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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-6 and 8-21 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 1-6, 8-11, 14 and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Messier et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20110041136 A1) in view of Banerjee et al. (U.S. Pub. 20140157363 A1), further in view of Jiang et al. (US 20180248780 A1), in view of Williams et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20220045930 A1), further in view of Cay et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11055639 B1), and further in view of Tsirkin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20230041845 A1).
Messier, Banerjee, Jian, Williams were cited in a previous office action.
As per claim 1, Messier teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, a request to execute a computing task, wherein the request comprises parameters for the computing task, and wherein the parameters for the computing task comprises a security level of the computing task associated with data being acted on by the computing task (par. 0021 The method starts at step 202, where the computational task may be received. In one embodiment, a base node may receive the computational task; par. 0025 level of security [parameter] required for the completion of the computational task);
assigning, by the computing device, and based on the parameters for the computing task and from a pool of registered nodes, a set of nodes that comply … [processing capability, resources] amongst which the computing task is to be distributed in response to receiving the request, wherein the assigning is performed using a machine-learning system configured to utilize a ledger of performance statistics to determine the set of nodes (par 0007 select a subset of available nodes from the plurality of nodes based upon a present status, processing capability, distance, network throughput, range, resources, features, or combinations thereof of the plurality of nodes; 0024 the subset of available nodes may be selected from the available nodes. In certain embodiments, the base node 104 may select the subset of available nodes. The subset of available nodes, for example, may include nodes that are capable of processing one or more sub-tasks of the plurality of sub-tasks);
dividing, by the computing device, based on the parameters for the computing task, the computing task into two or more computing assignments (par. 0025 In addition, the computational task may be divided into a plurality of sub-tasks, as indicated by step 206. In accordance with aspects of the present technique, the computational task may be divided into the plurality of sub-tasks based upon the nature of the computational task, a number of nodes in the subset of available nodes, size of the computational task, type of the computational task, domain of the computational task, completion time period allowed for completion of the computational task, level of security required for the completion of the computational task);
transmitting, by the computing device and to … each assigned node of the set of nodes, a computing assignment of the two or more computing assignments … (par. 0026 Subsequently, the plurality of sub-tasks may be distributed among the subset of available nodes, as indicated by step 208. In other words, the plurality of sub-tasks may be allocated to the subset of available nodes. It may be noted that the distribution of the plurality of sub-tasks among the subset of available nodes enables parallel processing of the plurality of sub-tasks. The plurality of sub-tasks, for example, may be distributed and allocated to the subset of available nodes based upon a number of nodes in the subset of available nodes, completion time period allowed for the plurality of sub-tasks, a distribution criteria, level of security required for the completion of the plurality of sub-tasks);
receiving, by the computing device and from each assigned node of the set of nodes, an associated completed computing assignment … (par. 0029 0029] In addition, once the plurality of sub-tasks are assigned to the subset of available nodes, in accordance with aspects of the present technique, sub-solutions corresponding to the plurality of the sub-tasks may be received, as indicated by step 212); and
assembling and distributing, by the computing device, a completed computing task to a requesting device (par. 0035 With returning reference to FIG. 2, the sub-solutions received at step 212, may be reassembled in a determined order or using a determined process, as indicated by step 214).
Messier does not expressly teach: assigning, by the computing device, and based on the parameters for the computing task and from a pool of registered nodes, a set of nodes that comply with the security level …
However, analogous prior art, Banerjee teaches: assigning, by the computing device, and based on the parameters for the computing task and from a pool of registered nodes, a set of nodes that comply with the security level … (par. 0005 The method identifies a security level of the workload [task]. The method further identifies a security level of the host based on the risk associated with the workloads running on that host. If the security level of the workload corresponds to the security level of the host, the method grants the request to place the workload in the host; Fig. 1, Host machines 101 and 103, host virtual machines. It is noted that virtual machines are or provide secure, isolated environments for workload/tasks and managed by a hypervisor).
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 method of identifying a security level of workload and the security level of a host in order to place the workload on the host of Banerjee with the system and method of Messier resulting in system and method which provides for assigning tasks to hosts based on the security level of the task and the security level of the host as in Banerjee. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the purpose of preventing unauthorized parties having a first security level from gaining access or sharing to information in a storage having second security level (par. 0029, 0031).
Messier and Banerjee do not expressly describe: transmitting, by the computing device and to a secure and isolated container on each assigned node of the set of nodes, a computing assignment of the two or more computing assignment, wherein each secure and isolated container is created for the computing assignment and managed by a hypervisor according to the parameters associated with the computing task.
However, analogous prior art, Jiang teaches: transmitting, by the computing device and to a … isolated container on each assigned node of the set of nodes, a computing assignment of the two or more computing assignment, wherein each secure … isolated container is created for the computing assignment … (par. 0081 A determination is made on whether the process software is to be deployed by sending it to the nodes 11 (91). If so, the addresses of the nodes 11 are identified (92) and the process software [task] is sent to the nodes; par. 0084 Block 101 represents the step of executing an application 61 in a distributed computing environment 80 comprised of a plurality of computing nodes 11, wherein the application 61 is divided into tasks 65, 66 that are executed within containers 64 on each of the nodes 11; Fig. 3, describes a plurality of map and reduce tasks of an application being distributed among containers 64 within a plurality on nodes 11).
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 teaching of the technique of sending software/tasks to nodes for processing withing containers of Jiang with the system and method of Messier and Banerjee resulting in a system and method that provides for transmitting tasks to notes for execution within containers as in Jiang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the purpose of taking advantage of data locality, with the nodes manipulating the data they have access to, to allow the data to be processed faster and more efficiently than it would be in a more conventional computer architecture that relies on a parallel file system where computation and data are distributed via high-speed networking (par. 0049).
Messier, Banerjee and Jiang do not expressly disclose: wherein the assigning is performed … utilize a ledger of performance statistics to determine the set of nodes.
However, Williams teaches: wherein the assigning is performed … utilize a ledger of performance statistics to determine the set of nodes (par. 0032 comprising storing, in a blockchain or distributed ledger, the operating performance statistics for each of the selected nodes; par. 0008 indicating to the distributed ledger network those selected nodes satisfying one or more operating performance benchmark(s)).
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 technique of selecting nodes based on performance statistics stored in a blockchain ledger of Williams with the system and method of Messier, Banerjee and Jiang resulting in a system and method that provides for selecting/assigning nodes based on performance statistics stored in a blockchain ledger. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this combination for the purpose of providing an improved network management that provides an increase in the number of reliable nodes for guarding against consensus skew (par. 0062).
Messier, Banerjee, Jiang and Williams do not expressly disclose: wherein the assigning is performed using a machine-learning system.
However, Cay teaches: assigning is performed using a machine-learning system (col. 13, lines 33-37 Each node may be assigned a particular task, such as a portion of a processing project, or to organize or control other nodes within the grid. For example, each node may be assigned a portion of a processing task for optimizing processes using machine learning).
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 technique of using machine learning to assign tasks to servers of Cay with the system and method of Messier, Banerjee, Jiang and Williams resulting in a system and method that provides for assigning tasks to nodes using a machine learning system. One or ordinary skill in the art would been motivated to make this combination for the purpose of improving processing speeds and distribute resource consumption (e.g., among multiple servers). (col. 34, lines 22-24).
Messier, Banerjee, Jiang, Williams and Cay do not expressly disclose: secure and isolated container; wherein each secure and isolated container is created … and managed by a hypervisor; wherein each hypervisor deletes or clears the secure and isolated container in response to computing assignment completion.
However, Tsirkin teaches: secure and isolated container; wherein each secure and isolated container is created … and managed by a hypervisor; wherein each hypervisor deletes or clears the secure and isolated container in response to computing assignment completion (par. 0036 a hypervisor managing a first virtual machine implemented by a first container with a first set of resources. The hypervisor may create the first container and enable the first virtual machine to run within the first container; par. 0040 The host computer system may further responsive to shutting down the second virtual machine, destroy, by the hypervisor, the second container; par. 0018 Operating system level virtualization may be implemented within the hypervisor 120 and may enable the existence of multiple isolated containers. It is noted that the isolated containers [in fig. 1] are secured isolated containers managed, created/destroyed by a hypervisor).
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 technique managing containers by including creating and destroying of Tsirkin with the system and method of Messier, Banerjee, Jiang, Williams and Cay resulting in a system and method in which provides a hypervisor for creating containers for performing tasks/subtasks and destroying the containers upon completion as in Tsirkin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the purpose improving performance of nested virtual machines by running virtual machines [application tasks] within nested containers (par. 0015). Further, the combination would have provided for each child virtual machine/tasks being ran in a nested container imposes little to no overhead because programs within each of the containers may use the underlying hypervisor 120 to execute system calls (par. 0025).
As per claim 2, Messier further teaches: wherein parameters for the computing task further comprise at least one of: processing resources to be utilized to execute the computing task; memory resources to be utilized to execute the computing task; a quantity of assigned nodes to include in the set; and a time to completion for the computing task (par. 0026 The plurality of sub-tasks, for example, may be distributed and allocated to the subset of available nodes based upon a number of nodes in the subset of available nodes, completion time period allowed for the plurality of sub-tasks, a distribution criteria, level of security required for the completion of the plurality of sub-tasks, resources available with the subset of available nodes, processing capability of the subset of available nodes, range of the subset of available nodes, features in the subset of available nodes, reliability of the subset of available nodes, trust in the subset of available nodes, the current load on the subset of available nodes, domain of the plurality of sub-tasks, or combinations thereof).
As per claim 3, Messier teaches: further comprising breaking up, by the computing device, the computing task into the two or more computing assignments to distribute to each of the set of nodes (par. 0025 In addition, the computational task may be divided into a plurality of sub-tasks, as indicated by step 206. In accordance with aspects of the present technique, the computational task may be divided into the plurality of sub-tasks based upon the nature of the computational task, a number of nodes in the subset of available nodes).
As per claim 4, Messier further teaches: wherein transmitting the two or more computing assignments to the set of nodes is based on a policy indicating ability of registered nodes to receive the two or more computing assignments (par. 0042 The subset of available nodes, for example, may include nodes that are capable of processing one or more sub-tasks of the plurality of sub-tasks).
As per claim 5, Jiang further teaches: comprising collecting, by the computing device, statistics from each assigned node of the set of nodes associated with performance of an associated computing assignment (par. 0023 Resource usage can be monitored, controlled, and reported, providing transparency for both the provider and consumer of the utilized service.).
As per claim 6, Messier further teaches: subsequent allocation of the two or more computing assignments to the set of registered nodes (par 0007 select a subset of available nodes from the plurality of nodes based upon a present status, processing capability, distance, network throughput, range, resources, features, or combinations thereof of the plurality of nodes; 0024 the subset of available nodes may be selected from the available nodes. In certain embodiments, the base node 104 may select the subset of available nodes. The subset of available nodes, for example, may include nodes that are capable of processing one or more sub-tasks of the plurality of sub-tasks). Williams further teaches: storing, by the computing device, collected performance statistics to the ledger … (par. 0032 comprising storing, in a blockchain or distributed ledger, the operating performance statistics for each of the selected nodes).
As per claim 8, Harris further teaches: clearing, by the computing device, data within the secured and isolated containers following completion of a computing assignment (par. 0040 The host computer system may further responsive to shutting down the second virtual machine, destroy, by the hypervisor, the second container).
As pe claim 9, it is a computing device having similar limitations as claim 1. Thus claim 9 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 1. Messier further teaches: a database of capabilities and usage of registered nodes (par. 0023 a central server having information regarding the plurality of nodes. The information, for example, may include location, processing capability, storage capacity, status, speed, reliability, cost tradeoffs, network throughput, range, present status, distance, health, trajectory (entering/leaving range-limited communications), trust, the fact that the node is stationary/moving, current load, grouping of the plurality of nodes with the base node (friend/foe), security policy, and the like of the plurality of nodes).
As per claim 10, Messier further teaches: wherein the registered nodes make up a private network (par. 0019 the private network 102 includes only the peer devices,).
As per claim 11, Messier further teaches: wherein the registered nodes make up a public network (par. 0019 a wide area network).
As per claim 14, Messier further teaches: wherein the processor is to setup a communication network between the set of nodes and the computing device (par. 0007 The system includes a plurality of nodes operationally coupled to one another via one or more networks).
As per claim 16, it is a computing device having similar limitations as claim 6. Thus, claim 16 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 6.
As pe claim 17, it is a computer program product having similar limitations as claim 1. Thus claim 17 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 1.
As per claim 18, Messier further teaches: instructions executable by the processor, to cause the processor to register nodes which are to provide computing resources to execute a computing assignment (par. 0023 a central server having information regarding the plurality of nodes. The information, for example, may include location, processing capability, storage capacity, status, speed, reliability, cost tradeoffs, network throughput, range, present status, distance, health, trajectory (entering/leaving range-limited communications), trust, the fact that the node is stationary/moving, current load, grouping of the plurality of nodes with the base node (friend/foe), security policy, and the like of the plurality of nodes).
As per claim 19, Messier further teaches: wherein registration comprises collecting an inventory of assets of each node and an availability of each asset (par. 0023 a central server having information regarding the plurality of nodes. The information, for example, may include location, processing capability, storage capacity, status, speed, reliability, cost tradeoffs, network throughput, range, present status, distance, health, trajectory (entering/leaving range-limited communications), trust, the fact that the node is stationary/moving, current load, grouping of the plurality of nodes with the base node (friend/foe), security policy, and the like of the plurality of nodes).
As per claim 20, Messier further teaches: wherein registration comprises predicting the availability of each asset of each node (par. 0023 a central server having information regarding the plurality of nodes. The information, for example, may include location, processing capability, storage capacity, status, speed, reliability, cost tradeoffs, network throughput, range, present status, distance, health, trajectory (entering/leaving range-limited communications), trust, the fact that the node is stationary/moving, current load, grouping of the plurality of nodes with the base node (friend/foe), security policy, and the like of the plurality of nodes).
As per claim 21, Jiang further teaches: executing, by the computing device, the computing assignment within the secure and isolated container on an assigned node, wherein operations or applications within the secure and isolated container are inaccessible to other resources of the assigned node (par. 0081 A determination is made on whether the process software is to be deployed by sending it to the nodes 11 (91). If so, the addresses of the nodes 11 are identified (92) and the process software is sent to the nodes; par. 0084 Block 101 represents the step of executing an application 61 [task] in a distributed computing environment 80 comprised of a plurality of computing nodes 11, wherein the application 61 is divided into tasks 65, 66 that are executed within containers 64 on each of the nodes 11; Fig. 3, describes a plurality of map and reduce tasks of an application being distributed among containers 64 within a plurality on nodes 11. It is noted, the containers executing within each node are secure and isolated runtime environments on which applications/tasks execute) Tsirkin further teaches: and wherein the other resources of the assigned node are inaccessible to the hypervisor (par. 0018 Operating system level virtualization may be implemented within the hypervisor 120 and may enable the existence of multiple isolated containers … Operating system level virtualization may provide resource management features that isolate or limit the impact of one container (e.g., container 105A) on the resources of another container (e.g., container 105B or 105C)).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Messier in view of Banerjee, Jiang, Williams, Cay and Tsirkin, and further in view of Hardy et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20170228245 A1).
Hardy was cited in a previous office action.
As per claim 12, Messier, Banerjee, Jiang, Williams, Cay and Tsirkin teach the limitations of claim 9. Messier, Banerjee, Jiang, Williams, Cay and Tsirkin do not expressly describe: wherein the processor is to provide an install package for a hypervisor to be installed on an assigned node of the set of nodes to manage execution of the computing assignment at the assigned node.
However, Hardy teaches: wherein the processor is to provide an install package for a hypervisor to be installed on an assigned node of the set of nodes to manage execution of the computing assignment at the assigned node (par. 0045] If an authorized hypervisor 149 is not installed in the client device 106, the management service 113 can provide the host management component 139 with an installation package for the hypervisor 149. For example, the management service 113 can transmit the installation package to the host management component 139 and instruct the host management component 139 to execute the installation package).
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 method of providing to a host management component with a hypervisor installation package for installing in the host of Hardy with the method and system of Messier, Banerjee, Jiang, Williams, Cay and Tsirkin to result in a system and method that provides an installation package on a node/host as in Hardy. One or ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the purpose of providing for instantiating virtual machines, monitoring the operation of the virtual machine and provide status information to the host management component (par. 0029).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Messier in view of Banerjee, Jiang, Williams, Cay and Tsirkin, and further in view of Sorenson et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11652746 B1).
Sorenson was cited in a previous office action.
As per claim 13, Messier, Banerjee, Jiang, Williams, Cay and Tsirkin do not expressly disclose: wherein the processor is to manage the addition and removal of assigned nodes from the set of nodes.
