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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A computer-implemented method for compute process shared access management, the computer-implemented method, comprising: responsive to a compute process determining that access to at least one of shared resources and shared data is necessary to perform a compute task, creating, by the compute process, a ticket file belonging to the compute process in a ticket queue directory, wherein the ticket file includes an identifier of the compute process, a creation time of the ticket file, a priority level of the compute process, and a timeout threshold for the compute process; allowing the compute process to proceed performing the compute task upon determining that the ticket file is first in line in a ticket queue of the ticket queue directory, according to a ticket ordering algorithm independently applied by the compute process; implementing a resource allocation policy constraining the ticket queue directory, wherein, responsive to determining that the ticket file belonging to the compute process is the first in line in the ticket queue however allowing the compute process to be performed would violate the resource allocation policy at a current point in time, performing: disallowing the compute task from being performed; removing the ticket file belonging to the compute process from the ticket queue directory; creating a new ticket file for the compute process; and placing the new ticket file in the ticket queue of the ticket queue directory according to the ticket ordering algorithm applied by the compute process; and removing, by the compute process, the ticket file from the ticket queue directory upon completing the compute task.”
Under Prong I Step 2A, the limitation “responsive to a compute process determining that access to at least one of shared resources and shared data is necessary to perform a compute task, creating, by the compute process, a ticket file belonging to the compute process in a ticket queue directory …” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. A person can make the determination that a process is attempting to use a shared resource/data on a sheet of paper with pen or mentally based on common accessing of data/resources across a plurality of processes being submitted. Thus, the person can also then create a ticket file to place onto the ticket queue based on the previous determination of common access of shared resource/data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Prong I Step 2A, the limitation “allowing the compute process to proceed performing the compute task upon determining that the ticket file is first in line in a ticket queue of the ticket queue directory, according to a ticket ordering algorithm independently applied by the compute process” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. A person can make the determination that a ticket file is first in line on a sheet of paper with pen or mentally based on tracking the ticket queue. Thus, the person can also then allow the compute task to be performed since it is its turn in line. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Prong I Step 2A, the limitation “implementing a resource allocation policy constraining the ticket queue directory, wherein, responsive to determining that the ticket file belonging to the compute process is the first in line in the ticket queue however allowing the compute process to be performed would violate the resource allocation policy at a current point in time, performing …” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. A person can make the determination that a resource is not available to be allocated to the ticket on the top of the queue on a sheet of paper with pen or mentally based on tracking the resource usage in a list compared to its maximum allowance. Thus, the person can make a judgement of what to do with the ticket at the front of the queue since it is its turn in line but the necessary resources are not available. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Prong I Step 2A, the limitation “placing the new ticket file in the ticket queue of the ticket queue directory according to the ticket ordering algorithm applied by the compute process” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. A person can make the determination of where to place the ticket in the queue on a sheet of paper with pen or mentally based on the priority level of the compute process associated with the ticket. Thus, the person can make a judgement of where in the queue to place the ticket if it has an increased priority level compared to other tickets already in the queue. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular under Prong II Step 2A, the claim recites the additional elements “… wherein the ticket file includes an identifier of the compute process, a creation time of the ticket file, a priority level of the compute process, and a timeout threshold for the compute process; … disallowing the compute task from being performed; removing the ticket file belonging to the compute process from the ticket queue directory; creating a new ticket file for the compute process; … and removing, by the compute process, the ticket file from the ticket queue directory upon completing the compute task.” The additional element ““… wherein the ticket file includes an identifier of the compute process, a creation time of the ticket file, a priority level of the compute process, and a timeout threshold for the compute process” is simply a description of the ticket file’s components. The additional elements “disallowing the compute task from being performed; removing the ticket file belonging to the compute process from the ticket queue directory; creating a new ticket file for the compute process; … and removing, by the compute process, the ticket file from the ticket queue directory upon completing the compute task.” represent the “apply it” steps which are mere instructions to apply an exception (2106.05(f)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply an exception of executing computing instances to perform routine techniques in the technology, as discussed above, does not amount to significantly more, and is thus, not an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
