DETAILED ACTION
Claims 3-7, 14-19 are pending.
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 § 102
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 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 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 4-7, 14, 17-18 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated Suchter et al (US Patent 8706798 B1).
Regarding claim 17, Suchter discloses method of managing processes on a plurality of embedded systems [master node and slave nodes], each comprising an executive [controller], comprising triggering coordinating terminating processes on the embedded systems wherein:
said coordinating comprises a prime executive [Col. 3 lines 1-8] [Claim 1: a master node computing device comprising a management controller and a supervisor controller, the management controller configured to coordinate parallel processing of data across a plurality of computer system nodes, the supervisor controller configured to coordinate allocation of system resources at particular computer system nodes to particular job processes];
said triggering comprises a non-prime executive [Col. 19 lines 59-63: the agent controller can be configured to instruct the node to terminate the job if the job is utilizing RAM that exceeds a threshold limit or level for a particular node] [Col. 21 lines 65- Col. 22 lines 6]; and
said terminating comprises the respective executive [Col. 19 lines 59-63: the agent controller can be configured to instruct the node to terminate the job if the job is utilizing RAM that exceeds a threshold limit or level for a particular node] [Col. 21 lines 65- Col. 22 lines 6].
PNG
media_image1.png
636
755
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Suchter discloses informing the prime executive when said shutting down is occurring. Jankowski discloses informing the prime executive when said shutting down is occurring [Col. 19 lines 27 - 35].
Regarding claim 5, Suchter discloses method of claim 17 wherein one of the embedded systems comprises a communication computer [Col. 1 lines 53 - 56].
Regarding claim 6, Suchter discloses method of claim 17 wherein one of the embedded systems comprises a perception computer [Col. 3 lines 1 - 7] [Col. 5 lines 48 – 54].
Regarding claim 7, Suchter discloses method of claim 17 wherein one of the embedded systems comprises a path planning computer [Col. 3 lines 1 - 7] [Col. 5 lines 48 – 54].
Regarding claim 14, Suchter discloses method of claim 17 further comprising: establishing on each of the embedded systems a process tracker; and tracking a status of processes across the embedded systems [Col.21 lines 1 – 11 and Figs 1 - 4].
Regarding claim 18, Suchter discloses method of claim 17 wherein said triggering comprises an essential process achieving a status [Col. 19 lines 59-63] [Col. 21 lines 65- Col. 22 lines 6].
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 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 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suchter et al (US Patent 8706798 B1) and in view of Naeimi et al (US Patent US 6363416 B1).
Regarding claim 3, Suchterdoes not disclose monitoring a heartbeat message from the prime executive.
Naeimi discloses monitoring a heartbeat message from the prime executive [Col. 8 lines 36-38: the master continues to broadcast periodic heartbeats (step 410) and monitor the network traffic for broadcast messages (step 420) as described above].
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 teachings of Suchter and Naeimi together because they are directed to manage the processes on the computing systems. Naeimi’s disclosing the master continues to broadcast periodic heartbeats would allow Suchter to increase the method’s efficiency by enabling the master/prime computing device to keep sending out the alive signal to indicate the system is active.
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 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 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 15,16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suchter et al (US Patent 8706798 B1) and in view of Preston et al (US Publication 2002/0154605 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Suchterdoes not disclose supplying a configuration file to each executive; and establishing communications among each of the executives based on the respective configuration file.
However, Preston discloses supplying a configuration file to each executive; and establishing communications among each of the executives based on the respective configuration file [Fig. 7 and 0038, download data for each application] [communications among the configuration managers based on the respective application data to start/run the failed application on another processor] [0038: One or more of the configuration managers 44 include a watchdog function that both monitors its own applications and the applications running on other processors] [Fig. 7, 0041: one of the reconfiguration managers 44 first tries to identify a processor that has extra processing capacity to run the failed application in block 136. For example, there may be a backup processor in the multiprocessor system where the ABS application 114 can be downloaded (from the memory 128)] [0045: the navigation application is downloaded from memory 128 to that processor].
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 teachings of Suchter and Preston together because they are both directed to manage the processes on the computing systems. Preston’s disclosing of supplying a configuration file to each executive; and establishing communications among each of the executives based on the respective configuration file would allow Suchter to correctly configure each executive and communicate with each other based on the desired configuration.
Regarding claim 16, Preston discloses method of claim 15 further comprising the executives starting up a process in the respective embedded system according to the respective configuration file [Fig. 7, 0038,0041].
Regarding claim 19, Preston discloses method of claim 17 wherein said coordinating depends on a configuration file [Fig. 7, 0038,0041].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 03/17/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Pertinent Arts
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Liu (US 20060198386 A1) discloses computing jobs are communicated from master nodes 12 through switch 16 to computing nodes 14 and results of the computing jobs are returned from computing nodes 14 through switch 16 to master nodes 12. A resource manager 18 on each master node 12 assigns computing resources of computing nodes 14 to jobs and manages performance of the jobs.
Conclusion
Examiner's note: Examiner has cited particular paragraphs and columns and line numbers in the references as 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 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 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 (see MPEP § 2123).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHIL K NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3356. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 a.m - 5 p.m.
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, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached at (571)270-1640. 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.
/PHIL K NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2176
Prosecution Insights