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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 4th, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 1, 10, and 19 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6-15, filed 04/10/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1,10 and 19 under US 20160050123 A1 (Nishanov et. al) have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Before responding to the arguments It is best to establish a BRI of the claim elements:
Claims establish a hierarchy of groups (no specific amount). Thus there exists a first group and a second group. Next, the claims establish the groups comprise a plurality of nodes wherein one of the nodes is the leader node of that group. Following, the lowest group’s leader node, collects and sends status information to the leader node of the next higher group (superior to it in the hierarchy). Therefore, since there exist only two groups the lowest group sends status information to the next higher group, which relays the information to the management node. It is noted in the description of the claim language there is no detail or clarification of the management node being separate and distinct from any of the clusters. The only requirement is that it is not last node that receives information from the leader of the highest group in the hierarchy.
A visualization and supportive paragraphs associated with Nishonov is next provided to show how its teachings read on this interpretation.
The examiner first refers to figure 8 before explaining how the modifications / supportive paragraphs associated with the detailed description further establishes the invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
645
829
media_image1.png
Greyscale
While considering Figure 8, it is important to understanding as articulated in paragraph 0066 of the prior art that concepts and features described herein may be embodied in other specific forms without departing from their spirit or descriptive characteristics.
In figure 8, the examiner concedes that the master cluster contains the director node (node 802 functionality in a director role) and a plurality of nodes operating in a leader role. Further each of the worker clusters, 806A and 806B, have worker nodes wherein one worker node, 807A and 807B, operates as a worker agent role that controls communication of worker cluster information to the master nodes, 805B and 805C. Based on additional paragraphs provided in Nishanov – Nishanov further teaches 1) Worker clusters can be part of the same or different racks (paragraph 0061); 2) Worker nodes process assignments and report their processing to a leader of the workers, i.e. worker agent who is tasked to report the findings back the a master node (paragraph 0046-47 and 50); 3) There exist one master node allocated to each hardware rack to monitor worker clusters within the same hardware rack to reduce or eliminate cross rack network traffic (paragraph 0052); 4) Each master node contains a master agent that controls the local nodes (paragraph 0061); and 5) master nodes in a leader role communicate with master nodes in a director role (paragraph 0040-0042).
Based on these paragraphs figure 8 can be better understood to visually show:
PNG
media_image2.png
685
874
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Wherein (the grayed out areas are solely for simplicity in understanding how visually it is shown for one master node) - Master Node 805A that is serving in a director role corresponds to the management node. Master Node 805B that is serving in a leader role corresponds to the leader of the higher level that further manages other local nodes (via its master agent) that are associated with that master node (Note based on the description provided the local nodes do not appear to be other master nodes, but localized nodes). Since the master node manages local nodes it is de facto a leader node. Worker nodes in worker cluster 806A are part of a lower group that establishes worker node 808A1 to serve as worker agent role and control cluster communication up to master node 805B that further relays communication to management node 805A. Thus, Nishanov teaches in paragraph 52-53 and 61, at the master level, one master node can be tasked with monitoring the worker clusters. Thus based on this the one master node communicates with the worker agent node (which is response for the status progress of the other worker nodes in the worker cluster). Further the identified section indicates the master node includes a master agent that controls local nodes Thus the ONE master node further controls local nodes of its groups while receiving communication status from worker nodes via the worker node agent. In conjunction with the previous section of the master node communicating with the director node - the reference teaches direct communication between a worker node agent and the ONE master node that further relays up to the director node; Further paragraph 20, 21, 40, figure 1, the leader node is in a group one level higher than the workers, paragraph 38, 41, 49, 50, which then communicates to its leader node of a director.
The arguments presented on pages 7 – 8, are unpersuasive in that the arguments are misinterpreting what is gleaned from the prior art in showing the limitations. Further the arguments presented on page 8 in that the present invention is not concerned with reducing “cross rack network traffic” is immaterial as additional benefits provided by the prior art does not constitute a teaching away from the disclosure at large. The remaining arguments in pages 9-12, largely are interpretation based misunderstandings associated with the prior art and thus the examiner refers to the understanding provided above in showing that the prior art teaches the limitations.
The remaining arguments argues that Hoole does not teach the same functionality provided above even though Hole teaches grouping policies and grouping nodes based on the grouping policies. The examiner respectfully disagrees and relies upon the understanding and explanation provided above in showing the prior art demonstrates the relaying through a leader functionality provided above. Further note that paragraph 0040-0041 0051-0052 states that worker nodes process workloads that are being monitored by the master node and the director decides how to redistribute workloads hosted by the worker based on the notifications associated with nodes performance. Thus the status must be reported up to the director node as articulated in the understanding provided above.
Therefore, based on the teachings provided by the reference the argument is not persuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8-13, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160050123 A1 (Nishanov et. al), and further in view of US 7801128 B2 (Hoole et. al).
Regarding claim 1, Nishanov recites, A computer-implemented method for node management, comprising: determining, by the one or more processing units, one of the plurality computing nodes in each group of the hierarchy of groups as a leader node of the corresponding group, wherein the leader node of a first group is responsible for collecting and reporting status of all computing nodes in the first group to the leader node of a second group in a hierarchy level superior to the first group by one level in the hierarchy of groups (Paragraph 52-53 and 61, at the master level, one master node can be tasked with monitoring the worker clusters. Thus based on this the one master node communicates with the worker agent node (which is response for the status progress of the other worker nodes in the worker cluster). Further the identified section indicates the master node includes a master agent that controls local nodes Thus the ONE master node further controls local nodes of its groups while receiving communication status from worker nodes via the worker node agent. In conjunction with the previous section of the master node communicating with the director node - the reference teaches direct communication between a worker node agent and the ONE master node that further relays up to the director node; Further paragraph 20, 21, 40, figure 1, the leader node is in a group one level higher than the workers, paragraph 38, 41, 49, 50, which then communicates to its leader node of a director) such that the status of the computing nodes from the first group is reported to a management node through the leader node of the second group and other superior leader nodes level by level in the hierarchy of groups until the status reaches the management node (Paragraph 52-53 and 61, at the master level, one master node can be tasked with monitoring the worker clusters. Thus based on this the one master node communicates with the worker agent node (which is response for the status progress of the other worker nodes in the worker cluster). Further the identified section indicates the master node includes a master agent that controls local nodes Thus the ONE master node further controls local nodes of its groups while receiving communication status from worker nodes via the worker node agent. In conjunction with the previous section of the master node communicating with the director node - the reference teaches direct communication between a worker node agent and the ONE master node that further relays up to the director node; Further paragraph 37, a group of nodes, with a leader node, in a second group, paragraph 39-41, 43, it is able to monitor worker nodes, paragraph 38, 41, 49, 50, figure 1, and figure 8, and communicate to a director node above it in the hierarchy, that director node receives information from the leader node about node behavior. Master Node 805A that is serving in a director role corresponds to the management node. Master Node 805B that is serving in a leader role corresponds to the leader of the higher level that further manages other local nodes (via its master agent) that are associated with that master node (Note based on the description provided the local nodes do not appear to be other master nodes, but localized nodes). Since the master node manages local nodes it is de facto a leader node. Worker nodes in worker cluster 806A are part of a lower group that establishes worker node 808A1 to serve as worker agent role and control cluster communication up to master node 805B that further relays communication to management node 805A. Thus, Nishanov teaches in paragraph 52-53 and 61, at the master level, one master node can be tasked with monitoring the worker clusters).
However, Nishanov fails to teach, grouping, by one or more processing units, a plurality of computing nodes in a cluster into a hierarchy of groups according to a hierarchy of grouping policies, wherein the hierarchy of groups includes different groups of computing nodes.
Hoole teaches, grouping, by one or more processing units, a plurality of computing nodes in a cluster into a hierarchy of groups according to a hierarchy of grouping policies, wherein the hierarchy of groups includes different groups of computing nodes (column 8, lines 37-51, a group of nodes that is allowed to be communicated with, using a hierarchy of grouping policies, grouping policies can extend across different groups of computing nodes).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Hoole to the hierarchy aspects of Nishonov to govern how communication is to be performed between the workers to the managers and to the director level, as well as, govern how communication is to occur between workers in the same group and managers in the same group and it allows for organizing nodes under specific rules, allowing firewall and security prevention.
Regarding claim 2, Nishanov recites, The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the grouping the plurality of computing nodes in the cluster into the hierarchy of groups according to the hierarchy of grouping policies further comprises: grouping, by the one or more processing units, each computing node newly added to the cluster into the hierarchy of groups according to the hierarchy of grouping policies (paragraph 37, and 39, adding new nodes to the node according to certain rules; see also paragraphs 0056-0058).
Regarding claim 3, Nishanov recites, The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprises: dispatching, by the one or more processing units, a workload to one or more groups based on a criterion corresponding to a grouping policy in the hierarchy of grouping policies (paragraph 37, 38, dispatching workloads to specific nodes that are designated as worker clusters, defined by rules; see also paragraph 0056-0058).
Regarding claim 4, Nishanov recites, The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprises: dispatching, by the one or more processing units, a workload to the leader node of the first group for execution by one or more computing nodes in the first group (paragraph 40, 53, the commands are given to the leader first then to workers).
Regarding Claim 8, Nishanov recites, The computer-implemented method of claim, wherein the grouping policy of each level in the hierarchy of grouping policies is based on at least one selected from a group comprising a physical location, a central processing unit (CPU) platform, an operating system (OS) type, a compute unit (CU), a network traffic, a core size, a memory size, and a customized attribute (paragraph 52 and 61, grouping and assigning master and worker nodes within a cluster, based off the physical location and minimizing network traffic).
Regarding claim 9, Nishanov recites, The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the determining one of the plurality of computing nodes in each group of the hierarchy of groups as the leader node of the corresponding group is based on a workload status and a working performance of the computing nodes in the corresponding group (paragraph 40, 48, and 55 a mechanism to reselect the leader, and the leader node can be reselected based off its performance).
With regards to Claim 10, Nishanov and further in view of Hoole teaches the method of Claim 1 as referenced above. The method of Claim 1 performs the same steps as the system of Claim 10, and Claim 10 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 1 by the teachings of Nishanov and further in view of Hoole.
With regards to Claim 11, Nishanov and further in view of Hoole teaches the method of Claim 2 as referenced above. The method of Claim 1 performs the same steps as the system of Claim 11, and Claim 11 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 2 by the teachings of Nishanov and further in view of Hoole.
With regards to Claim 12, Nishanov and further in view of Hoole teaches the method of Claim 3 as referenced above. The method of Claim 3 performs the same steps as the system of Claim 12, and Claim 12 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 3 by the teachings of Nishanov and further in view of Hoole.
With regards to Claim 13, Nishanov and further in view of Hoole teaches the method of Claim 4 as referenced above. The apparatus of Claim 4 performs the same steps as the system of Claim 13, and Claim 13 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 4 by the teachings of Nishanov and further in view of Hoole.
With regards to Claim 17, Nishanov and further in view of Hoole teaches the method of Claim 8 as referenced above. The method of Claim 8 performs the same steps as the method of Claim 17, and Claim 17 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 8 by the teachings of Nishanov and further in view of Hoole.
With regards to Claim 18, Nishanov and further in view of Hoole teaches the method of Claim 9 as referenced above. The method of Claim 9 performs the same steps as the method of Claim 18, and Claim 9 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 9 by the teachings of Nishanov and further in view of Hoole.
With regards to Claim 19, Nishanov and further in view of Hoole teaches the method of Claim 1 as referenced above. The method of Claim 19 performs the same steps as the computer program product of Claim 19, and Claim 19 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 1 by the teachings of Nishanov and further in view of Hoole.
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160050123 A1 (Nishanov et. al), and further in view of US 7801128 B2 (Hoole et. al) as applied to claim 1-4, 8-13, 17-19 above, and further in view of US 10936589 B1 (Beitchman et. al).
Regarding claim 7, Nishanov teaches, The computer-implemented method of claim 1.
However, Nishanov and further in view of Hoole fails to teach, further comprises: updating, by the one or more processing units, the hierarchy of groups according to historical workload running performance of the cluster.
Beitchman teaches, further comprises: updating, by the one or more processing units, the hierarchy of groups according to historical workload running performance of the cluster (column 14, lines 43-57, reassigning the lowest hierarchy of worker nodes, according to historical performance and requirements, such that if extra nodes are needed, the computing clusters size may be increased).
It would have been obvious before the filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Nishanov and further in view of Hoole and the cluster management system, with the teachings of Beitchman, as altering the hierarchy of groups according to past performance allows for minimal loss of performance of the cluster.
Regarding claim 16, Nishanov and further in view of Hoole teaches, The system of claim 10.
However, Nishanov and further in view of Hoole fails to teach, further comprises: updating, by the one or more processing units, the hierarchy of groups according to historical workload running performance of the cluster.
Beitchman teaches, further comprises: updating, by the one or more processing units, the hierarchy of groups according to historical workload running performance of the cluster (column 14, lines 43-57, reassigning the lowest hierarchy of worker nodes, according to historical performance and requirements, such that if extra nodes are needed, the computing clusters size may be increased).
It would have been obvious before the filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Nishanov and the cluster management system, with the teachings of Beitchman, as altering the hierarchy of groups according to past performance allows for minimal loss of performance of the cluster.
Claim(s) 5, 6, 14, 15, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160050123 A1 (Nishanov et. al), and further in view of US 7801128 B2 (Hoole et. al) as applied to claim 1-4, 8-13, 17-19 above, and further in view of US 20170251023 A1 (Edwards et. al).
Regarding Claim 5, Nishanov and further in view of Hoole recites, The computer-implemented method of claim 1. updating, by the one or more processing units, the hierarchy of groups in response to updating of the grouping policy (paragraph 186 and 190, updating the grouping policies, and due to this update, updating the groups of nodes that depend on that policy, disassociating and recombining the node sets).
However, Nishanov and further in view of Hoole fails to teach, updating, by the one or more processing units, the hierarchy of groups in response to updating of the hierarchy of grouping policies.
Edwards teaches, updating, by the one or more processing units, the hierarchy of groups in response to updating of the hierarchy of grouping policies (paragraph 186 and 190, updating the grouping policies, and due to this update, updating the groups of nodes that depend on that policy, disassociating and recombining the node sets).
It would have been obvious before the filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Nishanov and the cluster management system, with the teachings of Edwards, as altering the hierarchy of groups according to client needs and set policies allows for quick management of group hierarchies.
Regarding Claim 6, Edwards recites, The computer-implemented method of claim 5, wherein the updating of the hierarchy of grouping policies comprises: changing levels of at least two grouping policies in the hierarchy of grouping policies; and replacing a grouping policy at a level in the hierarchy of grouping policies with a different grouping policy (paragraph 186 and 190, updating the grouping policies, and due to this update, updating the groups of nodes that depend on that policy, disassociating and recombining the node sets, it would be obvious that you would be able to change the level of multiple grouping policies).
It would have been obvious before the filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Nishanov and the cluster management system, with the teachings of Edwards, as altering the hierarchy of groups according to client needs and set policies allows for quick management of group hierarchies.
With regards to Claim 14, Nishanov and further in view of Hoole combined with Edwards teaches the method of Claim 5 as referenced above. The method of Claim 5 performs the same steps as the system of Claim 14, and Claim 14 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 5 by the teachings of Nishanov and further in view of Hoole combined with Edwards.
With regards to Claim 15, Nishanov and further in view of Hoole combined with Edwards teaches the method of Claim 6 as referenced above. The method of Claim 6 performs the same steps as the system of Claim 15, and Claim 15 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 6 by the teachings of Nishanov and further in view of Hoole combined with Edwards.
With regards to Claim 20, Nishanov and further in view of Hoole combined with Edwards teaches the method of Claim 5 as referenced above. The method of Claim 5 performs the same steps as the computer program product of Claim 20, and Claim 20 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 5 by the teachings of Nishanov and further in view of Hoole combined with Edwards.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN BAKHIT whose telephone number is (571)272-4314. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 6:30-5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, LEWIS BULLOCK can be reached at (571) 272-3759. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/C.M.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2199
/LEWIS A BULLOCK JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights