality of DAG operations ([0090] scheduler 560 determine a PE assignment e.g. determine which PE to assign the task [0091] task scheduler 560 determine, assign, task of the DAG to the PE fig. 6 636 644) includes: selecting, for each of the plurality of DAG operations, one of the subset of the plurality of compute systems to perform that DAG operation based on a proximity of that compute system to data utilized in that DAG operation ([0090] scheduler 560 determine a PE assignment e.g. determine which PE to assign the task [0091] task scheduler 560 determine, assign, task of the DAG to the PE fig. 6 636 644 ). Amarnath and Chen, in combination do not specifically teach selection based on a proximity of that compute system to data utilized in that DAG. Saadat-Panah, however, teaches selection based on a proximity of that compute system to data utilized in that DAG ([0025] Scheduling, take into account, locality of data [0030] the locality of the data for a query execution plan is important and computation(s) may be pushed to the worker nodes that contain the data partitions that will be used in the computation). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine the teachings of Amarnath and Chen with the teachings of Sadat-Panah of scheduling taking into account locality of data and scheduling query to the worker node containing the data partitions to improve efficiency and allow selection of compute system based on a proximity of that compute system to data utilized in that DAG to the method of Amarnath and Chen as in the instant. The combination would have been obvious because supplying the scheduling taking into account locality of data as taught by Saadat-Panah to DAG processing method of Amaranth and Chen to yield predictable result with reasonable expectation of success and improved efficiency. Claim 20 recites a method for elements similar to claim 13. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale. Examiners Note Applicant is further reminded of that the cited paragraphs and in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant(s) and although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the 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 all of the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. Conclusion Authorization for Internet Communication Applicant is encouraged to submit an authorization to communicate with the Examiner via the internet by making the following statement (MPEP 502.03) âRecognizing that internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.â Please note that the above statement can only by submitted via Central Fax (not Examinerâs Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABU GHAFFARI whose telephone number is (571)270-3799. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 14:00 - 15:00 Hrs. 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 examinerâs supervisor, Meng-Ai AN can be reached on 571-272-3756. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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. /ABU ZAR GHAFFARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195