DETAILED ACTION
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 Applicant’s Amendment filed on 2/3/2026.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-16 and 18-22 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 5-8, 12-15 and 18-20 and 22 have been amended. Claim 21 has been cancelled.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome some objections and some 112 rejections previously set forth in the non-Final Office Action mailed 11/4/2025.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in 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 that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirely 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 13-14, 19-20 and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“by one or more processors” for the receiving limitation of claim 1 (i.e., at line 22 of claim 1) should be: by the one or more processor;
Claims 2-3, 5-7 and 22 are objected for failing to cure the deficiency from their respective parent claim by dependency.
“the first set of logical partitions” at line 2 of claim 6 should be: the first plurality of logical partitions (note: each of claim 13 and claim 19 is objected to the same reason).
“the plurality of logical partitions” at lines 3-4 of claim 6 should be: the second plurality of logical partitions (note: each of claim 13 and claim 19 is objected to the same reason).
“the plurality of logical partitions” at line 2 of claim 7 should be: the second plurality of logical partitions (note: each of claim 14 and claim 20 is objected to the same reason).
“one or more partitions of the plurality of logical partitions” at lines 3-4 of claim 7 should be: one or more logical partitions of the second plurality of logical partitions (note: each of claim 14 and claim 20 is objected to the same reason).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-16 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding to Claim 1, the limitation “creating, in response to the determining there are no unused resources in the first virtual resource pool, at least one new logical partition in the second virtual resource pool … and without adjusting the amount of processing units allocated to the second virtual resource pool” lacks support from the specification. At the Remarks, Applicant indicates that at least “[0029], [0036], [0037] of the specification and by Fig. 2 and Fig. 4” can be used as support for the amended limitations (see last 3rd paragraph of page 10 from the Remarks). None of Fig. 2 or [0029] discusses the related amended limitations mentioned above. Fig. 4, [0036]-[0037] does teach creating new logical partition for virtual resource pool. However, the creating from any of Fig. 4, [0036] or [0037] is performed via adjusting the amount of processing units allocated to the second virtual resource pool instead of without adjusting such amount. Such as, [0036] describes “the processing unit distribution must shift to accommodate the newly added partitions”, “only the processing entitlements with respect to the second client (and the B partitions) and virtual processor pool 420 are adjusted”; [0037] also describes “the reallocation of processors within virtual processor pool 420 is required”. Any descriptions above from [0036]-[0037] can be used as support or evidence to show the claimed invention performs claimed creating via adjusting the amount of processing units allocated to the second virtual resource pool instead of without adjusting such amount as required by the current amended limitations. In this way, the specification lacks support for the claimed limitations mentioned above.
Claims 2-3, 5-8 and 21-22 are rejected for failing to cure the deficiency from their respective parent claim by dependency. In addition,
for claim 7, the limitation “adjusting the specified second weights of one or more partitions of the plurality of logical partitions within the second virtual resource pool” at lines 3-4 lacks support from the specification. Fig. 4B from Applicant’s specification shows the claimed second weights are not adjusted. Such as, the weights of logical partitions B1, B2, B3, B4, B5 and B6 at Fig. 4B are still 200, 100, 10, 20, 30, 40 and 40 as same as Fig. 4A. Actually, Fig. 4B or [0036] from the specification shows the total weight of all logical partitions within the second virtual resource pool is adjusted instead of weight of individual logical partitions is adjusted. In this way, the specification lacks support for the claimed limitations mentioned above.
Regarding to Claim 8, Claim 8 is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Claims 9-10 and 12-14 are rejected for failing to cure the deficiency from their respective parent claim by dependency. In addition, claim 14 is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 7 above.
