DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to amendment filed on 06/23/2026.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
By this amendment, claims 1-6, 8-11, and 18-23 are amended. Claims 24-25 are canceled. Claims 26-27 are newly added claims. Therefore, claims 1-23 and 26-27 are pending. Any objections and rejections not repeated below is withdrawn due to Applicant's amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues in substance:
The Office Action interprets certain claim limitations of claims 24 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). By way of this amendment, claims 24 and 25 have been canceled. Accordingly, the Applicant respectfully requests that the § 112(f) interpretation of claims 24 and 25 be withdrawn as moot.
Claims 24 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § l 12(a) for allegedly failing to comply with the written description requirement, and under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) for allegedly being indefinite, based on the § 112(f) interpretation addressed above. Claims 24 and 25 have been canceled by the present amendment. Accordingly, the Applicant respectfully requests that the § 112(a) and§ 112(b) rejections of claims 24 and 25 be withdrawn as moot.
With regard to point (a), due to Applicant’s amendments, the 112(f) interpretation, 112(a) rejections, and 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Independent claim 1 sets forth an apparatus including, among other limitations, processor circuitry to instantiate application circuitry to, "after determining that a container is locally available to execute a workload, transmit an application programming interface (API) call to local API gateway circuitry using a loopback Internet protocol (IP) address of a system local network stack of the apparatus." The Griffin/Iyer/Liu combination fails to teach or suggest such an apparatus…
With regard to point (b), due to Applicant’s amendments, Sng Pub. No. US 2010/0017811 Al has been introduced to cure deficiencies. Therefore, independent claims 1, 11, 18, and 26 and their respective dependent claims are rejected for the reasons in this Office Action’s 103 rejection below. Argument has not been found to be persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-17, 20, 22, and 26-27 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, “at least one processor circuit circuitry adaptable” should read “at least one processor circuit adaptable”.
In Claims 1 and 11, “after determining that a container is locally available to execute a workload” should read “after determining that a container is locally available to execute the workload”.
In Claim 1, “forward the output to the application that transmitted the API call” should read “forward the output to an application that transmitted the API call”.
In Claim 3, “wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to the processor circuitry is to perform at least one of the first operations, the second operations, or the third operations” should read “wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to perform at least one of first operations, second operations, or third operations”.
In Claims 6, 8, 13, 15, 20, and 22, “the system local network stack IP address” should read “the loopback IP address of the system local network stack”.
In Claim 11, “transmit an application programming interface (API) call to loopback Internet protocol (IP) address” should read “transmit an application programming interface (API) call to a loopback Internet protocol (IP) address”.
In Claim 26, “a cloud server to execute a workload transmitted from a computing device via a communication network” should read “a cloud server to execute the workload transmitted from a computing device via a communication network”.
Any claim not specifically mentioned above, is objected due to its dependency on an objected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9, 11-16, 18-23, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin et al. Pub. No. US 2024/0015092 Al (hereafter Griffin), in view of Iyer et al. Pub. No. US 2022/0188167 Al (hereafter Iyer), and further in view of Sng Pub. No. US 2010/0017811 Al.
Regarding claim 1, Griffin teaches … interface circuitry to receive instructions or data from a remote computing device via a communication network; memory; and at least one processor circuit adaptable to execute the instructions or process the data to, when using the memory ([0024] “Each of the API gateway 110, the node computing devices 130, and the client computing device 150 (also collectively referred to herein as the "computing devices") may include hardware such as processing device 122 (e.g., processors, central processing units (CPUs), memory 124 (e.g., random access memory 124 (e.g., RAM), storage devices (e.g., hard-disk drive (HDD), solid-state drive (SSD), etc.), and other hardware devices (e.g., sound card, video card, etc.).”, Note: The node computing devices are interpreted as interface circuitry, and client computing device is interpreted as the remote computing device): ... identify service container circuitry to execute the workload based on the API call ([0033] “…The API gateway 110 may examine the request 155 to determine one or more APIs 172 to which the request 155 should be forwarded. Upon determining the correct one or more APIs 172, the API gateway 110 may forward the request 155 (or a portion of the request 155) to the one or more APIs 172 of the associated service 170…”, [0012] “…Cluster infrastructures may include a number of applications providing services (e.g., containers and/or VMs…”, Note: Services are in the containers executing the requests); and cause execution of the container to execute the workload to generate an output ([0010] “In computer systems supporting the development and execution of application services, virtual machines and/or containers may be used…”, [0033] “…The API gateway 110 also receives any response (e.g., a result) of the request 155 from the one or more APIs 172, and forwards the response to the client computing device 150.”, Note: Services are in the containers executing the requests and outputting results); and forward the output to the application that transmitted the API call ([0033] “…The API gateway 110 also receives any response (e.g., a result) of the request 155 from the one or more APIs 172, and forwards the response to the client computing device 150.”, Note: The client computing device 150 is the application).
Griffin fails to teach an apparatus to service a workload locally, the
apparatus comprising … after determining that a container is locally available to execute the workload…
In analogous art Iyer teaches an apparatus to service a workload locally, the
apparatus comprising … after determining that a container is locally available to execute the workload ([0003] “…The manager may receive a request to instantiate a new container on the information handling system, and classify and categorizes the new container. When a sum of the first and second allocations does not exceed a total amount of the hardware resource, the manager may direct the container handler to instantiate the second container on the information handling system. When the sum exceeds the total amount, the manager may determine whether or not the first usage is greater than the second usage, and direct the handler to instantiate the new container on the network system when the first usage is greater than the second usage.”, [0012] “Information handling system 130 represents the local data processing and storage resources that are available on a computing device that is local to a particular user…”, Note: The network system is the edge or the cloud in Fig. 1)…
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Griffin to incorporate the teachings of Iyer to balance resource demand with proximity (i.e., latency) of access to the resources in processing environments with limited resources (Iyer [0058] “It will be understood that the teachings, while described in the context of a user's needs on an information handling system, the functions and features of a host management service, as described above, may be applicable to other processing environments with limited resources and an ability to balance resource demand with proximity (i.e., latency) of access to the resources…”).
Griffin and Iyer fail to teach transmit an application programming interface
(API) call to local API gateway circuitry using a loopback Internet protocol (IP) address of a system local network stack of the apparatus.
In analogous art Sng teaches transmit an application programming interface
(API) call to local API gateway circuitry using a loopback Internet protocol (IP) address of a system local network stack of the apparatus ([Abstract] “…a socket API processes loopback calls without resort to a TCP/IP protocol stock or lower level systems (e.g. network drivers), reducing overhead requirements and processing burdens imposed on the TCP/IP stack and lower level systems and improving overall computing device performance.”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Griffin and Iyer to incorporate the teachings of Sng to reduce overhead requirements and processing burdens and improve overall computing device performance (Sng [Abstract] “…a socket API processes loopback calls without resort to a TCP/IP protocol stock or lower level systems (e.g. network drivers), reducing overhead requirements and processing burdens imposed on the TCP/IP stack and lower level systems and improving overall computing device performance.”).
Regarding claim 2, Griffin, Iyer, and Sng teach the apparatus of claim 1, and Iyer further teaches wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to transmit an inquiry to client circuitry corresponding to whether the container is locally available to execute the workload ([0003] “…The manager may receive a request to instantiate a new container on the information handling system, and classify and categorizes the new container. When a sum of the first and second allocations does not exceed a total amount of the hardware resource, the manager may direct the container handler to instantiate the second container on the information handling system. When the sum exceeds the total amount, the manager may determine whether or not the first usage is greater than the second usage, and direct the handler to instantiate the new container on the network system when the first usage is greater than the second usage.”, [0012] “Information handling system 130 represents the local data processing and storage resources that are available on a computing device that is local to a particular user…”, Note: The network system is the edge or the cloud in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Griffin, Iyer, and Sng teach the apparatus of claim 2, and Iyer further teaches wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to the processor circuitry is to perform at least one of the first operations, the second operations, or the third operations to instantiate the client circuitry to: determine whether the container is locally available ([0003] “…The manager may receive a request to instantiate a new container on the information handling system, and classify and categorizes the new container. When a sum of the first and second allocations does not exceed a total amount of the hardware resource, the manager may direct the container handler to instantiate the second container on the information handling system. When the sum exceeds the total amount, the manager may determine whether or not the first usage is greater than the second usage, and direct the handler to instantiate the new container on the network system when the first usage is greater than the second usage.”, [0012] “Information handling system 130 represents the local data processing and storage resources that are available on a computing device that is local to a particular user…”, Note: The network system is the edge or the cloud in Fig. 1); and transmit the indication based on the determination ([0003] “…The manager may receive a request to instantiate a new container on the information handling system, and classify and categorizes the new container. When a sum of the first and second allocations does not exceed a total amount of the hardware resource, the manager may direct the container handler to instantiate the second container on the information handling system. When the sum exceeds the total amount, the manager may determine whether or not the first usage is greater than the second usage, and direct the handler to instantiate the new container on the network system when the first usage is greater than the second usage.”, Note: The container handler obtains the determination).
Regarding claim 4, Griffin, Iyer, and Sng teach the apparatus of claim 2, and Iyer further teaches wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to download the container when the container is not available ([0013] “…In this regard, handler 140 operates to receive container requests from a user of information handling system 130, from edge 120, or from cloud 110, determines the resource allocation needed to instantiate the associated containers, allocates the resources from hardware resources 160, launches the associated containers … Note that handler 140 may also represent a workload agent that is associated with a virtual desktop environment, where workloads are instantiated on information handling system 130 by a remote virtual desktop manager…”, Note: The workload agent/remote virtual desktop manager (or handler) allocates (downloads) the containers).
Regarding claim 5, Griffin, Iyer, and Sng teach the apparatus of claim 1, Iyer further teaches after determining that the container is not locally available to execute the workload … to execute a first portion of the workload at the cloud-based server ([0003] “…The manager may receive a request to instantiate a new container on the information handling system, and classify and categorizes the new container … When the sum exceeds the total amount, the manager may determine whether or not the first usage is greater than the second usage, and direct the handler to instantiate the new container on the network system when the first usage is greater than the second usage.”, [0012] “Information handling system 130 represents the local data processing and storage resources that are available on a computing device that is local to a particular user…”, [0052] “…Mode 5 may be considered as a location-based hybrid of Modes 3 and 4, where a Mode 5 container is managed similarly to a Mode 3 container in a first location, and is managed similarly to a Mode 4 container in a second location. For example, in a first location where network connectivity is not assured, running this container on information handling system 130 may be prudent, while in a second location with greater internet connectivity, running this container from edge 120 or cloud 110 may be sufficient.”, Table 1 Mode 5, Note: The network system is the edge or the cloud in Fig. 1), and Griffin further teaches wherein the API call is a first API call, and one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to … transmit a second API call to a cloud-based server ([0033] “…For example, the client computing device 150 may send the request 155 to the API gateway 110 … the API gateway 110 may forward the request 155 (or a portion of the request 155) to the one or more APIs 172 of the associated service 170…”).
Regarding claim 6, Griffin, Iyer, and Sng teach the apparatus of claim 5, Iyer further teaches after determining that the container is locally available to execute the workload based on a second indication … the API call corresponding to local execution of a second portion of the workload ([0003] “…The manager may receive a request to instantiate a new container on the information handling system, and classify and categorizes the new container. When a sum of the first and second allocations does not exceed a total amount of the hardware resource, the manager may direct the container handler to instantiate the second container on the information handling system…”, [0012] “Information handling system 130 represents the local data processing and storage resources that are available on a computing device that is local to a particular user…”), and Sng further teaches wherein the indication is a first indication, and one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to … transmit the API call to the local API gateway circuitry using the system local network stack IP address, ([Abstract] “…a socket API processes loopback calls without resort to a TCP/IP protocol stock or lower level systems (e.g. network drivers), reducing overhead requirements and processing burdens imposed on the TCP/IP stack and lower level systems and improving overall computing device performance.”, [0026] “FIG. 1 shows a network capable computing device 100 in some embodiments of the invention. Computing device 100 has a processor 140…”).
Regarding claim 7, Griffin, Iyer, and Sng teach the apparatus of claim 1, and Iyer further teaches wherein the workload is scheduled to be executed at a cloud-based server ([0052] “…running this container from edge 120 or cloud 110 may be sufficient.”).
Regarding claim 8, Griffin, Iyer, and Sng teach the apparatus of claim 1, and Sng further teaches wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to select the service container circuitry based on a header of a URL used to transmit the API call, the URL corresponding to the system local network stack IP address ([Abstract] “…a socket API processes loopback calls without resort to a TCP/IP protocol stock or lower level systems (e.g. network drivers), reducing overhead requirements and processing burdens imposed on the TCP/IP stack and lower level systems and improving overall computing device performance.”, [0026] “FIG. 1 shows a network capable computing device 100 in some embodiments of the invention. Computing device 100 has a processor 140…”, Note: The same computing device that sends the loopback calls performs the processing and is also interpreted as the service container circuitry).
Regarding claim 9, Griffin, Iyer, and Sng teach the apparatus of claim 1, and Sng further teaches wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to transmit the API call without using at least one of a key, a token, or transport layer security ([Abstract] “…a socket API processes loopback calls without resort to a TCP/IP protocol stock or lower level systems (e.g. network drivers), reducing overhead requirements and processing burdens imposed on the TCP/IP stack and lower level systems and improving overall computing device performance.”).
Regarding claim 11, Griffin further teaches an apparatus to service a workload locally, the apparatus comprising: at least one memory; machine readable instructions; and processor circuitry to at least one of instantiate or execute the machine readable instructions to ([0024] “Each of the API gateway 110, the node computing devices 130, and the client computing device 150 (also collectively referred to herein as the "computing devices") may include hardware such as processing device 122 (e.g., processors, central processing units (CPUs), memory 124 (e.g., random access memory 124 (e.g., RAM), storage devices (e.g., hard-disk drive (HDD), solid-state drive (SSD), etc.), and other hardware devices (e.g., sound card, video card, etc.).”). The other limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 12, Griffin, Iyer, and Sng teach the apparatus of claim 11, and Iyer further teaches wherein the processor circuitry is to: determine whether the container is locally available to execute the workload ([0003] “…The manager may receive a request to instantiate a new container on the information handling system, and classify and categorizes the new container. When a sum of the first and second allocations does not exceed a total amount of the hardware resource, the manager may direct the container handler to instantiate the second container on the information handling system. When the sum exceeds the total amount, the manager may determine whether or not the first usage is greater than the second usage, and direct the handler to instantiate the new container on the network system when the first usage is greater than the second usage.”, [0012] “Information handling system 130 represents the local data processing and storage resources that are available on a computing device that is local to a particular user…”, Note: The network system is the edge or the cloud in Fig. 1); and download the container when the container is not locally available ([0013] “…In this regard, handler 140 operates to receive container requests from a user of information handling system 130, from edge 120, or from cloud 110, determines the resource allocation needed to instantiate the associated containers, allocates the resources from hardware resources 160, launches the associated containers … Note that handler 140 may also represent a workload agent that is associated with a virtual desktop environment, where workloads are instantiated on information handling system 130 by a remote virtual desktop manager…”, Note: The workload agent/remote virtual desktop manager (or handler) allocates (downloads) the containers).
Regarding claim 13, it is a machine claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claims 5 and 6. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 14, it is a machine claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 7. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15, it is a machine claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 8. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16, it is a machine claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 9. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18, Griffin further teaches at least one non-transitory machine readable storage medium comprising instructions that cause processor circuitry to at least ([0075] “Examples described herein also relate to an apparatus for performing the operations described herein. This apparatus may be specially constructed for the required purposes, or it may comprise a general purpose computing device selectively programmed by a computer program stored in the computing device. Such a computer program may be stored in a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium.”). The other limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19, it is an article of manufacture claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 12. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20, it is an article of manufacture claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claims 5 and 6. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 21, it is an article of manufacture claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 7. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 22, it is an article of manufacture claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 8. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 23, it is an article of manufacture claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 9. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 26, it is a machine claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claims 1 and 5. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 27, it is a machine claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claims 4 and 6. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin et al. Pub. No. US 2024/0015092 Al (hereafter Griffin), in view of Iyer et al. Pub. No. US 2022/0188167 Al (hereafter Iyer), further in view of Sng Pub. No. US 2010/0017811 Al as applied to claims 1-9, 11-16, 18-23, and 26-27 above, and further in view of HAYASHI et al. Pub. No. US 2018/0124170 Al (hereafter HAYASHI).
Regarding claim 10, Griffin, Iyer, and Sng teach the apparatus of claim 1.
Griffin, Iyer, and Sng fail to teach wherein one or more of the at least one processor circuit is to: log data corresponding to the local execution of the workload; and transmit the logged data to an external device.
In analogous art HAYASHI teaches wherein one or more of the at least one
processor circuit is to: log data corresponding to the local execution of the workload ([0070] “FIG. 9 is an explanatory diagram for explaining the list display screen of logs … The logs 221A to 221D are the logs 133 collected from the virtual server 132A in batch processing at regular intervals and scale-in processing.”, Note: Logs are collected from each locally executed virtual server); and transmit the logged data to an external device ([0073] “Each of the logs 221A to 221D is provided with an instruction button 222 to request download (output). When accepting an operation instruction of the instruction button 222 provided for the logs 221A to 221D, the cloud environment controller 11 outputs the log regarding which the operation instruction is made to the terminal device 3…”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Griffin, Iyer, and Sng to incorporate the teachings of HAYASHI to provide a way to record execution history (log) of a server and verify its processing (HAYASHI [0019] “In conventional technology, the execution history (log) of the server removed in scale-in is not left and thus it is difficult to verify the course of processing until the scale-in and so forth.”).
Regarding claim 17, it is a machine claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 10. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In particular, US 20230376344 A1 is cited because it discloses steps to determining whether to execute a workload locally (on an edge device) or on cloud.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN CHE-CHUN TONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1737. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 7:30 AM to 6:00 PM ET.
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, April Y Blair can be reached at (571)270-1014. 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.
/J.C.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2196
/APRIL Y BLAIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2196
Prosecution Insights