As per claim 2, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 1 upon which it depends, and further recites, “the ticket file contains information associated with the compute process, the information inclusive of at least one of a creating process identifier, a ticket creation time, a compute process priority, and a timeout threshold (analyzed under Prong II Step 2A & 2B as additional element); and an ordering of the ticket queue directory is based on a deterministic function of the information according to the ticket ordering algorithm respectively applied by each ticket file in the ticket queue directory (analyzed under Prong II Step 2A & 2B as additional element).” These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 2 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 4, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 1 upon which it depends, and further recites, “defining a timeout threshold for the compute process, wherein, an alternative compute process is allowed to perform an alternative compute task, notwithstanding whether the ticket file belonging to the alternative process is the first in line in the ticket queue, when the timeout threshold for the compute process has been exceeded (analyzed under Prong I Step 2A as directing to an abstract idea under the mental process).” If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Therefore, claim 4 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 5, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 1 upon which it depends, and further recites, “assigning the compute process to one of a plurality of process classes defined for the ticket queue directory, wherein the ticket ordering algorithm factors in a priority assigned to the compute process according to which of the plurality of process classes the compute process is assigned to (analyzed under Prong II Step 2A & 2B as additional element); and applying a resource throttling policy to the compute process, wherein the resource throttling policy consists of a dynamic limit of resources available for use by the compute process to perform the compute task relative to a total resource availability, and a buffer of a minimum number of resources that must be kept available for alternative compute processes (analyzed under Prong II Step 2A & 2B as additional element)”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 5 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 6, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 1 upon which it depends, and further recites, “the ticket file is an empty file stored in a common writable directory and visible to all other operating processes; or the ticket file is stored local to the compute process and is shared with all other operating processes (analyzed under Prong II Step 2A & 2B as additional elements)”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 6 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 1 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 1, above.
As per claim 7, it incorporates the deficiencies of dependent claim 5 upon which it depends, and further recites, “wherein the ticket queue directory is user-visible, and wherein a user is enabled to create the ticket file and assign the priority to the compute process (analyzed under Prong II Step 2A & 2B as additional elements)”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 7 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 5 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 5, above.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A system for compute process shared access management, the system comprising: a hardware memory; and a hardware processor executing instructions stored in the hardware memory; wherein, when executed, the instructions cause the hardware processor to: responsive to a compute process determining that access to at least one of shared resources and shared data is necessary to perform a compute task, create, by the compute process, a ticket file belonging to the compute process in a ticket queue directory, wherein the ticket file includes an identifier of the compute process, a creation time of the ticket file, a priority level of the compute process, and a timeout threshold for the compute process; allow the compute process to proceed performing the compute task upon determining that the ticket file is first in line in a ticket queue of the ticket queue directory, according to a ticket ordering algorithm independently applied by the compute process; implement a resource allocation policy constraining the ticket queue directory, wherein, responsive to determining that the ticket file belonging to the compute process is the first in line in the ticket queue however allowing the compute process to be performed would violate the resource allocation policy at a current point in time, performing: disallowing the compute task from being performed; removing the ticket file belonging to the compute process from the ticket queue directory; creating a new ticket file for the compute process; and placing the new ticket file in the ticket queue of the ticket queue directory according to the ticket ordering algorithm applied by the compute process; and remove, by the compute process, the ticket file from the ticket queue directory upon completing the compute task.”
Under Prong I Step 2A, the limitation “responsive to a compute process determining that access to at least one of shared resources and shared data is necessary to perform a compute task, create, by the compute process, a ticket file belonging to the compute process in a ticket queue directory” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. A person can make the determination that a process is attempting to use a shared resource/data on a sheet of paper with pen or mentally based on common accessing of data/resources across a plurality of processes being submitted. Thus, the person can also then create a ticket file to place onto the ticket queue based on the previous determination of common access of shared resource/data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Prong I Step 2A, the limitation “allow the compute process to proceed performing the compute task upon determining that the ticket file is first in line in a ticket queue of the ticket queue directory, according to a ticket ordering algorithm independently applied by the compute process” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. A person can make the determination that a ticket file is first in line on a sheet of paper with pen or mentally based on tracking the ticket queue. Thus, the person can also then allow the compute task to be performed since it is its turn in line. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Prong I Step 2A, the limitation “implement a resource allocation policy constraining the ticket queue directory, wherein, responsive to determining that the ticket file belonging to the compute process is the first in line in the ticket queue however allowing the compute process to be performed would violate the resource allocation policy at a current point in time, performing …” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. A person can make the determination that a resource is not available to be allocated to the ticket on the top of the queue on a sheet of paper with pen or mentally based on tracking the resource usage in a list compared to its maximum allowance. Thus, the person can make a judgement of what to do with the ticket at the front of the queue since it is its turn in line but the necessary resources are not available. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Prong I Step 2A, the limitation “placing the new ticket file in the ticket queue of the ticket queue directory according to the ticket ordering algorithm applied by the compute process” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. A person can make the determination of where to place the ticket in the queue on a sheet of paper with pen or mentally based on the priority level of the compute process associated with the ticket. Thus, the person can make a judgement of where in the queue to place the ticket if it has an increased priority level compared to other tickets already in the queue. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular under Prong II Step 2A, the claim recites the additional elements “… wherein the ticket file includes an identifier of the compute process, a creation time of the ticket file, a priority level of the compute process, and a timeout threshold for the compute process; … disallowing the compute task from being performed; removing the ticket file belonging to the compute process from the ticket queue directory; creating a new ticket file for the compute process; … and remove, by the compute process, the ticket file from the ticket queue directory upon completing the compute task.” The additional element ““… wherein the ticket file includes an identifier of the compute process, a creation time of the ticket file, a priority level of the compute process, and a timeout threshold for the compute process” is simply a description of the ticket file’s components. The additional elements “disallowing the compute task from being performed; removing the ticket file belonging to the compute process from the ticket queue directory; creating a new ticket file for the compute process; … and remove, by the compute process, the ticket file from the ticket queue directory upon completing the compute task.” represent the “apply it” steps which are mere instructions to apply an exception (2106.05(f)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply an exception of executing computing instances to perform routine techniques in the technology, as discussed above, does not amount to significantly more, and is thus, not an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
As per claim 9, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 8 upon which it depends, and further recites, “the ticket file contains information associated with the compute process, the information inclusive of at least one of a creating process identifier, a ticket creation time, a compute process priority, and a timeout threshold (analyzed under Prong II Step 2A & 2B as additional element); and an ordering of the ticket queue directory is based on a deterministic function of the information according to the ticket ordering algorithm respectively applied by each ticket file in the ticket queue directory (analyzed under Prong II Step 2A & 2B as additional element).” These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 9 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 8 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 8, above.
As per claim 11, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 8 upon which it depends, and further recites, “when executed, the instructions further cause the hardware processor to define a timeout threshold for the compute process, wherein, an alternative compute process is allowed to perform an alternative compute task, notwithstanding whether the ticket file belonging to the alternative process is the first in line in the ticket queue, when the timeout threshold for the compute process has been exceeded (analyzed under Prong I Step 2A as directing to an abstract idea under the mental process).” If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Therefore, claim 11 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 8 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 8, above.
As per claim 12, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 8 upon which it depends, and further recites, “when executed, the instructions further cause the hardware processor to assign the compute process to one of a plurality of process classes defined for the ticket queue directory, wherein the ticket ordering algorithm factors in a priority assigned to the compute process according to which of the plurality of process classes the compute process is assigned to (analyzed under Prong II Step 2A & 2B as additional element); and apply a resource throttling policy to the compute process, wherein the resource throttling policy consists of a dynamic limit of resources available for use by the compute process to perform the compute task relative to a total resource availability, and a buffer of a minimum number of resources that must be kept available for alternative compute processes (analyzed under Prong II Step 2A & 2B as additional element)”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 12 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 8 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 8, above.
As per claim 13, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 8 upon which it depends, and further recites, “the ticket file is an empty file stored in a common writable directory and visible to all other operating processes; or the ticket file is stored local to the compute process and is shared with all other operating processes (analyzed under Prong II Step 2A & 2B as additional elements)”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 13 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 8 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 8, above.
As per claim 14, it incorporates the deficiencies of dependent claim 12 upon which it depends, and further recites, “wherein the ticket queue directory is user-visible, and wherein a user is enabled to create the ticket file and assign the priority to the compute process (analyzed under Prong II Step 2A & 2B as additional elements)”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 14 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 12 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 12, above.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim recites “A computer program product for compute process shared access management, the computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having program instructions embodied thereon, the program instructions executable by a processor to cause the processor to: responsive to a compute process determining that access to at least one of shared resources and shared data is necessary to perform a compute task, create, by the compute process, a ticket file belonging to the compute process in a ticket queue directory, wherein the ticket file includes an identifier of the compute process, a creation time of the ticket file, a priority level of the compute process , and a timeout threshold for the compute process; allow the compute process to proceed performing the compute task upon determining that the ticket file is first in line in a ticket queue of the ticket queue directory, according to a ticket ordering algorithm independently applied by the compute process; implement a resource allocation policy constraining the ticket queue directory, wherein, responsive to determining that the ticket file belonging to the compute process is the first in line in the ticket queue however allowing the compute process to be performed would violate the resource allocation policy at a current point in time, performing: disallowing the compute task from being performed; removing the ticket file belonging to the compute process from the ticket queue directory; creating a new ticket file for the compute process; and placing the new ticket file in the ticket queue of the ticket queue directory according to the ticket ordering algorithm applied by the compute process; and remove, by the compute process, the ticket file from the ticket queue directory upon completing the compute task.”
Under Prong I Step 2A, the limitation “responsive to a compute process determining that access to at least one of shared resources and shared data is necessary to perform a compute task, create, by the compute process, a ticket file belonging to the compute process in a ticket queue directory” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. A person can make the determination that a process is attempting to use a shared resource/data on a sheet of paper with pen or mentally based on common accessing of data/resources across a plurality of processes being submitted. Thus, the person can also then create a ticket file to place onto the ticket queue based on the previous determination of common access of shared resource/data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Prong I Step 2A, the limitation “allow the compute process to proceed performing the compute task upon determining that the ticket file is first in line in a ticket queue of the ticket queue directory, according to a ticket ordering algorithm independently applied by the compute process” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. A person can make the determination that a ticket file is first in line on a sheet of paper with pen or mentally based on tracking the ticket queue. Thus, the person can also then allow the compute task to be performed since it is its turn in line. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Prong I Step 2A, the limitation “implement a resource allocation policy constraining the ticket queue directory, wherein, responsive to determining that the ticket file belonging to the compute process is the first in line in the ticket queue however allowing the compute process to be performed would violate the resource allocation policy at a current point in time, performing …” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. A person can make the determination that a resource is not available to be allocated to the ticket on the top of the queue on a sheet of paper with pen or mentally based on tracking the resource usage in a list compared to its maximum allowance. Thus, the person can make a judgement of what to do with the ticket at the front of the queue since it is its turn in line but the necessary resources are not available. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Prong I Step 2A, the limitation “placing the new ticket file in the ticket queue of the ticket queue directory according to the ticket ordering algorithm applied by the compute process” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. A person can make the determination of where to place the ticket in the queue on a sheet of paper with pen or mentally based on the priority level of the compute process associated with the ticket. Thus, the person can make a judgement of where in the queue to place the ticket if it has an increased priority level compared to other tickets already in the queue. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular under Prong II Step 2A, the claim recites the additional elements “… wherein the ticket file includes an identifier of the compute process, a creation time of the ticket file, a priority level of the compute process, and a timeout threshold for the compute process; … disallowing the compute task from being performed; removing the ticket file belonging to the compute process from the ticket queue directory; creating a new ticket file for the compute process; … and remove, by the compute process, the ticket file from the ticket queue directory upon completing the compute task.” The additional element ““… wherein the ticket file includes an identifier of the compute process, a creation time of the ticket file, a priority level of the compute process, and a timeout threshold for the compute process” is simply a description of the ticket file’s components. The additional elements “disallowing the compute task from being performed; removing the ticket file belonging to the compute process from the ticket queue directory; creating a new ticket file for the compute process; … and remove, by the compute process, the ticket file from the ticket queue directory upon completing the compute task.” represent the “apply it” steps which are mere instructions to apply an exception (2106.05(f)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract ideas into a practical application, the additional elements amount to mere instructions to apply an exception of executing computing instances to perform routine techniques in the technology, as discussed above, does not amount to significantly more, and is thus, not an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
As per claim 16, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 15 upon which it depends, and further recites, “the ticket file contains information associated with the compute process, the information inclusive of at least one of a creating process identifier, a ticket creation time, a compute process priority, and a timeout threshold (analyzed under Prong II Step 2A & 2B as additional element); and an ordering of the ticket queue directory is based on a deterministic function of the information according to the ticket ordering algorithm respectively applied by each ticket file in the ticket queue directory (analyzed under Prong II Step 2A & 2B as additional element).” These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 16 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 15 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 15, above.
As per claim 18, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 15 upon which it depends, and further recites, “wherein the program instructions executable by the processor further cause the processor to define a timeout threshold for the compute process, wherein, an alternative compute process is allowed to perform an alternative compute task, notwithstanding whether the ticket file belonging to the alternative process is the first in line in the ticket queue, when the timeout threshold for the compute process has been exceeded (analyzed under Prong I Step 2A as directing to an abstract idea under the mental process); assign the compute process to one of a plurality of process classes defined for the ticket queue directory, wherein the ticket ordering algorithm factors in a priority assigned to the compute process according to which of the plurality of process classes the compute process is assigned to (analyzed under Prong II Step 2A & 2B as additional element); and apply a resource throttling policy to the compute process, wherein the resource throttling policy consists of a dynamic limit of resources available for use by the compute process to perform the compute task relative to a total resource availability, and a buffer of a minimum number of resources that must be kept available for alternative compute processes (analyzed under Prong II Step 2A & 2B as additional element).” These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 18 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 15 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 15, above.
As per claim 19, it incorporates the deficiencies of independent claim 15 upon which it depends, and further recites, “the ticket file is an empty file stored in a common writable directory and visible to all other operating processes; or the ticket file is stored local to the compute process and is shared with all other operating processes (analyzed under Prong II Step 2A & 2B as additional elements)”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 19 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 15 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 15, above.
As per claim 20, it incorporates the deficiencies of dependent claim 18 upon which it depends, and further recites, “wherein the ticket queue directory is user-visible, and wherein a user is enabled to create the ticket file and assign the priority to the compute process (analyzed under Prong II Step 2A & 2B as additional elements)”. These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea/mental process into a practical application and is not significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, claim 20 fails to correct the deficiencies of claim 18 and is rejected for similar reasoning as claim 18, above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lloyd et al. (U.S. Pub. No 2012/0078944 A1) – hereinafter “Lloyd”, in view of Sevigny (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0132037 A1) and Jensen et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,727,372 B2) – hereinafter “Jensen”.
Regarding independent claim 1, Lloyd discloses the method comprising:
creating, by the compute process, a ticket file belonging to the compute process in a ticket queue directory … ([0080] “1. The Client 110 submits a Ticket Payload to the Provider Ticket Service 102 (PTS) (FIG. 3) and receives an unique token from the PTS 102. The handler 206 checks with the Status Manager 210 whether a checksum (ticket identifier) exists for the received ticket. The handler 206 can also generate a ticket if necessary and add a new checksum or update an existing checksum (ticket identifier) and optionally the status, and passes this information to the Status Manager 210. The handler 206 can also enqueue a new ticket or update a URI endpoint.” and [0007] “The method can further include: storing, using a ticket manager, the tickets in a ticket store according to a queue; identifying a status of each of the tickets and storing an indication of the status of each of the tickets, including the selected ticket, in a ticket status table;”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the ticket file is created/generated from a client submission and stored in the ticket store/queue.
… wherein the ticket file includes an identifier of the compute process, a creation time of the ticket file, a priority level of the compute process, and a timeout threshold for the compute process; ([0099-0102] “The ticketId field is a ticket identifier that includes an MD5 (Message-Digest algorithm 5) checksum run over the Payload portion of the Ticket 202. This ticket identifier is the identifier used to uniquely identify this particular work request in the Provider Service 100. Note that another SubmitRequest call that passes in the same Payload will result in the generation of the same ticketId value. In this way, duplicate/redundant work requests can be identified. In fact, when the Provider Ticket Service 102 first generates the Ticket 202 for newly-passed in Payload, it checks with the Status Manager 210 component of the Provider Ticket Service 102 (a component that tracks the ongoing status of each work item) to see if an identical work request (i.e. a request with the same ticketId) is already in a Ticket Store 204 component of the Provider Ticket Service 102. If so, instead of creating new structures to track a new work request, the existing structures are updated in the Status Manager 210 to reflect the fact that a new request has been made against it, and the previously-stored Ticket (in the Ticket Store 204) is updated with the URI endpoint of the new requester. If an identical request is not present in the system, new structures in the Status Manager 210 are created to track the work, and the new Ticket is stored in the Ticket Store 204 component of the PTS 102. The calculationId field is a calculation identifier corresponding to a GUID used to uniquely identify the calculation being requested. In an example implementation, the calculation identifier corresponds directly to a single Provider 208. In other implementations involving chaining of multiple Providers together, a calculation identifier can correspond to an ordered list of Providers. An XML-based configuration file which resides on the machine that hosts the PTS 102 provides these mappings that indicates a sequence order that each of the Providers in the list are to be invoked. A priority field optionally allows callers (e.g., Clients, such as the client 110) to indicate that their calculation request has higher/lower priority than other calls. The creationDateTimeUtc field refers to the date and time in UTC (Coordinated Universal Time) format at which the Ticket (not the payload) was created. This information can be used to expire requests (i.e. indicate that they have timed out).”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the ticket includes parameters including a ticket ID to identify the compute request, creation date, expiration date, and a priority field.
allowing the compute process to proceed performing the compute task upon determining that the ticket file is first in line in a ticket queue of the ticket queue directory… and ([0007] “…querying the ticket store for a first one of the tickets at the front of the queue; and identifying from the first ticket at least a provider to be invoked from the plurality of providers for carrying out the calculation indicated by the calculation identifier of the first ticket.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the ticket at the front of the queue is identified and permitted to perform its task/calculation.
implementing a resource allocation policy constraining the ticket queue directory, wherein, responsive to determining that the ticket file belonging to the compute process is the first in line in the ticket queue … performing: ([0007] “The method can further include: storing, using a ticket manager, the tickets in a ticket store according to a queue; identifying a status of each of the tickets and storing an indication of the status of each of the tickets, including the selected ticket, in a ticket status table; increasing a pending ticket counter each time the status of selected ones of the tickets is identified as pending; querying the ticket store for a first one of the tickets at the front of the queue; and identifying from the first ticket at least a provider to be invoked from the plurality of providers for carrying out the calculation indicated by the calculation identifier of the first ticket.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the ticket is first in line in the queue and ready to be scheduled for calculation.
disallowing the compute task from being performed; ([0136] “If a request to cancel the ticket is received while the ticket status is pending, the status of the ticket is changed to pending-canceled.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the compute task is disallowed from being performed by changing the ticket status from pending to pending-canceled.
removing the ticket file belonging to the compute process from the ticket queue directory; ([0136] “If the ticket is canceled, the Ticket Manager 206 removes the ticket from the Ticket Store 204.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the ticket is canceled and removed from the ticket store/queue.
creating a new ticket file for the compute process; and ([0136] “Once in the failed state, the Ticket Manager 206 can resubmit the ticket to retry the calculation, in which case the ticket's status is changed back to pending and placed in the pending queue.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the ticket file is resubmitted.
placing the new ticket file in the ticket queue of the ticket queue directory. ([0136] “Once in the failed state, the Ticket Manager 206 can resubmit the ticket to retry the calculation, in which case the ticket's status is changed back to pending and placed in the pending queue.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the ticket is again placed into the ticket queue.
removing, by the compute process, the ticket file from the ticket queue directory upon completing the compute task. ([0009] “The method can further include, responsive to returning the result to the client associated with the selected ticket, deleting the selected ticket from the ticket store and deleting the status of the selected ticket from the ticket status table.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the ticket is removed from the queue/store following the completion of the task and returning of result to the client.
Lloyd does not explicitly disclose:
responsive to a compute process determining that access to at least one of shared resources and shared data is necessary to perform a compute task…
… determining that the ticket file is first in line in a ticket queue … according to a ticket ordering algorithm independently applied by the compute process;
implementing a resource allocation policy constraining the ticket queue directory, wherein, responsive to determining that the ticket file belonging to the compute process is the first in line in the ticket queue however allowing the compute process to be performed would violate the resource allocation policy at a current point in time, performing:
placing the new ticket file in the ticket queue of the ticket queue directory according to the ticket ordering algorithm applied by the compute process.
However, Sevigny discloses:
responsive to a compute process determining that access to at least one of shared resources and shared data is necessary to perform a compute task… ([0021] “Some operating systems use memory locking to prevent simultaneous access to a shared memory location (e.g., a data structure such as a job queue). An operating system memory lock (or just “lock”), such as a mutex or a semaphore, is a synchronization mechanism that may be used to manage access to the shared memory location for multiple actors (e.g., multiple threads of execution that each use the shared memory location). For example, a lock may be given by the operating system (OS) to an application thread (referred to herein simply as a thread) so that the thread can have exclusive access to the shared memory location (e.g., the data structure) until the thread is done using that memory location.”) The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the shared access of resources such as a shared memory location is locked to ensure singular access by the thread at the time of usage which is necessary to perform a compute task.
… determining that the [job group] is first in line in a [job group] queue … according to a [job group] ordering algorithm independently applied by the compute process; ([0038] “When a job group 242 is received by the job scheduler 230, it is placed in the job group queue 232. The queue 232 is a first in/first out (FIFO) style queuing data structure and algorithm (e.g., illustrated from left to right in FIG. 2), although this queuing algorithm is modified as described herein (e.g., with stealing). The job scheduler 230 removes job groups 242 from the output side of the queue and resolves any dependencies before placing the jobs (e.g., from the associated job list 244) on the execution stack 236. The stack 236 is a last in/first out (LIFO) style data structure and algorithm, optionally modified as described herein. Jobs 246 are taken off the stack and executed by a processor 210, after which they are marked as finished.”); The citation is interpreted to read on the claimed invention because under broadest reasonable interpretation, the job groups are placed into job group queues and are removed based on the FIFO ordering algorithm of the queue and LIFO ordering algorithm of the stack.
The claimed invention’s limitation is derived from the combining of the concept of determining a job group is first in line in a queue according to a job group ordering algorithm in the secondary reference with the concept of allowing the compute process to perform the compute task based upon determining a ticket is first in line in a tic