However, analogous prior art, Sorenson teaches: wherein the processor is to manage the addition and removal of assigned nodes from the set of nodes (col. 9, lines 48-48 one or more processors executing program instructions; col. 7, lines 63-64 nodes can be added or removed to assigned groups for load balancer without disrupting clients).
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 Messier, Banerjee, Jiang, Williams, Cay and Tsirkin with method of adding and removing nodes to/from an assigned group of Sorenson as they are directed to distributed computing and it would provide for adjusting the number of nodes to meet the workload of requests (col. 7, lines 67).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Messier in view of Banerjee, Jiang, Williams, Cay and Tsirkin and further in view of Fallon et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20160277488 A1).
Fallon was cited in a previous office action.
As per claim 15, Messier in view of Banerjee, Jiang, Williams, Cay and Tsirkin teach the limitations of claim 9. Messier in view of Banerjee, Jiang, Williams, Cay and Tsirkin do not expressly describe: wherein the processor is to prevent a registered node from forming part of the set of assigned nodes responsive to the registered node having completed a previous computing assignment for the requesting device.
However, Fallon teaches: wherein the processor is to prevent a registered node from forming part of the set of assigned nodes responsive to the registered node having completed a previous computing assignment for the requesting device (par. 0013 rebalancing the network management processing load may comprise suspending operation of each member of the subset of the plurality of members upon completion of processing of current tasks … Suspending operation … comprise suspending initiation of new tasks while current tasks are completing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by combine the technique of suspending a member of subset of members upon completions of a current task of Fallon with the system and method of Messier in view of Banerjee, Jiang, Williams, Cay and Tsirkin resulting in a system and method which provides for suspending operation a node of a set of nodes upon completion of processing a current task as in Fallon. One of ordinary skill in the art would have motivated to make this combination for the purpose suspending initiation of new tasks while current tasks are completing (0013).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(1)The applicant argues in page 8 for claim 1 that “Banerjee's virtual machine assignment does not involve such dynamic container creation, hypervisor-level management, or automated cleanup. Similarly, Jiang's disclosure of injecting control plug-ins into containers for monitoring does not involve isolation, hypervisor management”.
As per point 1, examiner submits that new prior art Tsirkin reasonably teaches, par. 0036, a hypervisor managing virtual machines and containers including creating containers and enabling to run a virtual machine within the container as an application. Further, par. 0040, Tsirkin describes a hypervisor shutting down virtual machines and destroying/deleting containers.
(2)The applicant appears to argue in page 8 for claim 1 that Messier does not teach "assigning a set of nodes that comply with the security level." Messier merely identifies that task division may consider the "level of security required for the completion of the computational task," but it does not disclose verifying or enforcing compliance among nodes. Banerjee simply ensures that a workload is placed on a host with a matching classification level, not that distributed nodes are screened for compliance before assignment. The claimed invention instead performs a compliance-based selection from a registered node pool"
As per point 2, Examiner respectfully submits that the prior art cited reasonably teaches the limitations as claimed. For example, Banerjee, par. 0005, clearly describes a method that identifies a security level of the workload [task]. The method further identifies a security level of the host based on the risk associated with the workloads running on that host. If the security level of the workload corresponds to the security level of the host, the method grants the request to place the workload in the host. This reasonably reads on assigning hosts to workloads to comply to a security level of the workload. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
(3) The applicant argues in page 9 for claim 1 that Jiang does not teach “wherein each hypervisor deletes or clears the secure and isolated container in response to computing assignment completion”
As per point 3, the examiner respectfully submits that prior art Tsirkin reasonably teaches, par. 0036, a hypervisor creating containers and enabling to run a virtual machine within the container. Further, par. 0040, Tsirkin describes a hypervisor shutting down virtual machines and destroying/deleting containers, which same as the hypervisor deleting the container.
(4) The applicant argues in page 10 for claim 1 that “Examiner has not provided an adequate and articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning, supported by specific factual findings, to justify the proposed combination of these disparate teachings. The assertion that combining Messier with Banerjee "because both are directed to distributed computing" and further modifying Messier, Banerjee, and Jiang with Liu "because it would provide fair scheduling so that a complex and large computing task do not overload a server or node" lacks the reasoned explanation”
As per point 4, the examiner respectfully maintains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the to combine the technique of placing a workload on a host based on the security level of the workload and the security level of the host of Banerjee with the system and method of Messier because they are both directed to field distributed computing, and this would have resulted in a system and method which provides for identifying a security level of a task/workload and a security level of a node in order to assign the task on the host if the security level of the node corresponds/complies with the security level required by the task. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the purpose of preventing unauthorized parties having a first security level from gaining access or sharing to information in a storage having second security level [par. 0029, 0031]. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
(5) The applicant appears to argue in page 12 for claim 6 that neither Williams, Banerjee or Jiang teach “assigning is performed … utilize a ledger of performance statistics to determine the set of nodes.
As per point 5, the examiner respectfully submits the prior art cited reasonably teaches the limitations as claimed. For example, Williams reasonably discloses, par. 0032, storing, in a blockchain or distributed ledger, the operating performance statistics for each of the selected nodes. Further, par. 0008 describes indicating to the distributed ledger network those selected nodes satisfying one or more operating performance benchmark. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
(6) The applicant further argues in page 12 for claim 6 that “Examiner’s rationale … is conclusory and lack an articulated reasoning with rational underpinning. Examiner should have responded to this argument as Examiner still relies upon the same combination with Williams to read on this limitation.
As per point 6, the examiner respectfully submits that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the to combine the technique of selecting nodes based on performance statistics stored in a blockchain ledger of Williams with the system and method of Messier, Banerjee and Jiang resulting in a system and method that provides for selecting/assigning nodes based on performance statistics stored in a ledger. Further, the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the purpose of providing an improved network management that provides an increase in the number of reliable nodes for guarding against consensus skew [par. 0062. Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
(7) The applicant appears to argue in page 14 for claim 7-8 that ““does not disclose “clearing data within the secured and isolated containers following completion of a computing assignment”
As per point 7, the examiner respectfully submits that prior Tsirkin reasonably teaches these limitations For example, par. 0040, describes a hypervisor configure to shutting down virtual machines and destroying/deleting containers, which reads on clearing or deleting containers . Further, par. 0036, further describes, the hypervisor managing virtual machines and containers including creating containers.
(8) The applicant argues in pages 14-15, for claim 12 that “Hardy does not disclose “providing an install package for a hypervisor to be installed on an assigned node”.
As per point 8, the examiner respectfully submits that prior art cited, Hardy, reasonably teaches the limitations as claimed including providing an install package for a hypervisor to be installed on an assigned node. For example, Hardy, 0045, clearly describes that If an authorized hypervisor is not installed in the client device, a management service is configured to provide the host management component with an installation package for the hypervisor, the management service can transmit the installation package to the host management component and instruct the host management component to execute the installation package. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
(9) The applicant argues in page 16 for claim 13 that “Sorenson’s disclosure, however, concerns maintaining client-facing load-balancing groups in a network service architecture. The claimed invention, by contrast, requires the processor itself to manage the addition and removal of assigned nodes from the set of nodes participating in secure, parameter-based distributed task execution”
As per point 9, the examiner respectfully submits that the prior art cited reasonably teaches these limitations. For example, Sorenson, col. 9, lines 48-48, clearly discloses one or more processors executing program instructions. Sorenson further describes, col. 7, lines 63-64, that nodes can be added or removed to assigned groups. As such it clear that the system includes processor for managing the adding and removal of nodes to and from a group. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
(10) The applicant appears to argue in page 17 for claim 15 that Fallon does not teach “wherein the processor is to prevent a registered node from forming part of the set of nodes responsive to the registered node having completed a previous computing assignment for the requesting device” and that “Fallon’s suspension is a temporary load-balancing measure where nodes are paused to redistribute a workload, not a security-based exclusion that prevents a node from being reassigned to the same requesting device after prior use”
As per point 10, the examiner respectfully submits that the prior art cited reasonably teaches the limitations as claimed. For example, Fallon, par. 0023, describes each member of a subset of members is suspended upon completion of current tasks which causes suspending initiation of new tasks, thereby resulting in preventing members from being part of the subset of members completing current tasks. Applicant’s arguments are nonpersuasive.
Conclusion
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).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Willy W. Huaracha whose telephone number is (571) 270-5510. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bradley Teets can be reached on (571) 272-3338. 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.
/WH/
Examiner, Art Unit 2195
/BRADLEY A TEETS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights