DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to amendment filed on 10/14/2025.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are amended.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al (US 20220413906, hereinafter Chen), in view of Desikachari et al (US 20220027199, hereinafter Desikachari), and further in view of Huang (USPAT 7711797).
As per claim 1, Chen discloses: A computer-implemented method comprising:
identifying, by one or more processors, a job type of a job scheduled to be executed, as a plurality of batches; (Chen [0026]: “At block 410, in response to receiving a request to use computing unit 130 in computing system 110 to perform the multiple computing tasks 132, task type 310 of the multiple computing tasks 132 is identified”; [0027]: “task type 310 can be identified based on at least any one of the following: throughput and response latency requirements for the multiple computing tasks”.)
retrieving, by the one or more processors, job history data for the job type; (Chen [0031]: “At block 420, scheduling time overhead 320 incurred for scheduling the multiple computing tasks 132 for execution by computing unit 130 can be acquired. According to an example implementation of the present disclosure, scheduling time overhead 320 can be acquired based on the operating state of computing system 110. For example, the scheduling time overhead can be counted based on the operating history of computing system 110 in previous time periods. Specifically, scheduling time overhead 320 can be determined based on a difference between the length of time from committing of the computing task to obtaining of a processing result and the length of time in which the computing task is actually performed by the computing unit”.)
determining, by the one or more processors, using the job history data corresponding to the job type, a batch size of the plurality of batches for an execution of the job; (Chen [0032]: “At block 430, based on task type 310 and scheduling time overhead 320, a batch size for dividing the multiple computing tasks is determined. According to an example implementation of the present disclosure, mapping model 330 corresponding to task type 310 can be acquired first. Here, mapping model 330 describes an association relationship between the task type, the scheduling time overhead of the computing unit, and the batch size of the multiple computing tasks”.)
optimizing, by the one or more processors, the batch size of the plurality of batches; (Chen [0036]: “the mapping model described above can be acquired based on a machine learning approach. For example, this mapping model can be trained using historical data labeled by technical experts. With the example implementation of the present disclosure, machine learning techniques can be used to accumulate historical knowledge of the association relationship between task types, scheduling time overheads of computing units, and batch sizes of multiple computing tasks in order to guide the future scheduling process of computing tasks.”; [0037]: “the batch size can be determined based on the task type, the scheduling time overhead, and the mapping model. In this way, the historical knowledge in the mapping model can be effectively used to determine the batch size in the computing system during its future operation, thereby improving the performance of the computing system and making it to better meet user demands.”)
grouping subsets of a data set associated with the job into the plurality of batches; (Chen [0039]: “At block 610, a computing task can be received. Multiple computing tasks can be received one after another and one computing task can be processed in each cycle. At block 620, the total data volume of each computing task in the batch can be updated based on the data volume of the received computing task, for example, the update operation can be performed based on the following equation: Total data volume =total data volume +data volume of computing task. At block 630, the relationship between the total data volume and the batch size can be determined. If the total data volume is not greater than the batch size, method 600 proceeds to block 650 in order to add the computing task to that batch”.)
and controlling, by the one or more processors, an execution of the job by executing a plurality of sub jobs wherein each sub job is associated with one batch from the plurality of batches. (Chen [0041]: “At block 630, if the total data volume is greater than the batch size, method 600 proceeds to block 640 and commits the batch. In other words, if it is determined that the sum of the data volumes of the computing tasks in the batch is greater than the batch size, that batch is committed to computing unit 130 to cause computing unit 130 to perform the computing tasks in the committed batch. At this point, the computing tasks in the batch will be wrapped into a single data packet and occur to computing unit 130.”)
Chen did not explicitly disclose:
wherein the job comprises background job;
wherein the batch size is determined based a comparison of one or more past background jobs from the background job history data with on one or more background job thresholds;
However, Desikachari teaches:
wherein the job comprises background job; (Desikachari [0066]: “Each of batch jobs 390A-390D represents a batch process executing as part of the software application (online travel application). As noted above, each batch job 390A-390D may consists of one or more background processes.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Desikachari into that of Chen in order to have the job comprises background job. Desikachari [0066] has shown that it is commonly known in the field that batch jobs can be background jobs, applicants have thus merely claimed the combination of known part in the field to achieve predictable results and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
Huang teaches:
wherein the batch size is determined based a comparison of one or more past background jobs from the background job history data with on one or more background job thresholds; (Huang col 1, lines 48 – 55: “measuring a prefetch transfer time of a previously prefetched batch of data as an elapsed time interval from when data from the previous prefetch is first received to when the data from the previous prefetch is finished being received. The method further includes comparing the measured prefetch transfer time to a threshold value and modifying a size of a next batch of data that is to be prefetched over the network based on the comparison.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Huang into that of Chen and Desikachari in order to have the batch size is determined based a comparison of one or more past background jobs from the background job history data with on one or more background job thresholds. Chen [0036] – [0037] teaches using machine learning model, based on historical record of job execution to determine the optimal batch size. One of ordinary skill in the art can easily combine that so that the historical records is obtained from past executon compared to a threshold, which is a known technique as demonstrated by Huang, thus applicants have thus merely claimed the combination of known part in the field to achieve predictable results and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 3, the combination of Chen, Desikachari and Huang further teach:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: providing, by the one or more processors, the batch size, to a database, for storage. (Chen [0035])
As per claim 5, the combination of Chen, Desikachari and Huang further teach:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein determining, by the one or more processors, the batch size of the plurality of batches is based on a set batch size limit and a set number of batches. (Chen [0033])
As per claim 8, it is the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium variant of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 10, it is the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium variant of claim 3 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 12, it is the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium variant of claim 5 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it is system variant of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 17, it is system variant of claim 3 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 19, it is system variant of claim 5 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 2, 9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, Desikachari and Huang, and further in view of Shimpi et al (US 20230103795, hereinafter Shimpi).
As per claim 2, the combination of Chen, Desikachari and Huang did not teach:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying, by the one or more processors, that the background job history data comprises a critical background job.
However, Shimpi teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying, by the one or more processors, that the background job history data comprises a critical background job. (Shimpi [0006] – [0007])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Shimpi into that of Chen, Desikachari and Huang in order to identify that the background job history data comprises a critical background job. Shimpi [0005] teaches such combination would allow “predicting dynamic behavior of overall batch job providing early warning of potential interruptions and if any deadline delays”, and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 9, it is the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium variant of claim 2 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 16, it is system variant of claim 2 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 4, 11 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, Desikachari and Huang, and further in view of Liu et al (US 20210263770, hereinafter Liu).
As per claim 4, the combination of Chen, Desikachari and Huang did not teach:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more background job thresholds comprise a maximum duration of the execution of the background job.
However, Liu teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more background job thresholds comprise a maximum duration of the execution of the background job. (Liu [0032]: threshold duration.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Liu into that of Chen, Desikachari and Huang in order to have the one or more background job thresholds comprise a maximum duration of the execution of the background job. Liu [0032] teaches the claimed “maximum duration” is merely a commonly known and used constraint for a computing job, applicant have thus merely claimed an obvious design choice and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 11, it is the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium variant of claim 4 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 18, it is system variant of claim 4 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 6 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, Desikachari and Huang, and further in view of Liu et al (US 20210263770, hereinafter Liu).
As per claim 6, the combination of Chen, Desikachari and Huang did not teach:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the background job comprises entity identifiers of a set of data items associated to a plurality of entities.
However, Wu teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the background job comprises entity identifiers of a set of data items associated to a plurality of entities. (Wu [0039])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Wu into that of Chen, Desikachari and Huang in order to have the background job comprises entity identifiers of a set of data items associated to a plurality of entities. Wu [0039] teaches the claimed limitation is merely a commonly known and used data to be collected for a computing job as part of the job history, applicant have thus merely claimed an obvious design choice and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 13, it is the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium variant of claim 6 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, Desikachari and Huang, and further in view of Sakurai (US 20180074807).
As per claim 7, the combination of Chen, Desikachari and Huang did not teach:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying a tenant associated with the background job, wherein the background job history is associated with the tenant.
However, Sakurai teaches:
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying a tenant associated with the background job, wherein the background job history is associated with the tenant. (Sakurai [0046])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Sakurai into that of Chen, Desikachari and Huang in order to identify a tenant associated with the background job, wherein the background job history is associated with the tenant. Sakurai [0045] teaches the claimed limitation is merely a commonly known and used data to be collected for a computing job as part of the job history, applicant have thus merely claimed an obvious design choice and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 14, it is the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium variant of claim 7 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, Desikachari and Huang, and further in view of Wu and Sakurai.
As per claim 7, the combination of Chen, Desikachari and Huang did not teach:
The system of claim 15, wherein the background job comprises entity identifiers of a set of data items associated to a plurality of entities and wherein the operations further comprise: identifying a tenant associated with the background job, wherein the background job history is associated with the tenant.
However, Wu teaches:
wherein the background job comprises entity identifiers of a set of data items associated to a plurality of entities. (Wu [0039])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Wu into that of Chen, Desikachari and Huang in order to have the background job comprises entity identifiers of a set of data items associated to a plurality of entities. Wu [0039] teaches the claimed limitation is merely a commonly known and used data to be collected for a computing job as part of the job history, applicant have thus merely claimed an obvious design choice and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
Sakurai teaches:
and wherein the operations further comprise: identifying a tenant associated with the background job, wherein the background job history is associated with the tenant. (Sakurai [0046])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Sakurai into that of Chen, Desikachari, Huang and Wu in order to identify a tenant associated with the background job, wherein the background job history is associated with the tenant. Sakurai [0045] teaches the claimed limitation is merely a commonly known and used data to be collected for a computing job as part of the job history, applicant have thus merely claimed an obvious design choice and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 CHARLES M SWIFT whose telephone number is (571)270-7756. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 7PM.
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 Blair can be reached at 5712701014. 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.
/CHARLES M SWIFT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2196