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 .
Detail Action
On 8/29/2022, Application 17/823,010 is filed with claims 1-20.
That is a Non-Final Action.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea/mental process without significantly more.
Claims 1 recites the step of:
while concurrently executing the planning process, execute a batch execution process that includes: responsive to receiving an execution timeout from the synchronization cluster:
retrieving from the state cluster, based on the execution timeout, a second execution batch, and processing the second execution batch to execute a workload.
This step can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recite a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites mere instructions to apply an exception (A workload distribution system), with additional elements comprising only insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 1 recites the additional element of:
message broker cluster including a planning queue; a state cluster including a plan state database storing a plan; a synchronization cluster operating a global timer service; and an engine cluster including a plurality of computing nodes, wherein each of the plurality of computing nodes is configured to: execute a planning process that includes: responsive to receiving a planning timeout from the synchronization cluster: generating a planning job based on the plan, and storing the planning job in the planning queue; and responsive to receiving an available planning job from the planning queue: processing the available planning job to generate a first execution batch, and storing the first execution batch in the plan; and while concurrently executing the planning process, execute a batch execution process that includes:…
based on the execution timeout, a second execution batch, and processing the second execution batch to execute a workload.
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Further, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 2 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (the system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 2 recites the additional element of:
receive a workload generation request, and, responsive to receiving the workload generation request: initialize the plan, based on the workload generation request, in the plan state database, and transmit, to the synchronization cluster, an initial planning timer request including a plan identifier for the plan and an initial fire time; and the synchronization cluster is configured to transmit an initial planning timeout, including the plan identifier, to the engine cluster at the initial fire time.
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 2 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 3 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (the system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 3 recites the additional element of:
responsive to receiving the planning timeout: retrieving, from the plan state database, a current state for the plan based on the planning timeout, determining, based on the current state and a planning queue size for the plan, whether additional planning jobs should be scheduled, generating the planning job responsive to determining that additional planning jobs should be scheduled, and transmitting, to the synchronization cluster, a planning timer request including a plan identifier for the plan and a planning fire time based on a planning period for the plan; and the synchronization cluster is configured to transmit a second planning timeout, including the plan identifier, to the engine cluster at the planning fire time.
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 3 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 3 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (the system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 3 recites the additional element of:
responsive to receiving the planning timeout: retrieving, from the plan state database, a current state for the plan based on the planning timeout, determining, based on the current state and a planning queue size for the plan, whether additional planning jobs should be scheduled, generating the planning job responsive to determining that additional planning jobs should be scheduled, and transmitting, to the synchronization cluster, a planning timer request including a plan identifier for the plan and a planning fire time based on a planning period for the plan; and the synchronization cluster is configured to transmit a second planning timeout, including the plan identifier, to the engine cluster at the planning fire time.
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 3 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 4 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (the system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 4 recites the additional element of:
the planning process further includes transmitting, to the synchronization cluster, an execution timer request including a plan identifier for the plan, a batch identifier for the first execution batch, and an execution fire time; and the synchronization cluster is configured to transmit a second execution timeout, including the plan identifier and the batch identifier, to the engine cluster at the execution fire time.
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 4 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 5 is dependent on claims 1 and 4, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 5, 4 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (the system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 5 recites the additional element of:
wherein the planning process further includes generating the execution timer request based on the planning job, the execution fire time, and a hysteresis value for the workload distribution system.
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 5 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claims 1 and 5, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 6 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (the system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 6 recites the additional element of:
wherein the workload includes a task to be performed and an execution time for the task; and wherein each of the plurality of computing nodes is further configured to: operate a local high-resolution timer service, and processing the second execution batch includes: scheduling, with the local high-resolution timer service, a local execution timeout based on the execution time, and performing the task at the execution time based on the local execution timeout generated by the local high-resolution timer service.
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 6 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 7 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (the system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 7 recites the additional element of:
receiving the available planning job from the planning queue, determining whether a planning job complexity metric for the planning job exceeds a maximum threshold, responsive to determining that the planning job complexity metric exceeds the maximum threshold, generating at least two smaller planning jobs based on the planning job, and storing the at least two smaller planning jobs in the planning queue.
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 7 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 8 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (the system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 8 recites the additional element of:
further comprising a load balancer for distributing user requests among the plurality of computing nodes.
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 8 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 9 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (the system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 9 recites the additional element of:
further comprising a load balancer for distributing user requests among the plurality of computing nodes.
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 9 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claims 10 and 16-20 are directed to the method comprise the steps which the at least one processing platform of the system of claims 1, 4-7 and 9 are configured to perform. Claims 10 and 16-20 recite the same limitations as claims 1, 4-7 and 9, respectively; therefore, claims 10 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a method without significantly more for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 1, 4-7 and 9. See above.
Claim 11 is dependent on claim 10, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 10.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 11 and 10 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (the system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 11 recites the additional element of:
receive a workload generation request, and, responsive to receiving the workload generation request: initializing a plan, for storing the first and second execution batches on the state cluster based on the workload generation request, and transmitting an initial planning timer request, based on the workload generation request, to the synchronization cluster..
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 11 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 10, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 12 is dependent on claims 11 and 10, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 10.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 12, 11, and 10 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (the system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 12 recites the additional element of:
generating the initial planning timer request including a plan identifier for the plan and an initial fire time, and transmitting, with the synchronization cluster an initial planning timeout, including the plan identifier, to the plurality of computing nodes at the initial fire time.
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 12 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claims 10 and 11, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 13 is dependent on claim 10, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 10.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 13 and 10 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (the system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 13 recites the additional element of:
receive a workload generation request, and, responsive to receiving the workload generation request: initializing a plan, for storing the first and second execution batches on the state cluster based on the workload generation request, and transmitting an initial planning timer request, based on the workload generation request, to the synchronization cluster.
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 13 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 10, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 14 is dependent on claim 10 and 13, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 10.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 14, 13 and 10 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (the system) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 14 recites the additional element of:
enerating the planning timer request including a plan identifier for the plan and a planning fire time based on a planning period for the plan, and wherein the synchronization cluster is configured to: transmitting, with the synchronization cluster, a second planning timeout, including the plan identifier, to the plurality of computing nodes at the planning fire time.
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 14 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claims 10 and 13, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
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 1-6, 8-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jose, Jr. US 2022/0398128 in view of Mohalik US 2021/0318906.
17/823,010
Jose, Jr. US 2022/0398128 in view of Mohalik US 2021/0318906
Claim 1
A workload distribution system for a distributed computing environment, the system comprising:
Jose, Jr Fig. 7 p0016; p0212-p0220;
Mohalik p0004;
a message broker cluster including a planning queue;
Jose, Jr teaches a task list see Fig .5, item 510, p0192, p0188-p0215; a query system p0052-0058; and an indexing system p0091-p0094;
Mohalik teaches planning queue; p0004-p0018;
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Mohalik teaching with method of Jose, Jr in order to provide plan synthesis adapt to changes in the system.
a state cluster including a plan state database storing a plan;
a synchronization cluster operating a global timer service; and an engine cluster including a plurality of computing nodes, wherein each of the plurality of computing nodes is configured to:
Mohalik teaches planning queue; p0004-p0018;
Jose, Jr teaches Indexing system includes event generating system with time period and time stamp. See Jose, Jr p0095-p0099;
execute a planning process that includes: responsive to receiving a planning timeout from the synchronization cluster: generating a planning job based on the plan, and storing the planning job in the planning queue; and
Mohalik teaches planning queue; p0004-p0018;
Jose, Jr teaches a threshold period of time that determine whether the operation is successful. (see Jose, Jr p0220-p0225)
responsive to receiving an available planning job from the planning queue: processing the available planning job to generate a first execution batch, and storing the first execution batch in the plan; and
while concurrently executing the planning process, execute a batch execution process that includes:
see Jose, Jr p0220-p0225
responsive to receiving an execution timeout from the synchronization cluster: retrieving from the state cluster, based on the execution timeout, a second execution batch, and processing the second execution batch to execute a workload.
Jose, Jr teaches a threshold period of time that determine whether the operation is successful. (see Jose, Jr p0220-p0225) The failure of the operation would put the job on hold/time out and a different processing node would claims the resource. (see Jose, Jr p0225)
Claim 2
The workload distribution system of claim 1, wherein: each of the plurality of computing nodes is further configured to:
receive a workload generation request, and, responsive to receiving the workload generation request:
initialize the plan, based on the workload generation request, in the plan state database, and transmit, to the synchronization cluster, an initial planning timer request including a plan identifier for the plan and an initial fire time; and
the synchronization cluster is configured to transmit an initial planning timeout, including the plan identifier, to the engine cluster at the initial fire time.
Mohalik teaches planning queue; p0004-p0018;
Mohalik teaches monitoring state of the system. (see Mohalik p0042-p0048; p0071-p0080)
Jose, Jr teaches a synchtronization mechanism; see p0207-p0239;
Jose, Jr Fig .5, Fig. 6, item 510, p0192, p0188-p0215;
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Mohalik teaching with method of Jose, Jr in order to allow system adjust based on Realtime condition.
Claim 3
The workload distribution system of claim 1, wherein: the planning process further includes: responsive to receiving the planning timeout:
retrieving, from the plan state database, a current state for the plan based on the planning timeout, determining, based on the current state and a planning queue size for the plan, whether additional planning jobs should be scheduled, generating the planning job responsive to determining that additional planning jobs should be scheduled, and transmitting, to the synchronization cluster, a planning timer request including a plan identifier for the plan and a planning fire time based on a planning period for the plan; and the synchronization cluster is configured to transmit a second planning timeout, including the plan identifier, to the engine cluster at the planning fire time.
Mohalik teaches monitoring state of the system. (see Mohalik p0042-p0048; p0071-p0080)
Jose, Jr teaches a synchtronization mechanism; see p0207-p0239;
Jose, Jr Fig .5, Fig. 6, item 510, p0192, p0188-p0215;
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Mohalik teaching with method of Jose, Jr in order to allow system adjust based on Realtime condition.
Claim 4
The workload distribution system of claim 1, wherein:
the planning process further includes transmitting, to the synchronization cluster, an execution timer request including a plan identifier for the plan, a batch identifier for the first execution batch, and an execution fire time; and
the synchronization cluster is configured to transmit a second execution timeout, including the plan identifier and the batch identifier, to the engine cluster at the execution fire time.
Jose, Jr teaches a task list see Fig .5, item 510, p0192, p0188-p0215; a query system p0052-0058; and an indexing system p0091-p0094;
Mohalik teaches planning queue; p0004-p0018;
Since Jose Jr teaches task identifier and group event s to form a bucket. (see p0095-p0192), the combination of Jose Jr and Mohalik would have Id for plan and group/batch.
Claim 5
The workload distribution system of claim 4, wherein the planning process further includes generating the execution timer request based on the planning job, the execution fire time, and a hysteresis value for the workload distribution system.
Jose Jr teaches using regrex rule to interpolate time value associated with temporally proximate event. (see p0092 Jose Jr.)
Clam 6
The workload distribution system of claim 1, wherein the workload includes a task to be performed and an execution time for the task; and wherein each of the plurality of computing nodes is further configured to: operate a local high-resolution timer service, and processing the second execution batch includes: scheduling, with the local high-resolution timer service, a local execution timeout based on the execution time, and performing the task at the execution time based on the local execution timeout generated by the local high-resolution timer service.
Jose Jr p0221
Claim 8
The workload distribution system of claim 1, further comprising a load balancer for distributing user requests among the plurality of computing nodes.
Jose, Jr. p0058;
Claim 9
The workload distribution system of claim 1, wherein the synchronization cluster is configured to operate a message broker for distributing planning timeouts and execution timeouts.
Jose, Jr. p0223;
As per claims 10, 16-18, and 20 they are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1, 4-6 and 9. See rejection above.
17/823,010
Jose, Jr. US 2022/0398128 in view of Mohalik US 2021/0318906
Claim 11
The method of claim 10, further comprising: receive a workload generation request, and, responsive to receiving the workload generation request: initializing a plan, for storing the first and second execution batches on the state cluster based on the workload generation request, and transmitting an initial planning timer request, based on the workload generation request, to the synchronization cluster.
Mohalik teaches monitoring state of the system. (see Mohalik p0042-p0048; p0071-p0080)
Jose, Jr teaches a synchronization mechanism; see p0207-p0239;
Jose, Jr Fig .5, Fig. 6, item 510, p0192, p0188-p0215;
Jose, Jr teaches a task list see Fig .5, item 510, p0192, p0188-p0215; a query system p0052-0058; and an indexing system p0091-p0094;
Mohalik teaches planning queue; p0004-p0018;
Since Jose Jr teaches task identifier and group event s to form a bucket. (see p0095-p0192), the combination of Jose Jr and Mohalik would have Id for plan and group/batch.
Claim 12
The method of claim 11, further comprising: generating the initial planning timer request including a plan identifier for the plan and an initial fire time, and transmitting, with the synchronization cluster an initial planning timeout, including the plan identifier, to the plurality of computing nodes at the initial fire time.
Mohalik teaches monitoring state of the system. (see Mohalik p0042-p0048; p0071-p0080)
Jose, Jr teaches a synchronization mechanism; see p0207-p0239;
Jose, Jr Fig .5, Fig. 6, item 510, p0192, p0188-p0215;
Claim 13
The method of claim 10, wherein the planning process further includes: responsive to receiving the planning timeout: retrieving, from the plan state database, a current state for a plan based on the planning timeout, determining, based on the current state and a planning queue size for the plan, whether additional planning jobs should be scheduled, generating the planning job responsive to determining that additional planning jobs should be scheduled, and transmitting a planning timer request, based on the plan, to the synchronization cluster.
Mohalik teaches monitoring state of the system. (see Mohalik p0042-p0048; p0071-p0080)
Jose, Jr teaches a synchronization mechanism; see p0207-p0239;
Jose, Jr Fig .5, Fig. 6, item 510, p0192, p0188-p0215;
Jose Jr teaches using regrex rule to interpolate time value associated with temporally proximate event. (see p0092 Jose Jr.)
Jose Jr teaches performing additional operations. See p0090.
Claim 14
The method of claim 13, further comprising: generating the planning timer request including a plan identifier for the plan and a planning fire time based on a planning period for the plan, and wherein the synchronization cluster is configured to: transmitting, with the synchronization cluster, a second planning timeout, including the plan identifier, to the plurality of computing nodes at the planning fire time.
Mohalik teaches monitoring state of the system. (see Mohalik p0042-p0048; p0071-p0080)
Jose, Jr p0220-p0225
Jose, Jr teaches a synchronization mechanism; see p0207-p0239;
Jose, Jr Fig .5, Fig. 6, item 510, p0192, p0188-p0215;
Jose Jr teaches using regrex rule to interpolate time value associated with temporally proximate event. (see p0092 Jose Jr.)
Jose Jr teaches performing additional operations. See p0090.
Claim 15
The method of claim 10, wherein the planning process further includes transmitting an execution timer request, based on the first execution batch, to the synchronization cluster.
Mohalik teaches monitoring state of the system. (see Mohalik p0042-p0048; p0071-p0080)
Jose, Jr teaches a synchronization mechanism; see p0207-p0239;
Jose, Jr Fig .5, Fig. 6, item 510, p0192, p0188-p0215;
Jose Jr p0221
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jose, Jr. US 2022/0398128 in view of Mohalik US 2021/0318906 and Dattaray US 2018/0365063.
17/823,010
Jose, Jr. US 2022/0398128 in view of Mohalik US 2021/0318906 and Dattaray US 2018/0365063;
Claim 7
The workload distribution system of claim 1, wherein the planning process further includes: receiving the available planning job from the planning queue, determining whether a planning job complexity metric for the planning job exceeds a maximum threshold, responsive to determining that the planning job complexity metric exceeds the maximum threshold, generating at least two smaller planning jobs based on the planning job, and storing the at least two smaller planning jobs in the planning queue.
Dattaray Fig. 10.
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Dattary teaching with method of Jose, Jr in order to find optimum solution increase exponentially with the number of execution loads.
As per claim 19 it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 7. See rejection above.
Conclusion
Here is a list of references relates to distribution system:
Van Der Lugt et al. US 2016/0342445: Method of achieving intra-machine workload balance for distributed graph-processing systems.
Rhee et al. US 7,020,878: System for allocating resource using the weight that represents a limitation on number of allowance active sessions associated with each resource consumer group.
Earl US 9,635,103: Dynamic virtual resource request rate control for utilizing physical resources.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PENG KE whose telephone number is (571)272-4062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-5:00.
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, Kevin Young can be reached at (571) 270-3180. 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.
PENG KE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2194
/PENG KE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194