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
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 9-10, 12-16 and 18-25 are pending. Claims 2, 5, 8, 11, and 17 are canceled by Applicant. Claims 22-25 are newly added by Applicant.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs and/or columns and lines in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims 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 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. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06.
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.
Request for Continued Examination
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/30/2026 has been entered.
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, 10, 12, 15-16, 18, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Kumar et al. (US 2020/0042364) (hereinafter Kumar as previously cited) in view of
Kulkarni et al. (US 2016/0140001) (hereinafter Kulkarni) in view of
Pulijala et al. (US 2011/0110234) (hereinafter Pulijala).
As per claim 1, Kumar primarily teaches the invention as claimed including a computer-implemented method comprising:
obtaining one or more threshold values ([0047] first and second thresholds for different nodes of the cluster) for each of a plurality of nodes in at least one cluster of a container-based computing environment (fig. 2, blocks 204 cluster, 210 node, 228 container), wherein the one or more threshold values are configured for one or more corresponding resource types ([0061] processor utilization threshold and memory utilization threshold and [0064] processor utilization threshold and memory utilization threshold);
obtaining resource consumption data for each of the plurality of nodes ([0060] populating resource consumption table for node clusters);
determining, based at least in part on the one or more obtained threshold values and the
obtained resource consumption data, a set of available nodes from among the plurality of nodes
for processing incoming requests to the container-based computing environment ([0061] if processor consumption is less than processor utilization threshold and memory consumption is less than memory utilization threshold then an external service is suitable for being hosted in the computing node and [0064] if processor consumption exceeds processor utilization threshold and memory consumption exceeds memory utilization threshold then the external service is not suitable for being hosted in the computing node),
wherein the method is performed by at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory (fig. 6, blocks 602-604).
Kumar does not explicitly teach:
wherein the determining comprises: (i) maintaining a list comprising a respective identifier for each node in the set of available nodes, (ii) determining that the resource consumption data for a given node in the set of available nodes exceeds at least one of the one or more threshold values for the given node, and (iii) dynamically removing the given node from the list in response to the determining, such that the removing prevents routing of new incoming requests to the given node while the given node continues to process previously routed requests; and
initiating network routing of the incoming requests to one or more nodes in the set of
available nodes based at least in part on the list.
However, Kulkarni teaches:
wherein the determining comprises: (i) maintaining a list comprising a respective identifier for each node in the set of available nodes ([0015] and [0020] identify a list of candidate nodes in the cluster available to process jobs; [0040] each node identified; [0043] determine whether more nodes identified remain to be considered), (ii) determining that the resource consumption data for a given node in the set of available nodes exceeds at least one of the one or more threshold values for the given node ([0025] if the node currently has a resource utilization level that exceeds a threshold, the application-network controller may prune the node from the candidate nodes and [0041] application-network controller determines that the current node has a current resource utilization level that exceeds an acceptable threshold, and then removes the current node from the candidate list), and (iii) dynamically removing the given node from the list in response to the determining ([0046] application-network controller removes the current node from the candidate list of reduce nodes and adds the current node to the second “to be considered later” list upon determining that the current node has current resource utilization levels that exceed acceptable thresholds); and
initiating network routing of the incoming requests to one or more nodes in the set of
available nodes based at least in part on the list ([0041] and [0046] the application-network controller may move a current node to a final list for map nodes upon determining that the current node is healthy i.e., not affected by major errors or multiple minor errors and has acceptable levels of current and projected resource utilization i.e., the levels of resource utilization do not exceed a resource utilization threshold. By adding healthy nodes having levels of resource utilization that do not exceed the utilization threshold, the application-network controller may modify the network topology to only provide nodes that are best suited to process the MapReduce job. The application-network controller considers the nodes from the final list which are best suited to host the MapReduce job).
Kulkarni and Kumar are both concerned with node management in computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kumar in view of Kulkarni because it would provide a way to select the best remaining node in the candidate set of nodes. The best remaining node may be determined by any method, including scoring each node based on the node's health and/or the node's resource utilization levels. The nodes may be scored by any suitable scoring algorithm, such as an algorithm weighting health, number of major and/or minor errors affecting the node, a hardware configuration of the node, and current and/or future resource utilization levels. For example, if the node is healthy, not affected by any errors, and has relatively low resource utilization levels, the node may receive a relatively high score. Similarly, the amount and type of hardware resources may affect the score for the node. For example, if node A has a faster CPU, more RAM, more storage capacity, and more network and/or I/O (input/output storage access) bandwidth than node B, then node A would have a higher score than node B (all else being equal).
Kumar in view of Kulkarni do not explicitly teach such that the removing prevents routing of new incoming requests to the given node while the given node continues to process previously routed requests.
However, Pulijala teaches such that the removing prevents routing of new incoming requests to the given node while the given node continues to process previously routed requests (abstract; [0019]; [0043]; fig. 5 a network node can periodically or continuously measure the quantity of regular message traffic being processed by the network node. If the node detects that the quantity of regular message traffic being processed has decreased below the first predefined limit, it can initiate/continue the processing of the reserved bulk messages. The node then continues to process and transmit the reserved bulk messages while still measuring the quantity of message traffic being processed by the network node. If, thereafter, the node detects that the quantity of overall message traffic being processed has exceeded a second predefined limit, the processing of bulk messages is halted by either abruptly dropping any bulk messages from the node or by precluding the node from retrieving anymore bulk messages from the queue, until the quantity of regular traffic decreases below the first limit once again, at which point the node can resume processing the bulk message traffic).
Pulijala and Kumar are both concerned with node management in computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kumar in view of Kulkarni in view of Pulijala because it would provide a way to advantageously schedule bulk messaging traffic to be transmitted gradually and in an optimized manner, so as not to overload the network nodes which are also processing regular traffic. For example, a network operator typically sets limits on the amount of message traffic that can be processed by its nodes in order to guarantee service. If these limits are exceeded, a node may throw an exception or generate some other error indicating that the node is overloaded and that the message could not be sent and may need to be re-tried again later. Because of these limits and the processing load on the operator's network, it is important to ensure that a bulk messaging campaign does not overwhelm the network nodes and interfere with the processing of regular traffic being transmitted by the subscribers. This can be achieved by implementing a traffic handling and scheduling policy.
As per claim 3, Pulijala teaches adding the given node back to the set of available nodes in response to determining that the resource consumption data for the given node falls below the at least one threshold value for the given node (abstract; [0019]; [0043]; fig. 5 a network node can periodically or continuously measure the quantity of regular message traffic being processed by the network node. If the node detects that the quantity of regular message traffic being processed has decreased below the first predefined limit, it can initiate the processing of the reserved bulk messages. The node then continues to process and transmit the reserved bulk messages while still measuring the quantity of message traffic being processed by the network node. If, thereafter, the node detects that the quantity of overall message traffic being processed has exceeded a second predefined limit, the processing of bulk messages is halted. This halting can be implemented by either abruptly dropping any bulk messages from the node or by precluding the node from retrieving anymore bulk messages from the queue, until the quantity of regular traffic decreases below the first limit once again, at which point the node can resume processing the bulk message traffic).
As per claim 6, Kumar further teaches wherein the resource consumption data corresponds to one or more of: a number of pods currently deployed on a given one of the nodes; a number of incoming requests over a given time interval; and consumption data for one or more types of resources ([0061] and [0064] processor consumption and memory consumption).
As per claim 10, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 12, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 16, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 18, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 25, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 4, 9, 13-14, 19-20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar in view of Kulkarni in view of Pulijala in view of Rao (US 2004/0177353) (as previously cited).
As per claim 4, Pulijala teaches processing the one or more further incoming requests in response to one of the plurality of nodes being added to the set of available nodes (abstract; [0019]; [0043]; fig. 5 a network node can periodically or continuously measure the quantity of regular message traffic being processed by the network node. If the node detects that the quantity of regular message traffic being processed has decreased below the first predefined limit, it can initiate the processing of the reserved bulk messages. The node then continues to process and transmit the reserved bulk messages while still measuring the quantity of message traffic being processed by the network node. If, thereafter, the node detects that the quantity of overall message traffic being processed has exceeded a second predefined limit, the processing of bulk messages is halted. This halting can be implemented by either abruptly dropping any bulk messages from the node or by precluding the node from retrieving anymore bulk messages from the queue, until the quantity of regular traffic decreases below the first limit once again, at which point the node can resume processing the bulk message traffic).
Kumar in view of Kulkarni in view of Pulijala do not explicitly teach in response to determining that the set of available nodes is empty, queuing one or more further incoming requests.
However, Rao teaches in response to determining that the set of available nodes is empty, queuing one or more further incoming requests ([0063] queue a plurality of incoming requests that cannot be managed immediately by the plurality of device servers).
Rao and Kumar are both concerned with managing service requests in computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kumar in view of Kulkarni in view of Pulijala in view of Rao because it would provide a computation for identifying an additional service in the order of hosting cost of the clusters which provides a maximum possible cost saving, as the movement of the service from a cluster having a higher hosting cost provides more cost saving than movement of the service from a cluster having a lower hosting cost. At an opportune instance, the service in that cluster is moved to the another cluster so that the performance of the services can be improved.
As per claim 9, Kumar in view of Kulkarni in view of Pulijala do not explicitly teach wherein the initiating the routing of the incoming requests comprises: selecting, by a load balancer that is external to the at least one cluster, the one or more nodes in the set of available nodes using a load balancing algorithm.
However, Rao teaches wherein the initiating the routing of the incoming requests comprises: selecting, by a load balancer that is external to the at least one cluster, the one or more nodes in the set of available nodes using a load balancing algorithm (fig. 2, block 227 load balancer is external to the servers and [0069] load balancer determines which servers are available for fulfilling a request).
Rao and Kumar are both concerned with managing service requests in computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kumar in view of Kulkarni in view of Pulijala in view of Rao because it would provide a way of determining that an incoming access request must be temporarily denied, and communicate an appropriate message to the end-user/electronic device. For example, a denial of service message may be displayed at the electronic device. The denial of service message may comprise an explanation of the request processing denial and/or may comprise instructions for the end-user to try again at some later scheduled time, for example, when the electronic device network incoming request load (volume) is predicted to be sufficiently reduced to permit facilitation and fulfillment of additional incoming access requests. By communicating the explanatory message(s) and schedule(s) information, the end-user may be less frustrated or aggravated and better able to understand why the denial of service occurred and when the end-user request may be uneventfully processed.
As per claims 13-14, they have similar limitations as claim 4 and are therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claims 19-20, they have similar limitations as claim 4 and are therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 23, it has similar limitations as claim 9 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 7 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar in view of Kulkarni in view of Pulijala in view of Dasgupta et al. (US 2020/0264926) (hereinafter Dasgupta as previously cited).
As per claim 7, Kumar in view of Kulkarni in view of Pulijala do not explicitly teach wherein the resource consumption data for a given node of the plurality of nodes is obtained from an auxiliary application running on the given node.
However, Dasgupta teaches wherein the resource consumption data for a given node of the plurality of nodes is obtained from an auxiliary application running on the given node ([0035]-[0036] side-car application i.e., auxiliary application checkpoints application based on resource usage).
Dasgupta and Kumar are both concerned with managing requests in computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kumar in view of Kulkarni in view of Pulijala in view of Dasgupta because it would provide a way of utilizing cloud resources having less than a full complement of necessary computing resources resulting a reduction in latency and faster turn-around execution time for clients, as well as more completely utilizing system resources by reducing resource idle time. Therefore, an application can be deployed to a resource most capable of completing the execution and having the greatest availability of resources among members of the set of resources which most completely satisfies the requirements of the application.
As per claim 22, it has similar limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 21 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar in view of Kulkarni in view of Pulijala in view of Chen et al. (US 2018/0331969) (hereinafter Chen as previously cited).
As per claim 21, Kumar in view of Kulkarni in view of Pulijala do not explicitly teach wherein the one or more nodes in the set of available nodes comprise one or more ports configured to expose a service for dynamic access to a group of pods that process the incoming requests.
However, Chen teaches wherein the one or more nodes in the set of available nodes comprise one or more ports configured to expose a service for dynamic access to a group of pods that process the incoming requests ([0018] service ports are exposed to allow network traffic between pods and [0039] expose service ports associated with a pod).
Chen and Kumar are both concerned with managing requests in computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kumar in view of Kulkarni in view of Pulijala in view of Chen because it would provide for a scheduler which offers the benefit of filtering/ranking hosts based on both resource availability and complexity, such as overlay network complexity weight, which is a technology-based solution that overcomes the disadvantages of scheduling containers according to generic and conventional methods. The scheduler executing on a processor acts in concert with containers and hosts to provide a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement that improve existing container scheduling techniques to reduce the quantity of overlay networks, and thus reduce the amount of overlay network rule updates thereby increasing the utilization rate of physical processors for running container applications and reducing overhead.
As per claim 24, it has similar limitations as claim 21 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102/103 prior art rejections on pg. 9-11 of the Remarks have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Dalton et al. (US 2014/0189039) in at least [0028] disclose deciding whether the data processing node has sufficient resources to handle an incoming request and, if not, rejecting it and [0056] disclose steering or limiting incoming requests to applications on a cluster of nodes. Assuming that temperature, load, or any combination of per-node factors in a given cluster fitness function is being steered, the incoming environmental data is processed and then decisions are made on how to steer load towards services which are, for example, below the mean utilization, to increase the performance contribution of those nodes on the fly. At the same time, load is steered away from nodes that are over-loaded according to the fitness function.
McCormick et al. (US 2002/0080780) in at least [0045] disclose discarding incoming data units when congestion exists within an intermediate processor. A buffer of limited size may be present at a queuing point such that when the limits of this limited buffer are exceeded, discarding of the incoming data units occurs until the congestion is alleviated.
Petropoulos et al. (US 2018/0285418) in at least [0044] and [0051] disclose that load balancing may ensure that incoming requests are not directed to busy or overloaded processing nodes.
Yang et al. (US 2016/0156748) in at least [0077] disclose that during peak use hours, overload situations may occur. Overload situations occur when there are high congestion levels in the various nodes in the network. When a network node is overloaded, some incoming messages must be dropped or rejected. In order to attempt to relieve such overload situations, different priority levels may be assigned to different types of communications or users. Thus, if it is not possible to handle all incoming communications, communications which comprise a higher priority may be processed first. Therefore, higher prioritized communications are likely to be processed and lower prioritized communications are more likely to be dropped or rejected if needed due to congestion
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam Lee whose telephone number is (571) 270-3369. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 8AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the above noted Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Vital, can be reached at the following telephone number: (571) 272-4215. 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.
/Adam Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198 April 6, 2026
Prosecution Insights