Regarding to Claim 15, Claim 15 is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Claims 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected for failing to cure the deficiency from their respective parent claim by dependency. In addition, claim 20 is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 7 above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-16 and 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding to Claim 1, the intended meaning of limitation “wherein all of the set of available system resources are allocated to a pool of the set of virtual resource pools” is not clear. It is not clear that amended language “a pool” is actually refer to one single pool or not. If it is referred to one single pool of the claimed set of virtual resource pools, then such limitation is conflicted with the previous claimed limitations “wherein the system resources includes an amount of processing units including a first of system resources to the first virtual resource pool and a second set of system resources to the second virtual resource pool” (note: since such previous claimed limitations require allocating the system resource to more than one single pool of the claimed set of virtual resource pool). If it is referred to more than one single pool, then it is not necessary to add/amend such “a pool of” since the original limitation without “a pool of” already implied such feature. For the purpose of examination, examiner interprets the limitations above as: wherein all of the set of available system resources are allocated to
In addition, the meaning of limitation “creating, in response to the determining there are no unused resources in the first virtual resource pool, at least one new logical partition in the second virtual resource pool … and without adjusting the amount of processing units allocated to the second virtual resource pool” is not clear. As explained at the 112(a) rejection, the specification, particularly [0036] states that “the processing unit distribution must shift to accommodate the newly added partitions” and “only the processing entitlements with respect to the second client (and the B partitions) and virtual processor pool 420 are adjusted” and [0037] also states that “the reallocation of processors within virtual processor pool 420 is required”, does require to adjust the amount of processing units allocated to second pool in order to create new logical partition within the second pool instead of without the adjusting as required by the claim now. Thereby, it is not clear whether Applicant intend to mean: and adjusting the amount of processing units allocated to the second virtual resource pool OR Applicant actually intend to mean: and without adjusting the amount of processing units allocated to the second virtual resource pool as current presented.
For the purpose of examination, examiner interprets the claimed limitations above as:
creating, in response to the determining there are no unused resources in the first virtual resource pool, at least one new logical partition in the second virtual resource pool … and
Claims 2-3, 5-8 and 21-22 are rejected for failing to cure the deficiency from their respective parent claim by dependency.
In addition to claim 6, the meaning of “a state of the features of … the first virtual resource pool” is not clear. First of all, it is not clear that what is this claimed “the features” at line 2. Claim 6 depend on claim 5 and claim 5 depend on claim 1, claim 5 does mention “one or more features”. However, “one or more features” in generally is different from “the features”; in addition, “one or more features” from claim 5 is used to referred to feature(s) of logical partition(s) from claimed second virtual resource pool while “the features” from claim 6 is used to referred to feature(s) of logical partition(s) from claimed first virtual resource pool. It is not necessary to refer to same type of object or information for these two claimed “feature” or “features” without further clarifications. Thereby, it is not clear that whether “the features” at claim 6 intends to be same type of feature as claimed “one or more features” from claim 5 OR not. For the purpose of examination, examiner interprets: a state of one or more corresponding features of ... the first virtual resource pool.
Regarding to Claim 8, Claim 8 is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above.
Claims 9-10 and 12-14 are rejected for failing to cure the deficiency from their respective parent claim by dependency. In addition, Claim 13 is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 5 above.
Regarding to Claim 15, Claim 15 is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above. In addition, the meaning of limitation “and independent of a second virtual resource pool” at line 18 is not clear. First of all, there is “a second virtual resource pool” at lines 7-8 of claim 15. It is not clear that the relationship between these two “a second virtual resource pool”, whether they are referred to same virtual resource pool OR different virtual resource pool. Secondly, it is not clear that what object is independent from such second virtual resource pool. The whole limitation is “create a first plurality of logical partitions within the first virtual resource pool of the set of virtual resource pools, wherein each logical partition of the first plurality of logical partitions specifies a first weight relative to other partitions in the first virtual resource pool, and independent of a second virtual resource pool”. It is not clear that Applicant intends to require the first virtual resource pool is independent from the second virtual resource pool OR the first plurality of logical partitions is independent from the second virtual resource pool OR the first weight is independent from the second virtual resource pool. For the purpose of examination, examiner would not consider this particular limitation.
Claims 16-17 and 19-20 are rejected for failing to cure the deficiency from their respective parent claim by dependency. In addition, Claim 19 is rejected under the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 6 above.
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 1-2, 5-9 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20210026696 A1, hereafter Chen) in view of Armstrong et al. (US 20070079102 A1, hereafter Armstrong) and Canion (US 20100205381 A1).
Chen, Armstrong and Canion were cited on PTO-892 forms of the previous office actions.
Regarding to claim 1, Chen discloses: a computer implemented method comprising:
identifying, by one or more processors, a set of available system resources; defining, by the one or more processors, a set of [virtual] resource pools including a first [virtual] resource pool and a second [virtual] resource pool; assigning, by the one or more processors, one or more system resources of the set of identified system resources to one or more resource pools of the set of [virtual] resource pools, wherein the system resources includes an amount of processing units including a first set of system resources to the first [virtual] resource pool and a second set of system resources to the second [virtual] resource pool, wherein all of the set of available system resources are allocated to a pool of the set of [virtual] resource pools (see [0059]-[0060]; “multiple GPU pools are set” and “at least one available GPU group is assigned to each GPU pool”. Setting the multiple GPU pools can be considered as claimed defining step/limitation. In addition, the method or system is required to perform step/action of identifying a set of available GPU/system resources before performing the step/process of “at least one available GPU group is assigned to each GPU pool” from [0060]; otherwise, the method or system may assign unavailable GPU/system resource or even some available non-GPU/system resources to the pools. In addition, see [0118]-[0119] and [0122]; “when executed, may cause the one or more processors 1610 to perform the following operations: setting multiple GPU pools … assigning available GPUs to each GPU pool” and “cause one or more processors to perform any operations of the methods for scheduling a plurality of available GPUs according to the embodiments of the present disclosure as mentioned above”);
creating, by the one or more processors, a first plurality of logical partitions within the first [virtual] resource pool of the set of [virtual] resource pools, creating, by the one or more processors, a second plurality of logical partitions within the second [virtual] resource pool of the set of [virtual] resource pools (see Figs. 2A, 7-8 and [0060]; “at least one available GPU group is assigned to each GPU pool”. Each GPU group at each GPU pool shown on the figures can be considered as claimed logical partitions, such as the GPU group containing GPUs c1, c2, c3 and c4 of Fig. 7 can be considered as one of the logical partitions created within the 2-GPU pool);
determining the second virtual resource pool has no unused resources in the second [virtual] resource pool (see [0072]; “It can be considered that no GPU available in the current 2-GPU pool can be assigned to the new job j13”);
receiving, after the creating the second plurality of logical partitions from the second [virtual] resource pool by one or more processors, a request for resources from the first [virtual] resource pool (see Figs. 7, 8, [0064]-[0066]; “if a new 1-GPU job is received and no GPU is available in the 1-GPU pool, then the reserved GPUs may be borrowed from the reserved pool to perform the new job”. The indication of “if a new 1-GPU job is received and no GPU is available in the 1-GPU pool” and the requirement of reserved GPUs to be borrowed can be considered as claimed request for resources that such claimed request comes from the 1-GPU pool. In addition, such indication is formed after the creations of GPU groups/partitions of 2-GPU pool since it may select the 2-GPU pool instead of 1-GPU pool as selected GPU pool to perform the job);
determining there are no unused resources in the first [virtual] resource pool (see [0064]-[0066]; “If it is determined that no available GPU in the selected GPU pool can be scheduled to the job … if a new 1-GPU job is received and no GPU is available in the 1-GPU pool”);
creating at least one new logical partition in the second [virtual] resource pool without adjusting the amount of processing units allocated to the first virtual resource pool and without adjusting the amount of processing units allocated to the second virtual resource pool and without adjusting the first plurality of logical partitions in the first [virtual] resource pool (see Figs. 7, 8 and [0072]; “It can be considered that no GPU available in the current 2-GPU pool can be assigned to the new job j13. Therefore, GPUs may be borrowed from the reserved pool to perform the new job j13, as indicated by the dashed arrow in FIG. 8. In some examples, borrowing GPU may be performed in the form of a node borrowing, as shown, nodes including GPUs n1-n8 may be borrowed. Optionally or additionally, borrowing GPU may be performed in the form of a GPU group borrowing, for example, GPU group including GPUs n1-n4 may be only borrowed”. As shown by Figs. 7-8, at least new logical partitions including GPUs n1-n4 and GPUs n5-n8 are created and such creation is performed without adjusting the logical partitions or GPU groups in 1-GPU pool, without adjusting the GPUs in 1-GPU pool, but with adjusting the GPUs in 2-GPU pool).
Chen does not disclose: the set of resource pools is a set of virtual resource pools (and thus the first resource pool and the second resource pool are the first virtual resource pool and the second virtual resource pool respectively);
wherein each logical partition of the first plurality of logical partitions specifies a first weight relative to other partitions in the first virtual resource pools;
wherein each logical partition of the second plurality of logical partitions specifies a second weight relative to other partitions in the second virtual resource pool;
the creating at least one new logical partition in the second virtual resource pool is performed in response to the determining there are no unused resources in the first virtual resource pool.
However, Armstrong discloses: a computer implemented method comprising: a set of virtual resource pools including a first virtual resource pool and a second virtual resource pool; creating, by one or more processors, a first plurality of logical partitions within the first virtual resource pool, wherein each logical partition of the first plurality of logical partitions specifies a first weight relative to other partitions in the first virtual resource pool; creating, by one or more processors, a second plurality of logical partitions within the second virtual resource pool of the set of virtual resource pools, wherein each logical partition of the second plurality of logical partitions within the second virtual resource pool specifies a second weight relative to other partitions in the second virtual resource pool (see Figs. 8, 9, [0066]-[0068]; “a pool (831) of virtual processors (810, 812, 814). The pool of virtual processors supports one or more shared processor partitions (804, 06)”, “shared processor partitions (808, 825) having lower priorities (priorities=9, 10)”, “the shared processor partitions (804, 806) supported by the pool (831) (priorities=3, 4)”, “either of the processors (822, 824) assigned to support the lower priority partitions (808, 825) through pool (833)”. The resources from the virtual resource pools 831 and 833, i.e., claimed first virtual resource pool and claimed second virtual resource pool, are divided into at least two different groups or logical partitions respectively to be assigned to the shared processor LPARs 804, 8096, 808 and 825 receptively; each of the shared processor LPARs is associated with a relative priority value, and thus the corresponding groups or logical partitions from each of pool 831 and pool 833 also specifies a weight or priority relative to other group or logical partitions in pool 831 or pool 833. Note: according to either one of Fig. 8 or Fig. 9 (and associated text description) shows there are at least two pools and each pool contains virtual processors, and thus there are a set of virtual resource pools are defined and assigned with processor resources).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention, to modify the management of the processor resource pools from Chen by including the process of assigning the virtual processor resources from virtual resource pools backed by physical processor resources to processor LPARs having relative priority values from Armstrong, since it would provide a specific method to partitioning one single physical resource to different partitions having different priority levels for different level of workloads (see Fig. 8 and [0034] from Armstrong; “assigning priorities to partitions may be carried out by monitoring the loads on the partitions and assigning priorities dependent upon the loads, with the priority increasing with the load”. Note: Fig. 8 from Armstrong shows the single physical processor 820 can be used to supported at least two processor partitions 804 and 806 and each of the processor partitions has different priority level).
In addition, Canion discloses: a computer implemented method comprising:
determining the second [virtual] resource pool has no unused resources in the second [virtual] resource pool (see Figs. 3-4, [0036]; “the processor may analyze its buffer pool list to determine whether the local buffer pools 302 associated with the processor are sufficient to satisfy the processor's buffer needs in connection with the instruction or process … Otherwise, if it is determined at step 406 that the processor's local buffer pools 302 are not sufficient, method 400 may proceed to step 408”. Note: [0036] or Canion uses term/object local buffer pools; however, each of the local buffer pools 302 of same processor from Fig. 3 or Canion can be considered as claimed logical partitions within same resource pool and thus the combination of local buffer pools of the same processor can be considered as a super-pool, i.e., claimed (virtual) resource pool);
receiving, after the creating the second plurality of logical partitions from the second [virtual] resource pool by one or more processors, a request for resources from the first [virtual] resource pool (see [0038]; “in response to a determination that the processor's local buffer pools 302 are not sufficient, the processor may analyze markers 306 to determine if unused local buffer pools of another processor are available for use by the processor”);
determining there are no unused resources in the first [virtual] resource pool (see [0038]; “if it is determined at step 409 that the unused local buffer pools of other processors are sufficient, method 400 may proceed to step 410. Otherwise, if it is determined at step 409 that the unused local buffer pools of other processors are not sufficient,”); and
creating, in response to the determining there are no unused resources in the first [virtual] resource pool, unused resource available for requested operation in the second [virtual] resource pool without adjusting the amount of resources allocated to the first [virtual] resource pool and without adjusting the amount of resources allocated to the second [virtual] resource pool and without adjusting the first plurality of logical partitions in the first [virtual] resource pool (see [0040]-[0041]; “in response to a determination that local buffer pools 302 of other processors are not sufficient, the processor may analyze the markers 306 to determine if an unallocated global buffer pool 302 is available … in response to a determination that a global buffer pool 302 is not available, a buffer pool collision occurs. Accordingly, the processor may either have to wait until one of its own local buffer pools becomes free, or wait until another processor releases its own local buffer pool to the overall global buffer pool”. Also see [0036]-[0037]; “if it is determined at step 406 that the processor's local buffer pools 302 are sufficient, method 400 may proceed to step 407” and “in response to a determination that the processor’s local buffer pools 302 are sufficient, the processor may access one or more of its local buffer pools 302 to carry out the instruction or process”. In response to none of local pools or partitions of same super-pool, local pools/partitions of other super-pools, global super-pool contains unused resources for requested operation, the system waits and creates free unused resource at the same supper-pool without adjusting other or global super-pools and with adjusting the resources within the same super-pool. Note: such adjusting the resources within the same super-pool does not introduce any extra or additional resources outside of the same super-pool, only waiting for unused resources within the same super-pool become available, and thus such adjusting does not increase or decrease the quality of resources allocated to the same super-pool, i.e., claimed second (virtual) resource pool).
Note: according to the descriptions of “virtual processor pool 410 does not contain any unused processors, and therefore cannot simply allow virtual processor pool 420 to access such unused processors to manage additional workload; thus, the reallocation of processors within virtual processor pool 420 is required” from [0037] of Applicant’s specification, the claimed invention also waits for the unused resources at the claimed second virtual resource pool become available to create the new logical partitions at the claimed second virtual resource pool in response none of resource pools contains unused resources. Such feature is similar as Canion, the difference is the claimed invention according to [0037] specifies such waiting is performed by “reallocation of processors within” same resource pool while Canion only generally states that waiting for “own local buffer pools becomes free” without specified operation on how to make the allocated resources becomes free.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention, to modify resource re-allocation in response to insufficient resources from own resource pool to perform requested job from the combination of Chen and Armstrong by including the method of waiting for resources from own resource pool become available to perform requested job in response none of resource pools including own resource pool and other resources pools of the whole system contains sufficient resources from Canion (note: before combining the feature from Canion, the combination of Chen and Armstrong already teaches feature of borrowing external unused resources from external pool to perform requested job in response to there is no unused resource at the own pool, combining the features of waiting for own resources at own resource pool becomes available in response none of own and external resource pool has unused resources for performing the requested job from Canion into the combination of Chen and Armstrong, the new combination would teach the feature of creating new logical partition at a given resource pool in response to none of resource pools has unused resource by without borrowing resources from other resource pool and without increasing or decreasing quality of resources allocated to the given resource pool), and thus the combination of Chen, Armstrong and Canion would disclose the missing limitations from Chen, since it would provide a specific mechanism to avoid a situation of a pending job cannot be handled when none of resources pools at the whole system has available resources to perform the pending job (see [0041] from Canion).
Regarding to Claim 2, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and further the combination of Chen, Armstrong and Canion discloses: wherein the set of available system resources corresponds to a set of available processors (see [0059]-[0060] from Chen; “multiple GPU pools are set” and “at least one available GPU group is assigned to each GPU pool”. Also see Figs 2, 8, [0027]-[0028] and [0066] from Armstrong).
Regarding to Claim 5, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and further the combination of Chen, Armstrong and Canion discloses: modifying one or more features of the second plurality of logical partitions within the second virtual resource pool (see [0034] from Armstrong; “assigning priorities dependent upon the loads, with the priority increasing with the load”. At certain reasonable embodiments, the priority level or value of at least one processor partition 808 or 825 associated with pool 833 of Fig. 8, i.e., claimed second virtual resource pool, is increased with the workload increased, i.e., the specified weight of associated virtual processor group or logical partition is also modified).
Regarding to Claim 6, the rejection of Claim 5 is incorporated and further the combination of Chen, Armstrong and Canion discloses: wherein a state of the features of the first set of logical partitions of the first virtual resource pool is independent from any changes resultant from the modifying of one or more features of the plurality of logical partitions within the second virtual resource pool (see [0034] from Armstrong; “assigning priorities dependent upon the loads, with the priority increasing with the load”. The priority values of the processor partitions associated with each pool depends on the corresponding workload level assigned to the processor partitions instead of the priority values assigned to processor partitions associated with another pool and thus the state of features, i.e., priority values, of the processor partition of each pool is independent from any changes resultant from the modifying priority values of another pool).
Regarding to Claim 7, the rejection of Claim 5 is incorporated and further the combination of Chen, Armstrong and Canion discloses: wherein modifying one or more features of the plurality of logical partitions within the second virtual resource pool includes adjusting the specified second weights of one or more partitions of the plurality of logical partitions within the second virtual resource pool (see [0034] from Armstrong; “assigning priorities dependent upon the loads, with the priority increasing with the load”. At certain reasonable embodiments, the priority level or value of at least one processor partition 808 or 825 associated with pool 833 of Fig. 8, i.e., claimed second virtual resource pool, is increased with the workload increased, i.e., the specified weights of associated virtual processor groups or logical partitions are also modified).
Regarding to Claim 8, Claim 8 is a product claim corresponds to method Claim 1 and is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above (note: also see [0119] from Chen for claimed “computer program product”).
Regarding to Claim 9, Claim 9 is a product claim corresponds to method Claim 2 and is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 2 above.
Regarding to Claim 12, Claim 12 is a product claim corresponds to method Claim 5 and is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 5 above.
Regarding to Claim 13, Claim 13 is a product claim corresponds to method Claim 6 and is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 6 above.
Regarding to Claim 14, Claim 14 is a product claim corresponds to method Claim 7 and is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 7 above.
Regarding to Claim 15, Claim 15 is a system claim corresponds to method Claim 1 and is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1 above (note: also see [0119] from Chen for claimed “one or more computer processors …. The program instructions comprising instructions to”).
Regarding to Claim 16, Claim 16 is a system claim corresponds to method Claim 2 and is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 2 above.
Regarding to Claim 18, Claim 18 is a system claim corresponds to method Claim 5 and is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 5 above.
Regarding to Claim 19, Claim 19 is a system claim corresponds to method Claim 6 and is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 6 above.
Regarding to Claim 20, Claim 20 is a system claim corresponds to method Claim 7 and is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 7 above.
Regarding to Claim 22, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated and further the combination of Chen, Armstrong and Canion discloses: wherein the creating the at least one new logical partition in the second virtual resource pool includes increasing a number of the second plurality of logical partitions (see Figs. 7, 8 and [0072] from Chen; “It can be considered that no GPU available in the current 2-GPU pool can be assigned to the new job j13. Therefore, GPUs may be borrowed from the reserved pool to perform the new job j13, as indicated by the dashed arrow in FIG. 8. In some examples, borrowing GPU may be performed in the form of a node borrowing, as shown, nodes including GPUs n1-n8 may be borrowed. Optionally or additionally, borrowing GPU may be performed in the form of a GPU group borrowing, for example, GPU group including GPUs n1-n4 may be only borrowed”. As shown by Figs. 7-8, at least one new logical partition including GPUs n1-n4 and GPUs n5-n8 are created in addition to the previous existing logical partitions including GPUs c1-c8 and d1-d8, and thus such creation increasing a number of logical partitions within the 2-GPU pool, i.e., claimed second virtual resource pool).
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 20210026696 A1, hereafter Chen) in view of Armstrong et al. (US 20070079102 A1, hereafter Armstrong) and Canion (US 20100205381 A1) and further in view of Kulmann et al. (US 20200192677 A1, hereafter Kulmann).
Chen, Armstrong, Canion and Kulmann were cited on PTO-892 forms of the previous office actions.
Regarding to Claim 3, the rejection of Claim 2 is incorporated, the combination of Chen, Armstrong and Canion does not disclose: the processors are Integrated Facility for Linux (IFL) processors.
However, Kulmann discloses: the processors are Integrated Facility for Linux (IFL) processors (see [0054] and [0058]-[0059]; “the workload classifier can define allocations of the processing units 115 of FIG. 2 as using one or more of: a central processor (CP), integrated facility for Linux (IFL)” and “processing unit pool 302 of processing unit subtype 5 (e.g., appliance ID of 5) includes a first processing unit group 304 of IFL, with processing unit subtype 5, having one IFL processing unit assigned. The processing unit pool 302 also includes a second processing unit group 306 of IFL, with processing unit subtype 5, having three IFL processing units assigned”).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention, to modify the GPU or processor resources to form multiple virtual resource pools from the combination of Chen, Armstrong and Canion by including using IFL processor to form multiple processor resource pools from Kulmann, and thus the combination of Chen, Armstrong, Canion and Kulmann would disclose the missing limitations from the combination of Chen, Armstrong and Canion, since IFL processor is one specific type of well-known types of processor resource to be used (see [0054] from Kulmann).
Regarding to Claim 10, Claim 10 is a product claim corresponds to method Claim 3 and is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 3 above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 2/3/2026, with respect to rejections of Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-16 and 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been full considered. New grounds of rejections were made based on the newly added limitations of the independent claims.
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 ZHI CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-0805. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9:30AM to 5:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, April Y Blair can be reached on 571-270-1014. 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 Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Zhi Chen/
Patent Examiner, AU2196
/APRIL Y BLAIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2196
Prosecution Insights