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 .
Claims 1-25 have been examined.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments in the Remarks, filed on 7/28/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks, applicant argues that:
Guim Bernat fails to teach memory to store instructions for managing
distributed compute resources, which when executed by the processor, cause the system to: receive, from an agent operating at a first compute domain of a plurality of compute domains, a request for compute resources; broadcast the request for compute resources to respective agents at the plurality of compute domains; receive a plurality of offers for available compute resources from at least a portion of the plurality of compute domains; transmit, to a selected agent at a selected compute domain of the plurality of compute domains, a commit message to reserve compute resources of the selected compute domain associated with a selected offer of the plurality of offers; and transmit an indication of the commit message to the agent at the first compute domain, wherein the first compute domain is to use the compute resources reserved at the selected compute domain for workloads of the first compute domain.
In response to point (i), according to Applicant:
“[a]n actor that performs all of the claimed steps (broadcast + commit + relay) does not exist as a single entity in Guim Bernat. Instead, the claimed operations are distributed across two distinct actors in Guim Bernat (overlay manager for broadcasting; nodes for offer/commit). The Examiner cannot read them all onto a single claimed ‘system’ without impermissibly aggregating the overlay manager and the nodes into one acting entity.”
“[t]hus, because no single Guim Bernat entity ‘transmit[s]... a commit message to reserve compute resources’ and ‘transmit[s] an indication of the commit message to the agent at the first compute domain’, and because Guim Bernat expressly disclaims the overlay manager doing the brokering ([0109]), Applicant respectfully submits that Guim Bernat does not anticipate the pending claims.”
(Remarks at page 9) Examiner respectfully disagree. According to paragraph [201] of Applicant’s specification as published, the operations described in the specification/invention are carried out by hardware modules/entities (i.e., plurality of entities). In addition, according to Newton’s Telecom Dictionary, “system” is defined as “[a]n organized assembly of equipment, personnel, procedures, and other facilities designed to perform a specific function or a set of functions”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of Applicant’s specification and Newton’s Telecom dictionary, the interpretation of the recited “system” includes a plurality of entities, not limited to a single entity. Thus, Guim Bernat teaches the limitations of claim 1 performed by a system of plurality of entities.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 12-15, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Guim Bernat et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0021431 (hereinafter Guim Bernat).
As per claim 1, Guim Bernat teaches the invention as claimed comprising:
a processor (figs. 20-21); and
memory to store instructions for managing distributed compute resources, which when executed by the processor, cause the system to (figs. 20-21):
receive, from an agent operating at a first compute domain of a plurality of compute domains, a request for compute resources ([102], e.g., receive, from requesting node, a bid request);
broadcast the request for compute resources to respective agents at the plurality of compute domains ([102], e.g., broadcast the bid request to other nodes);
receive a plurality of offers for available compute resources from at least a portion of the plurality of compute domains ([103][98], e.g., receive offers from at least a portion of nodes);
transmit, to a selected agent at a selected compute domain of the plurality of compute domains, a commit message to reserve compute resources of the selected compute domain associated with a selected offer of the plurality of offers ([98][105], e.g., transit blockchain to be signed to offering node; it is inherent that available resource is reserved once the offer is accepted); and
transmit an indication of the commit message to the agent at the first compute domain, wherein the first compute domain is to use the compute resources reserved at the selected compute domain for workloads of the first compute domain ([96], e.g., transmit blockchain operation with each negotiations communication; transmit the offer (i.e., with blockchain) to requesting node , wherein the requesting node is to use the resource reserved at the offering node for workload).
As per claim 2, Guim Bernat teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. Guim Bernat further teach wherein the plurality of offers include a service level agreement of each of the plurality of offers ([100], e.g., offer includes willingness to perform the service at a lower cost, faster speed, improved accuracy, etc.).
As per claim 3, Guim Bernat teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. Guim Bernat further teach wherein the system is to record the commit message in a distributed ledger ([105][85]).
As per claim 4, Guim Bernat teaches the invention as claimed in claim 3 above. Guim Bernat further teach wherein the distributed ledger includes a blockchain ([105][85]).
As per claim 6, Guim Bernat teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. Guim Bernat further teach wherein the selected compute domain, in response to receiving the commit message, removes the compute resources from a pool of available compute resources at the selected compute domain ([105][106][98], e.g., wherein the offering node in response to receive the blockchain must remove the resources from available resource in order to determine the availability of existing resource at the node).
As per claim 12, Guim Bernat teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. Guim Bernat further teach wherein the system is to select an offer from the plurality of offers based on the request for compute resources ([100], e.g., select an acceptance offer from the offers based on the bid request).
As per claim 13, Guim Bernat teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. Guim Bernat further teach wherein the system is to: transmit the plurality of offers to the agent operating at the first compute domain ([100], e.g., transmit offers to the requesting node); and receive the selected offer of the plurality of offers ([100], e.g., receive the accepted offer of the offers).
As per claims 14 and 23, they are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1 above.
As per claim 15, it is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6 above.
As per claim 21, it is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 12 above.
As per claim 22, it is rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 13 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guim Bernat in view of Sciancalepore et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0288918 (hereinafter Sciancalepore).
As per claim 5, Guim Bernat teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. Although Guim Bernat teaches commit message ([105][85] e.g., blockchain), however, Guim Bernat is silent in regard to smart contract. Sciancalepore teaches wherein the commit message is a part of a smart contract ([66]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Sciancalepore’s teaching with Guim Bernat’s system in order to allow automated execution of agreement on blockchain in Guim Bernat’s system.
Claims 7-8, 16-17 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guim Bernat in view of Frank et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0335311 (hereinafter Frank).
As per claim 7, Guim Bernat teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above. Although Guim Bernat teaches workload of the first compute domain ([96][98][102], e.g., workload of requesting node), however, Guim Bernat is silent in regard to micro-batched workload. Frank teaches wherein a workload of the first compute domain includes a micro-batched workload ([2][3]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Frank’s teaching with Guim Bernat’s system in order to allow limit contention to shared dataset by workloads in Guim Bernat’s system [3][4].
As per claim 8, Guim Bernat and Frank teach the invention substantially as claimed in claim 7 above. Guim Bernat and Frank further teach wherein the agent at the first compute domain receives workload requests that include micro-batching parameters (Guim Bernat, [102]; Frank [18][47]).
As per claims 16 and 24, they are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 7 above.
As per claims 17 and 25, they are rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 8 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 extension fee 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should
be directed to Philip Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-3967. The examiner can normally be
reached on 6a-3p M-F.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor,
Glenton Burgess can be reached on 571-272-3949. 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 the Patent Application
Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained
from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available
through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair- direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer
Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR
CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PHILIP C LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights