DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Claims 1–5, 7–12, and 14–20 are presented for examination in the reply filed on 05/26/2026. Claims 6 and 13 are cancelled.
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.
3. Claims 1–5, 8–12, and 15–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
4. As to independent claim 1, the claim recites:
“determine, for different workloads submitted to a cluster comprising a plurality of heterogeneous computer systems, different homogeneity requirement sets, each homogeneity requirement set being based on one or more characteristics of a respective workload and specifying one or more attributes of the computer systems required to be common across computer systems selected to perform two or more portions of the respective workload in parallel; and
cause two or more computer systems of the plurality of heterogeneous computer systems to be selected, for each of the different workloads, to perform two or more portions of the respective workload in parallel based, at least in part, on those two or more computer system satisfying the homogeneity requirement set determined for the respective workload.”
As to independent claims 8 and 15, they recite similar language of commensurate scope as claim 1.
These limitations, as currently drafted and within their respective claim, represent processes that, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, etc.) but for the recitation of generic computer components.
That is, other than reciting the use of
“a processor comprising one or more circuits” (claim 1); and
“one or more processors” (claim 8),
to perform these steps, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or using pencil and paper (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) – Examples of Concepts The Courts Have Identified As Abstract Ideas, discussing abstract ideas or concepts relating to organizing or analyzing information in a way that can be performed mentally or is analogous to human mental work).
For example, but for the use of generic computers,
the performance of these steps in the context of the claims reasonably encompasses the user mentally and/or manually performing the steps of mentally
1) … determine, for different workloads submitted to a cluster, different homogeneity requirement sets, for selecting computer systems to perform two or more portions of a respective workload in parallel, and
2) selecting, for each of the different workloads, to perform two or more portions of the respective workload in parallel.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (under Prong Two of Step 2A)
(I) Generic Computing Device
For instance, claim 1 recites the additional element of
“a processor comprising one or more circuits” and
claim 8 recites the additional element of
“one or more processors”
that perform these steps DYNAMICALLY (i.e. automatically, by using one or more processors or computing devices).
These computer components, functionalities, and/or services are all recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computing device performing a generic computer function of processing computer instructions and/or outputting data) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components such as processors, basic processor instructions and/or software components or programs.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
5. As to dependent claims 2–5, 9–12, and 16–19, each of these claims either (1) recites additional step(s) that covers performance in the mind; or (2) merely restricts or links the process step, information or data to a particular type, technological environment, or field of use; (3) amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception such as data input and output/transmission; or (4) recites a function which amounts to no more than a recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) and is no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer; and thus as a whole is also directed and confined to the same process set forth in claims 1, 8, and 15. Therefore, these claims do not individually or collectively add an inventive concept or additional element(s) amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. These claims are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
For instance, dependent claim 2 reciting “the two or more computer systems being selected, for each of the different workloads, by identifying one or more logical partitions that group one or more available computer systems of the plurality of heterogeneous computer systems into at least one homogenous grouping based, at least in part, on one or more tags associated with the one or more available computer systems, the at least one homogeneous grouping satisfying the homogeneity requirement set determined for the respective workload,” merely recites additional step(s) that covers performance in the mind (“identifying”).
Dependent claim 3 reciting “derive each homogeneity requirement set based, at least in part, on one or more attributes of one or more other workloads,” merely recites additional step(s) that covers performance in the mind.
Dependent claim 4 reciting “the two or more computer systems being further selected based, at least in part, on a partition score calculated one or more logical partitions, the partition score being based, at least in part, on one or more of a system state or task fitness,” merely recites additional step(s) that covers performance in the mind.
Dependent claim 5 reciting “wherein the two or more computer systems' ability to perform the two or more portions at substantially the same performance is based, at least in part, on one or more of a preferred node topology or a number of nodes,” merely restricts or links the process step, information or data to a particular type, technological environment, or field of use.
Dependent claim 6 reciting “the one or more attributes of the computer systems specified by each homogeneity requirement set including one or more of a preferred node topology or a number of nodes,” merely restricts or links the process step, information or data to a particular type, technological environment, or field of use.
As to dependent claims 9–13, and 16–19, they are the corresponding system claims correspond to at least one of claims 2–6. Therefore, these claims do not individually or collectively 1) integrated the abstract idea into a practical application, nor do they 2) include additional element(s) amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Practical Application Integration
Claims 7, 14, and 20 includes element(s) integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Response to Arguments
6. Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have also been considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments have not overcome the §101 rejections. Therefore, the rejections are maintained.
In the Remarks, the Applicant contends the following:
a. It is not possible for a human mind to dynamically determine, for different workloads submitted to a cluster comprising a plurality of heterogeneous computer systems, different homogeneity requirement sets, each homogeneity requirement set based on one or more characteristics of a respective workload and specifying one or more attributes of the computer systems required to be common across computer systems selected to perform two or more portions of the respective workload in parallel.
The Examiner disagrees.
As to (a), as noted in the rejections, the step to “dynamically determine, for different workloads submitted to a cluster comprising a plurality of heterogeneous computer systems, different homogeneity requirement sets …” merely represent processes that, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind (i.e. a mental “determination”) but for the recitation of generic computer components, in order to automate this step or perform it “dynamically.”
This amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components such as processors, basic processor instructions and/or software components or programs; and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, nor does it include other additional element(s) integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(a) Sarkar et al., US 2013/0191843 A1, teaching generating an optimized allocation of a plurality of tasks across a plurality of processors or slots for processing or execution in a distributed computing environment.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 BENJAMIN C WU whose telephone number is (571)270-5906. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 8:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M..
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, Aimee J. Li can be reached on (571)272-4169. 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.
/BENJAMIN C WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195
August 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights