Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
In the Amendment filed on 12/22/2025, claims 2 and 9 are being canceled and claims 1 and 8 are being amended and claims 17-22 are added.
This is a Final Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 USC § 101
Applicant argued that the scheduling unit that customized according to customized resource is split according to the requirement of the customized resource is more than Well-Understood Routine Conventional Activity.
Examiner disagrees.
The courts have found following to be Well-understood Routine Conventional Activates:
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.");
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Here, the scheduling unit that customized according to customized resource is split according to the requirement of the customized resource is sampling storing and retrieving information over a network. Therefore, the limitation is simply reciting a Well-Understood Routine Conventional Activity.
35 USC § 103
Applicant argued that Bahramshahry and Perez fail to teach a remaining resource of a cluster node meeting a requirement of splitting the customized resource.
Examiner disagrees.
Bahramshahry and Perez teach that limitation because Bahramshahry teaches splitting distributable workload into multiple workload sub-parts; (see Fig. 33, item 3330) and Perez teaches schedule workload are based on customized process-performing resource requirement. (see Perez c39: 50-70) Therefore, the combination teaches this limitation.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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, 3-7, and 9-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea/ mental process without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites the step of:
…in response to the scheduling object being a customized resource, splitting the customized resource according to a current resource state to obtain a scheduling unit list, wherein the scheduling unit list comprises first scheduling units configured to form the customized resource;…
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 resource scheduling method), with additional elements comprising only insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 1 recites the additional element of:
splitting the customized resource to obtain the scheduling unit list in response to a remaining resource of a cluster node meeting a requirement of splitting the customized resource.
obtaining a scheduling object from a scheduling queue;…sequentially scheduling the first scheduling units in the scheduling unit list;
wherein the customized resource is defined by Custom Resource Definition (CRD) and the first scheduling unit is a CRD object.
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 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 method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 3 recites the additional element of:
in response to the scheduling object being a second scheduling unit, directly scheduling the second scheduling unit.
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 claims 1 and 3, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 4, 3 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (The method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 4 recites the additional element of:
binding the first scheduling unit and the second scheduling unit to corresponding nodes respectively after scheduling of all the scheduling objects is completed.
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 claims 3 and 1 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 4, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 5 is dependent on claims 1, 3, and 4 and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 5, 4, 3 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (The method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 5 recites the additional element of:
initiating a node binding request, updating allocatable resource information of the nodes, and determining an optimal node according to the allocatable resource information.
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 claims 1, 4 and 3 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 5, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 6 is dependent on claims 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 method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 6 recites the additional element of:
creating scheduling objects according to a scheduling request; and monitoring binding information of the scheduling objects, and placing the created scheduling objects in a same queue to form the scheduling 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 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 claims 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 method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 7 recites the additional element of:
in response to a failure of scheduling of any of the first scheduling units, deleting the first scheduling units which have been scheduled and releasing resources.
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.
Claims 8, 10 -14 are directed to a resource scheduling system comprise the steps which the at least one processing platform of the method of claims 1, 3-7 are configured to perform. Claims 8, 10-14 recite the same limitations as claims 1, 3-7, respectively; therefore, claims 8, 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a resource scheduling system without significantly more for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 1, 3-7. See above.
Claim 15 is dependent on claims 1 and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 15 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (The method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 15 recites the additional element of:
in response to a failure of scheduling of any of the first scheduling units, deleting the first scheduling units which have been scheduled and releasing resources.
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 15 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 16 is dependent on claims 1 and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 16 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (The method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim 16 recites the additional element of:
storing a computer-executable instruction which, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform the resource scheduling method of claim1.
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 16 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 17-19 are directed to device comprise the steps which the at least one processing platform of the method of claims 3, 6, and 7 are configured to perform. Claims 17-19 recite the same limitations as claims 3, 6, and 7, respectively; therefore, claims 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a device without significantly more for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 3, 6, and 7. See above.
Claims 20-22 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprise the steps which the at least one processing platform of the method of claims 3, 6, and 7 are configured to perform. Claims 20-22 recite the same limitations as claims 3, 6, and 7, respectively; therefore, claims 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium without significantly more for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 3, 6, and 7. See 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, 3-8, and 10-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bahramshahry US Publication 2020/0026562 in view of Perez US Patent 9,880,881.
18/004,067
Bahramshahry US Publication 2020/0026562 in view of Perez US Patent 9,880,881
Claim 1
A resource scheduling method, performed by a Kubernetes scheduling platform, comprising:
Bahramshahry; Fig. 33 p0652;
obtaining a scheduling object from a scheduling queue;
Bahramshahry; Fig. 33 p0655;
in response to the scheduling object being a customized resource and a remaining resource of a cluster node meeting a requirement of splitting the customized resource, splitting the customized resource according to the requirement of the customized resource to obtain a scheduling unit list, wherein the scheduling unit list comprises first scheduling units configured to form the customized resource; and
Bahramshahry; Fig. 33 p0658-p0659;
Bahramshary does not specifically teaches customized resource.
Perez teaches customized resource. (see Perez Fig. 10, c39:35-65)
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Perez’s teaching with method of Bahramshary in order to allow user to use the resources more efficiently.
sequentially scheduling the first scheduling units in the scheduling unit list.
Bahramshahry; Fig. 33 p0658-p0659;
Wherein the customized resource is defined by Custom Resource Definition (CRD) and the first scheduling unit is a CRD object.
Bahramshahry; Fig. 33 p0658-p0659;
Perez teaches customized resource. (see Perez Fig. 10, c39:35-65)
Claim 3
The resource scheduling method of claim 1, further comprising: in response to the scheduling object being a second scheduling unit, directly scheduling the second scheduling unit.
Bahramshahry teaches multiple schedulers; Fig 2A-2B; p0169, p0555;
Perez teaches using one or more schedulers. (see Perez c44:20-35)
Claim 4
The resource scheduling method of claim 3, further comprising: binding the first scheduling unit and the second scheduling unit to corresponding nodes respectively after scheduling of all the scheduling objects is completed.
Bahramshahry teaches multiple schedulers; Fig 2A-2B; p0169, p0555;
Perez teaches using one or more schedulers. (see Perez c44:20-35)
Claim 5
The resource scheduling method of claim 4, wherein after scheduling of all the scheduling objects is completed, the method further comprises: initiating a node binding request, updating allocatable resource information of the nodes, and determining an optimal node according to the allocatable resource information.
Bahramshahry teaches multiple schedulers; Fig 2A-2B; p0169, p0555-p0560;
Perez teaches using one or more schedulers. (see Perez c44:20-35)
Claim 6
The resource scheduling method of claim 1, further comprising: creating scheduling objects according to a scheduling request; and monitoring binding information of the scheduling objects, and placing the created scheduling objects in a same queue to form the scheduling queue.
Bahramshahry teaches multiple schedulers; Fig 2A-2B; p0169, p0555-p0560;
Claim 7
The resource scheduling method of claim 1, further comprising: in response to a failure of scheduling of any of the first scheduling units, deleting the first scheduling units which have been scheduled and releasing resources.
Bahramshahry Fig. 39 p705-p713;
As per claim 8-14, they are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1-7. See rejection above.
18/004,067
Bahramshahry US Publication 2020/0026562 in view of Perez US Patent 9,880,881
Claim 15
A device, comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable by the processor which, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform the resource scheduling method of claim1.
Bahramshahry; Fig. 13 p0028-p0035; p0059
Claim 16
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing a computer-executable instruction which, when executed by a processor, causes the processor to perform the resource scheduling method of claim1.
Bahramshahry; Fig. 13 p0028-p0035; p0059
As per claims 17-19 and 20-22, they are rejected under the same rationale as claims 3, 6 and 7. See rejection above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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