Detailed Action
This action is in response to RCE filed on 05/20/2026.
This application filed on 12/05/2022 which claims benefit to provisional application 63/389198 filed on 07/14/2022.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Claims 1-16 are rejected.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/20/2026 has been entered.
Applicant's Response
In Applicant's Response dated 05/20/2026, Applicant amended claims 1, and 12, added new claims 13-16, and amended the specification. Applicant argued against various rejections previously set forth in the Office Action mailed on 11/21/2025.
In light of applicant’s amendments/remarks, all objections to specification set forth previously are withdrawn.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 3-6, 12-13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (US-20220405131-A1, referred hereinafter as D2) in view of Gupta et al. (US 20210342200 A1, referred hereinafter as D7) in view of Nichols et al. (US 20160306876 A1, referred hereinafter as D8) in view of Tanaka (US 20160274946 A1, referred hereinafter as D9) in view of McCallum et al. (US 20200073706 A1, referred hereinafter as D3).
As per claim 1, D2 discloses,
An information processing system comprising a plurality servers devices implementing a plurality of nodes including a first node and a second node that execute distributed processing, each server device comprising at least one processor, (D2, figure 1-4 plurality of servers/clients/hosts).
and [system of D2] stores the created job list into a common storage accessible to each of the nodes, (D2, figure 4-5, 0055, 0067-0069 shows/discloses system of D2 generating/creating and storing the created job list into a common storage (e.g. workload dashboard) accessible to each of the plurality of nodes)
wherein the second node refers to the common storage, acquires a job from the job [list] by the extracting the job from the job [list], determines the acquired job as targeted job, and updates the job list after processing of the targeted job , (D2 figure 4-5, 0055, 0062, 0067-0069 shows/discloses generating/creating and storing the created job list into a common storage (e.g. workload dashboard) accessible to each of the plurality of nodes, and wherein the second node refers to the common storage (e.g., figure 5, step 506-512), determines a targeted job being a job in the job list that is to be set as a processing target (e.g., figure 5, step 506-512) and updates the job list status after start processing of the targeted job (e.g. status: pending, scheduled etc.), wherein the second node executes the targeted job independently without direct job allocation from the first node).
wherein the second node acquires the job from the job [list], (D2 figure 4-5, 0055, 0062, 0067-0069 shows/discloses proxy/host acquiring job from job list).
and executes the targeted job without the first node managing the second node, (D2 figure 4-5, 0055, 0062, 0067-0069 shows/discloses proxy/host acquiring job from job list and executing the jobs without other hosts managing the proxy/host.).
D2 disclose clients/nodes/hosts; however, D2 fails to expressly disclose - wherein first node creates a job list including a plurality of jobs into which information processing requested to be processed in the information processing is divided.
D7 (abstract, 0053) discloses wherein first node/edge devices creates a job list/sub tasks including a plurality of jobs/sub task into which information processing requested to be processed in the information processing is divided and provided to other devices for processing.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D2, to include the teachings of D7. This would have resulted in system of D2 having a client dividing a job into sub tasks, and thereafter providing a portion of the sub tasks to the decentralized resource scheduling of D2 for processing. This would have been obvious for the purpose of optimizing execution time for processing of tasks as discloses by D7 (abstract).
D2 discloses data/job list stored in common storage; however, D2 fails to expressly disclose – wherein the first node creates a job queue by adding each of the plurality of jobs included in the job list to the job queue, the job queue holding the plurality of jobs in a first-in first out list structure, and stores the created job queue into [memory/storage], acquires a job from the job queue by the extracting the job from the job queue, determines the acquired job as targeted job, … acquires the job from the job queue…
D8 (0022, 0068-0069) discloses that system of D8/the first node receives one or more documents/jobs (list of jobs) to examined (e.g. execute examination), and creates/adds a job queue by adding each of the plurality of jobs/documents included in the job list/request to the job queue, the job queue holding the plurality of jobs in a first-in first out list structure and stores the created job queue into [memory/storage], acquires a job from the job queue by the extracting the job from the job queue, determines the acquired job as targeted job (e.g. selection from queue based on FIFO)… acquires the job from the job queue….
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D2, to include the teachings of D8. This would have been obvious with predicable results of processing tasks/jobs according to queue having a particular order (e.g. FIFO) as disclosed by D8 and as notoriously well known in the art.
D2 fails to expressly disclose - [node acquire data/job] by itself.
D9 (0035, 0119) discloses node acquiring job in accordance with acquiring settings and without requiring a load balancer to assign the job to the node.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D2, to include the teachings of D9. This would have been obvious with predicable results acquiring jobs for execution/processing as disclosed by D9 and known in the art.
As noted above, combination of D2, D7, D8, and D9 arguably discloses creates a job queue by adding each of the plurality of jobs included in the job list to the job queue; nevertheless, for sake completeness, D3 (0016, 0035) creating/generating priority job queue set based on the sorted job list/tasks.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D2, to include the teachings of D3. This would have been obvious for the purpose scheduling tasks/jobs utilizing efficient attributed priority queues as disclosed by D3 (0013).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D2 discloses,
wherein the second node refers to the common storage, and determines an unprocessed job in the job list as the targeted job, (D2, figure 4-5, 0055, 0067-0069 shows/discloses generating/creating and storing the created job list into a common storage (e.g. workload dashboard) accessible to each of the plurality of nodes, and wherein the second node refers to the common storage (e.g., figure 5, step 506-512), determines an unprocessed job in the job list as the targeted job (e.g., figure 5, step 506-512).).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 further incorporated, D2 discloses,
wherein the second node refers to…the job list, and determines a job included in the job [list], as the targeted job, (D2 figure 4-5, 0055, 0067-0069 shows/discloses generating/creating and storing the created job list into a common storage (e.g. workload dashboard) accessible to each of the plurality of nodes, and wherein the second node refers to the common storage (e.g., figure 5, step 506-512), determines an unprocessed job in the job list as the targeted job (e.g., figure 5, step 506-512).).
D2 fails to expressly disclose - a job queue set based on the job list.
D8 (0022, 0068-0069) discloses that system of D8/the first node receives one or more documents/jobs (list of jobs) to examined (e.g. execute examination), and creates/adds a job queue by adding each of the plurality of jobs/documents included in the job list/request to the job queue, the job queue holding the plurality of jobs in a first-in first out list structure and stores the created job queue into [memory/storage], acquires a job from the job queue by the extracting the job from the job queue, determines the acquired job as targeted job (e.g. selection from queue based on FIFO)… acquires the job from the job queue…. Alternatively, see D3 (0016, 0035) creating/generating priority job queue set based on the sorted job list/tasks.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D2, to include the teachings of D8. This would have been obvious with predicable results of processing tasks/jobs according to queue having a particular order (e.g. FIFO) as disclosed by D8 and as notoriously well known in the art.
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D2 discloses,
wherein the first node refers to the common storage, determines the targeted job in the job list that is to be set as a processing target, and updates the job list after processing of the targeted job, (D2 figure 4-5, 0055, 0067-0069 shows/discloses generating/creating and storing the created job list into a common storage (e.g. workload dashboard) accessible to each of the plurality of nodes including first and second nodes, and wherein the first node refers to the common storage (e.g., figure 5, step 506-512), determines a targeted job being a job in the job list that is to be set as a processing target (e.g., figure 5, step 506-512) and updates the job list status (e.g. status pending, scheduled etc.) after start processing of the targeted job.).
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 further incorporated, D2 discloses,
wherein the first node refers to…the job list, and determines a job included in the job [list], as the targeted job, (D2, figure 4-5, 0055, 0067-0069 shows/discloses generating/creating and storing the created job list into a common storage (e.g. workload dashboard) accessible to each of the plurality of nodes, and wherein the first node refers to the common storage (e.g., figure 5, step 506-512), determines an unprocessed job in the job list as the targeted job (e.g., figure 5, step 506-512).).
D2 fails to expressly disclose - a job queue set based on the job list.
D8 (0022, 0068-0069) discloses that system of D8/the first node receives one or more documents/jobs (list of jobs) to examined (e.g. execute examination), and creates/adds a job queue by adding each of the plurality of jobs/documents included in the job list/request to the job queue, the job queue holding the plurality of jobs in a first-in first out list structure and stores the created job queue into [memory/storage], acquires a job from the job queue by the extracting the job from the job queue, determines the acquired job as targeted job (e.g. selection from queue based on FIFO)… acquires the job from the job queue…. Alternatively, see D3 (0016, 0035) creating/generating priority job queue set based on the sorted job list/tasks.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D2, to include the teachings of D8. This would have been obvious with predicable results of processing tasks/jobs according to queue having a particular order (e.g. FIFO) as disclosed by D8 and as notoriously well known in the art.
As per claim 12:
Claim 12 is a method claim corresponding to system claim 1 and is substantially same scope.
Accordingly, claim 12 is rejected under the same rational as set forth for claim 1.
As per claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D2 discloses
wherein the second node registers a processing result of the targeted job into [working memory/client] after processing of the targeted job, (D2, fig 5, 0070 discloses sending/storing the results to client).
D2 fails to expressly disclose – [storing results in] the common storage.
However, the examiner takes official notice that design choice of storing results of a job in common storage was notoriously well known.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D2, to include storing results in the common storage. This would have been obvious with predicable results of storing results in common storage as known in the art.
As per claim 15, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D2 discloses,
wherein the first node acquires a job from the job [list] by extracting the job from the job [list], and executes the acquired job, (D2 figure 4-5, 0055, 0062, 0067-0069 shows/discloses generating/creating and storing the created job list into a common storage (e.g. workload dashboard) accessible to each of the plurality of nodes, and wherein the second node refers to the common storage (e.g., figure 5, step 506-512), determines a targeted job being a job in the job list that is to be set as a processing target (e.g., figure 5, step 506-512) and updates the job list status after start processing of the targeted job (e.g. status: pending, scheduled etc.), wherein the second node executes the targeted job independently without direct job allocation from the first node).
D2 fails to expressly disclose - wherein the first node acquires a job from the job queue by extracting the job from the job queue…
D8 (0022, 0068-0069) discloses that system of D8/the first node receives one or more documents/jobs (list of jobs) to examined (e.g. execute examination), and creates/adds a job queue by adding each of the plurality of jobs/documents included in the job list/request to the job queue, the job queue holding the plurality of jobs in a first-in first out list structure and stores the created job queue into [memory/storage], acquires a job from the job queue by the extracting the job from the job queue, determines the acquired job as targeted job (e.g. selection from queue based on FIFO)… acquires the job from the job queue….
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D2, to include the teachings of D8. This would have been obvious with predicable results of processing tasks/jobs according to queue having a particular order (e.g. FIFO) as disclosed by D8 and as notoriously well known in the art.
Claims 2, 7-10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (US-20220405131-A1, referred hereinafter as D2) in view of Gupta et al. (US 20210342200 A1, referred hereinafter as D7) in view of Nichols et al. (US 20160306876 A1, referred hereinafter as D8) in view of Tanaka (US 20160274946 A1, referred hereinafter as D9) in view of McCallum et al. (US 20200073706 A1, referred hereinafter as D3) in view of Attarwala et al. (US 20080130677 A1, referred hereinafter as D4).
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D2 discloses,
wherein the first node is a master node, and wherein the second node is a slave node, (D2, figure 4 shows plurality of hosts/nodes/clients, where examiner notes that term “master” and “slave” is merely non-functional descriptive material are therefore given little to no patentable weight.).
As noted above, D2 arguably discloses master/slave nodes; nevertheless, for the sake of completeness/clarity, D4 (0057) discloses wherein setting various flags of nodes to indicate whether it is slave or master node.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D2, to include the teachings of D4. This would have been obvious for the purpose preventing glare in network by designating master and slave nodes as disclosed by D4 (0006).
As per claim 7:
The rejection of claim 1 further incorporated.
D2 fails to expressly disclose - wherein distributed processing is executed using a first flag for managing an execution state of the first node, and a second flag for managing an execution state of the second node.
D4 (0057) discloses wherein setting various flags of nodes to indicate whether it is slave or master to controller functionality of the nodes which clearly read on distributed processing is executed using a first flag for managing an execution state of the first node, and a second flag for managing an execution state of the second node
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D2, to include the teachings of D4. This would have been obvious for the purpose preventing glare in network by designating master and slave nodes as disclosed by D4 (0006).
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 further incorporated, D2 discloses,
wherein, in a case where the first node has started processing, (D2, figure 4 and accompanying discloses any number of nodes/hosts starting processing of requests).
D2 fails to expressly disclose - the first node sets the first flag to a first value corresponding to ongoing.
D4 (0057) discloses wherein setting various flags of nodes to indicate whether it is slave or master which clearly read on the first node sets the first flag to a first value corresponding to ongoing.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D2, to include the teachings of D4. This would have been obvious for the purpose preventing glare in network by designating master and slave nodes as disclosed by D4 (0006).
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 3 further incorporated, D2 discloses,
the second node refers to the common storage, determines a job as the targeted job, and executes processing of the targeted job, (D2 figure 4-5, 0055, 0067-0069 shows/discloses generating/creating and storing the created job list into a common storage (e.g. workload dashboard) accessible to each of the plurality of nodes, and wherein the second node refers to the common storage (e.g., figure 5, step 506-512), determines a targeted job being a job in the job list that is to be set as a processing target (e.g., figure 5, step 506-512) and updates the job list status after start processing of the targeted job).
D2 fails to expressly disclose - wherein, in a case where the first flag is set to the first value.
D4 (0057) discloses wherein setting various flags of nodes to indicate whether it is slave or master which clearly read on wherein, in a case where the first flag is set to the first value.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D2, to include the teachings of D4. This would have been obvious for the purpose preventing glare in network by designating master and slave nodes as disclosed by D4 (0006).
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 7 further incorporated, D2 discloses,
wherein, in a case where the second node has started processing, (D2, figure 4 and accompanying discloses any number of nodes/hosts starting processing of requests).
D2 fails to expressly disclose - the second node sets the second flag to a first value corresponding to ongoing.
D4 (0057) discloses wherein setting various flags of nodes to indicate whether it is slave or master which clearly read on the second node sets the second flag to a first value corresponding to ongoing.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D2, to include the teachings of D4. This would have been obvious for the purpose preventing glare in network by designating master and slave nodes as disclosed by D4 (0006).
As per claim 16, the rejection of claim 7 further incorporated, D2 discloses,
the second node checks the job [list] stored in the common storage, (D2 figure 4-5, 0055, 0062, 0067-0069 shows/discloses generating/creating and storing the created job list into a common storage (e.g. workload dashboard) accessible to each of the plurality of nodes, and wherein the second node refers to the common storage (e.g., figure 5, step 506-512), determines a targeted job being a job in the job list that is to be set as a processing target (e.g., figure 5, step 506-512) and updates the job list status after start processing of the targeted job (e.g. status: pending, scheduled etc.), wherein the second node executes the targeted job independently without direct job allocation from the first node).
D2 fails to expressly disclose - job queue.
D8 (0022, 0068-0069) discloses that system of D8/the first node receives one or more documents/jobs (list of jobs) to examined (e.g. execute examination), and creates/adds a job queue by adding each of the plurality of jobs/documents included in the job list/request to the job queue, the job queue holding the plurality of jobs in a first-in first out list structure and stores the created job queue into [memory/storage], acquires a job from the job queue by the extracting the job from the job queue, determines the acquired job as targeted job (e.g. selection from queue based on FIFO)… acquires the job from the job queue….
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D2, to include the teachings of D8. This would have been obvious with predicable results of processing tasks/jobs according to queue having a particular order (e.g. FIFO) as disclosed by D8 and as notoriously well known in the art.
D2 fails to expressly disclose - wherein, in a case where the first flag is set to the first value.
D4 (0057) discloses wherein setting various flags of nodes to indicate whether it is slave or master which clearly read on the first node sets the first flag to a first value corresponding to ongoing.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D2, to include the teachings of D4. This would have been obvious for the purpose preventing glare in network by designating master and slave nodes as disclosed by D4 (0006).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (US-20220405131-A1, referred hereinafter as D2) in view of Gupta et al. (US 20210342200 A1, referred hereinafter as D7) in view of Nichols et al. (US 20160306876 A1, referred hereinafter as D8) in view of Tanaka (US 20160274946 A1, referred hereinafter as D9) in view of McCallum et al. (US 20200073706 A1, referred hereinafter as D3) in view of Attarwala et al. (US 20080130677 A1, referred hereinafter as D4) in view of Muta et al. (US 20190197454 A1, referred hereinafter as D5) in view of Esumi (US 20240272929 A1, referred hereinafter as D6).
As per claim 11:
The rejection of claim 7 further incorporated.
D2/D4 discloses setting various flags for master/slave nodes as well keeping track of status of job/task; however, D2/D4 fail to expressly disclose - wherein the first node ends processing in a case where the first flag is set to a second value indicating that processing of the first node has been completed, and the second flag is set to the second value indicating that processing of the second node has been completed.
D5 (6A) shows/discloses plurality of nodes including first and second nodes (e.g. column indicating “needed environment”) setting flags indicating completion/end of task in response to finishing/completing/ending a task.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D2, to include the teachings of D5. This would have been obvious with predicable results of managing and keeping track of tasks as disclosed by D5.
As noted above, D5 shows/discloses flags indicating completion job, and arguably first node ends processing accordingly; nevertheless, for the sake completeness, D6 (0062) discloses first node ends processing (e.g., shifting from execution state to non-execution state after job is completed).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D2, to include the teachings of D6. This would have been obvious with predicable results stop execution of nodes/servers in order save money/resources as disclosed D6.
Claims 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yao et al. (US-20220405131-A1, referred hereinafter as D2) in view of Gupta et al. (US 20210342200 A1, referred hereinafter as D7) in view of Nichols et al. (US 20160306876 A1, referred hereinafter as D8) in view of Tanaka (US 20160274946 A1, referred hereinafter as D9) in view of McCallum et al. (US 20200073706 A1, referred hereinafter as D3) in view of Chen et al. (US 20020116538 A1, referred hereinafter as D10).
As per claim 14, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D2 discloses,
common storage…, (D2, figure 4-5 discloses common storage.).
D2 fails to expressly disclose - wherein a lock file on the common storage is used for exclusion control of the job queue.
D10 (0007-0009, fig 6) known methods of locking file on storage that is used for exclusion control of the job queue.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D2, to include teachings of D2. This would have been obvious with predicable results of selectively locking the queue during processing of the transaction, wherein the queue remains unlocked for one or more aspects of the transaction processing as disclosed by D10.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 05/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or moot in view of new/modified grounds of rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAFA A AMIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3181. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Young, can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MUSTAFA A AMIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights