DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
This action is responsive to the Remark filed on 10/2425.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-16 is/are presented for examination.
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 of this title, 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, 9 & 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frigerio, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. 2014/0095321 A1 in view of Inbaraj, U.S. Pub. No. US 20190166032 A1, and Castinado, US 2019/0034922 A1, and further in view of McCanna, US 2012/0157042 A1.
As to claim 1, Frigerio teaches a processing network for allocating resources, the processing network comprising:
a data center including multiple nodes, a message broker computing device, and a resource manager computing device in communication with the multiple nodes (Frigerio, page 4, paragraph 66; i.e., [0066] A database 6 of the charitable institutions that can receive allocated resources is created and made available on the Web (e.g. on the third party's Web site). This database 6 contains the name of each charitable institution and a list of projects that each charitable institution is managing. Preferably, the database 6 is displayed in map form, with the various running projects (funded by each charitable institution) displayed in the geographical place where each project is conducted), the resource manager computing device configured, by first executable instructions to:
allocate resources for an institution, from a resource pool specific to the institution, to each of the multiple nodes (Frigerio, page 3, paragraph 40; i.e., [0040] Concerning the choice of the charitable institution for resource allocation, a list of charitable institutions that can receive the donation is created. Each charitable institution
indicates which special projects will be elected to receive the collected amounts, such that the donor may select desired charitable institution's for allocation of at least one proportional share of the capital gain generated by the fund shares. Toolbars can be also provided that may facilitate acknowledgement of the share value, the real time fund value and the need indicators for all situations, that also change in real time);
wherein the resource manager computing device is further is configured, by the first executable instructions, to:
receive a request, from one of the multiple nodes, for additional resources for the institution (Frigerio, page 2, paragraph 33; page 4, paragraph 67-68; i.e., [0033] In
addition to the above mentioned sum paid to the Internet content provider, the advertiser allocates an additional sum (preferably determined as a percentage of the sum paid to the Internet content provider) to the purchase of the investment fund shares; [0067] Those who hold shares of the investment fund 1 may also elect to allocate additional resources to the selected charitable institution; [0068] Such additional resources may be an additional proportional share of the capital gain generated by the fund shares and/or the whole capital gain generated by the fund shares and/or part of the fund shares held and/or all the fund shares held.);
in response to the request, determine whether the resource pool specific to the institution includes the additional resources, which are not allocated to the multiple nodes (Frigerio, , page 3, paragraph 40; page 4, paragraph 67-68; i.e., [0040] Concerning the choice of the charitable institution for resource allocation, a list of charitable institutions that can receive the donation is created. Each charitable institution indicates which special projects will be elected to receive the collected amounts, such that the donor may select desired charitable institution's for allocation of at least one proportional share of the capital gain generated by the fund shares. [0067] Those who hold shares of the investment fund 1 may also elect to allocate additional resources to the selected charitable institution; [0068] Such additional resources may be an additional proportional share of the capital gain generated by the fund shares and/or the whole capital gain generated by the fund shares and/or part of the fund shares held and/or all the fund shares held).
But Frigerio failed to teach the claim limitation wherein each of the multiple nodes being a cloud-based computing device; the message broker computing device is configured, by second executable instructions, to distribute a plurality of real time transactions, specific to the institution, to the multiple nodes, whereby the multiple nodes utilize the allocated resources for the institution to process the real time transactions; and based on determining that the additional resources are not included in the resource pool specific to the institution, instruct the one of the multiple nodes to shut down and return remaining resources already allocated to the one of the multiple nodes to the resource pool specific to the institution; wherein, in response to the instruction to shut down, the one of the multiple nodes is configured to: halt responding to the message broker computing device of the data center; process transactions included in a queue associated with the one of the multiple nodes; and return a remaining portion of the resources allocated to the one of the multiple nodes to the resource manager.
However, Inbaraj teaches the limitation wherein each of the multiple nodes being a cloud-based computing device (Inbaraj, page 1, paragraph 3; i.e., [0003] use of pooled and / or configurable computing resources . These pooled and / or configurable computing resources may include physical infrastructure for cloud computing networks); based on determining that the additional resources are not included in the resource pool specific to the institution, instruct the one of the multiple nodes to shut down and return remaining resources already allocated to the one of the multiple nodes to the resource pool specific to the institution (Inbaraj, page 5, paragraph 54; page 8, paragraph 86; page 9, paragraph 88; i.e., [0054] The PSME 232 may also provide individual node reset support including power on and power off of the drawer and
modules ( e . g . , the module 240 and the computing blade 250 ) that are managed by the PSME 232; [0086] When a composed - node such as the compute node 511 ( 1 ) is decomposed , the physical elements allocated for that composed - node is returned back to the resource pool 320; [0088] The resource manager 401 instructs or operates the computing racks 112 - 1 to 112 - n to return the resources of the compute node 511 ( 1 ) to the resource pool 320).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Frigerio to resource utilization from Inbaraj for management system from Frigerio to optimize resources used to manage the physical infrastructure (Inbaraj, page 1, paragraph 3).
However, Castinado teaches the limitation wherein the message broker computing device is configured, by second executable instructions, to distribute a plurality of real time transactions, specific to the institution, to the multiple nodes, whereby the multiple nodes utilize the allocated resources for the institution to process the real time transactions (Castinado, page 2, paragraph 24 & 27; page 4, paragraph 38; i.e., [0024] executing real-time processing of resource transfers using distributed ledger technology. The first entity and the second entity may each have a plurality of computing systems which serve as nodes of the blockchain; [0027] Typically, the first entity node 110 is owned and/or operated by a first entity, and the second entity node 120 is owned and/or operated by a second entity plurality of nodes (e.g. the first entity node 110 may represent multiple nodes under control of the first entity). For instance, the first entity and the second entity may be financial institutions, and the resource transfer may be a transaction to transfer funds from one account to another. The threshold number of nodes needed to validate the transaction may be selected to balance validation speed versus transaction reliability and security (i.e. requiring fewer nodes to validate a transaction may lead to higher computing speeds but relatively lower security and/or reliability, and vice versa)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Frigerio to utilize batch processing from Frigerio to provide an efficient and secure way of executing and validating resource transfers in real-time or near real-time (Castinado, page 1, paragraph 2).
However, McCanna teaches the limitation wherein halt responding to the message broker computing device of the data center (McCanna, page 15, paragraph 215; i.e., [0215] terminated message for conformation, the result of the mobile initiated message responsive to the initial mobile terminated message for conformation); process transactions included in a queue associated with the one of the multiple nodes (McCanna, page 15, paragraph 214 & 223; i.e., [0214] the transaction engine for
directing the sequences of the processing operations of the transaction. Thus, the processing sequence for a particular transaction; [0223] processing the transaction without the acceleration (and thus with a minimum risk) is above a threshold.); return a remaining portion of the resources allocated to the one of the multiple nodes to the resource manager (McCanna, page 13, paragraph 187 & 193; i.e., [0187] to repay the loan on behalf of the merchant and settles with the merchant and the lender (431) at the end of the term of the loan; [0193] After the funds collected via the second premium messages become available, the interchange (101) applies the funds toward the repayment of the loan).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Frigerio-Inbaraj-Castinado to substitute service provider from Seely for Internet content provider from Frigerio-Inbaraj-Castinado to mobile communications to facilitate online transactions (McCanna, page 1, paragraph 3).
Claim(s) 9 & 16 is/are directed to a method claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 1. Therefore, claim(s) 9 & 16 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 1.
Claim(s) 2-4, 6 & 10-12, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frigerio, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. 2014/0095321 A1 in view of Inbaraj, U.S. Pub. No. US 20190166032 A1, and Castinado, US 2019/0034922 A1, and McCanna, US 2012/0157042 A1, and further in view of Dunjic, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. 2018/0365670 A1.
As to claim 2, Frigerio-Inbaraj-Castinado-McCanna teaches the processing network as recited in claim 1. But Frigerio-Inbaraj-Castinado-McCanna failed to teach the claim limitation wherein the resource manager computing device is configured, by the first executable instructions, to adjust the resource pool specific to the institution, via an entry to a ledger, based on the allocation of resources to each of the multiple nodes.
However, Dunjic teaches the limitation wherein the resource manager computing device is configured, by the first executable instructions, to adjust the resource pool specific to the institution, via an entry to a ledger, based on the allocation of resources to each of the multiple nodes (Dunjic, page 3, paragraph 21 & 24; i.e., [0021] Transactions involving these digital-currency accounts (e.g., transfers of the customer's digital currency to other parties and/or transfers of digital currency held by the other parties to the customer) may be tracked within a distributed ledger data structure, such as a publicly accessible block-chain ledger that includes time-stamped and validated blocks representative of individual transactions or groups of transactions involving the customer's digital currency; [0024] initiates a transfer funds from a financial services account of the customer to the stored-value account maintained by the issuing financial institution. Upon execution and settlement, the transfer of funds may "load" the stored-value account with funds available for use in purchase transactions, and adjust to reflect a transaction amount of these purchases (e.g., by reducing an available balance of the transferred funds)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Frigerio-Inbaraj-Castinado-McCanna to execute instruction from Dunjic for management system from Frigerio-Inbaraj-Castinado-McCanna to continuously evolve in response to advances in payment instruments (Dunjic, page 1, paragraph 2).
As to claim 3, Frigerio-Inbaraj-Castinado-McCanna teaches the processing network as recited in claim 1, wherein the resources allocated to each of the multiple nodes includes funds (Frigerio, page 3, paragraph 40; i.e., [0040] Concerning the choice of the charitable institution for resource allocation, a list of charitable institutions that can receive the donation is created. Each charitable institution indicates which special projects will be elected to receive the collected amounts, such that the donor may select desired charitable institution's for allocation of at least one proportional share of the capital gain generated by the fund shares. Toolbars can be also provided that may facilitate acknowledgement of the share value, the real time fund value and the need indicators for all situations, that also change in real time).
But Frigerio-Inbaraj-Castinado-McCanna failed to teach the claim limitation wherein the resource manager computing device is further configured, by the first executable instructions, to adjust funds in the resource pool specific to the institution based on the allocation of funds for the institution to each of the multiple nodes.
However, Dunjic teaches the limitation wherein the resource manager computing device is further configured, by the first executable instructions, to adjust funds in the resource pool specific to the institution based on the allocation of funds for the institution to each of the multiple nodes (Dunjic, page 3, paragraph 21 & 24; i.e., [0021] Transactions involving these digital-currency accounts (e.g., transfers of the customer's digital currency to other parties and/or transfers of digital currency held by the other parties to the customer) may be tracked within a distributed ledger data structure, such as a publicly accessible block-chain ledger that includes time-stamped and validated blocks representative of individual transactions or groups of transactions involving the customer's digital currency; [0024] initiates a transfer funds from a financial services account of the customer to the stored-value account maintained by the issuing financial institution. Upon execution and settlement, the transfer of funds may "load" the stored-value account with funds available for use in purchase transactions, and adjust to reflect a transaction amount of these purchases (e.g., by reducing an available balance of the transferred funds)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Frigerio-Inbaraj-Castinado-McCanna to execute instruction from Dunjic for management system from Frigerio-Inbaraj-Castinado-McCanna to continuously evolve in response to advances in payment instruments (Dunjic, page 1, paragraph 2).
As to claim 4, Frigerio-Inbaraj-Castinado-McCanna teaches the processing network as recited in claim 3. But Frigerio-Inbaraj-Castinado-McCanna failed to teach the claim limitation wherein the resource manager computing device is configured, by the first executable instructions, to adjust the funds in the resource pool, via an entry to a ledger indicative of the resource pool.
However, Dunjic teaches the limitation wherein the resource manager computing device is configured, by the first executable instructions, to adjust the funds in the resource pool, via an entry to a ledger indicative of the resource pool (Dunjic, page 3, paragraph 21 & 24; i.e., [0021] Transactions involving these digital-currency accounts (e.g., transfers of the customer's digital currency to other parties and/or transfers of digital currency held by the other parties to the customer) may be tracked within a distributed ledger data structure, such as a publicly accessible block-chain ledger that includes time-stamped and validated blocks representative of individual transactions or groups of transactions involving the customer's digital currency; [0024] initiates a transfer funds from a financial services account of the customer to the stored-value account maintained by the issuing financial institution. Upon execution and settlement, the transfer of funds may "load" the stored-value account with funds available for use in purchase transactions, and a computing system of the issuing financial institution (e.g., an "issuer" computing system) may maintain, within one or more structured data repositories, data associating the stored-value account with the transferred funds, and adjust to reflect a transaction amount of these purchases (e.g., by reducing an available balance of the transferred funds)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Frigerio-Inbaraj-Castinado-McCanna to execute instruction from Dunjic for management system from Frigerio-Inbaraj-Castinado-McCanna to continuously evolve in response to advances in payment instruments (Dunjic, page 1, paragraph 2).
As to claim 6, Frigerio-Inbaraj-Castinado-McCanna teaches the processing network as recited in claim 1, wherein allocate additional resources for the institution, from the resource pool specific to the institution, to the one of the multiple nodes (Frigerio, page 3, paragraph 40; i.e., [0040] Concerning the choice of the charitable institution for resource allocation, a list of charitable institutions that can receive the donation is created. Each charitable institution indicates which special projects will be elected to receive the collected amounts, such that the donor may select desired charitable institution's for allocation of at least one proportional share of the capital gain generated by the fund shares. Toolbars can be also provided that may facilitate acknowledgement of the share value, the real time fund value and the need indicators for all situations, that also change in real time).
But Frigerio-Inbaraj-Castinado-McCanna failed to teach the claim limitation adjust resources in the resource pool specific to the institution based on the allocation of the additional resources to the one of the multiple nodes.
However, Dunjic teaches the limitation wherein adjust resources in the resource pool specific to the institution based on the allocation of the additional resources to the one of the multiple nodes (Dunjic, page 3, paragraph 21 & 24; i.e., [0021] Transactions involving these digital-currency accounts (e.g., transfers of the customer's digital currency to other parties and/or transfers of digital currency held by the other parties to the customer) may be tracked within a distributed ledger data structure, such as a publicly accessible block-chain ledger that includes time-stamped and validated blocks representative of individual transactions or groups of transactions involving the customer's digital currency; [0024] initiates a transfer funds from a financial services account of the customer to the stored-value account maintained by the issuing financial institution. Upon execution and settlement, the transfer of funds may "load" the stored-value account with funds available for use in purchase transactions, and a computing system of the issuing financial institution (e.g., an "issuer" computing system) may maintain, within one or more structured data repositories, data associating the stored-value account with the transferred funds, and adjust to reflect a transaction amount of these purchases (e.g., by reducing an available balance of the transferred funds)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Frigerio-Inbaraj-Castinado-McCanna to execute instruction from Dunjic for management system from Frigerio-Inbaraj-Castinado-McCanna to continuously evolve in response to advances in payment instruments (Dunjic, page 1, paragraph 2).
Claim(s) 10-12, 14 is/are directed to a method claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 2-4, 6. Therefore, claim(s) 10-12, 14 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 2-4, 6.
Claim(s) 5, 8 & 13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frigerio, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. 2014/0095321 A1 in view of Inbaraj, U.S. Pub. No. US 20190166032 A1, and Castinado, US 2019/0034922 A1, and McCanna, US 2012/0157042 A1, and further in view of Seely, U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0068515 A1.
As to claim 5, Frigerio-Inbaraj-Castinado-McCanna teaches the processing network as recited in claim 1, wherein the multiple nodes include debit nodes dedicated to debit ones of the real time transactions and credit nodes dedicated to credit ones of the real time transactions (Frigerio, page 1, paragraph 4; i.e., [0004] sending simple sms messages for crediting a predetermined sum to a bank account after drawing it out of the telephone account of the donor, has been shown to allow large amounts of money to be collected and allocated to charitable activities).
But Frigerio-Inbaraj-Castinado-McCanna failed to teach the claim limitation wherein the resource manager computing device is configured, by the first executable instructions, to increase the resource pool based on a notification from one of the credit nodes.
However, Seely teaches the limitation wherein the resource manager computing device is configured, by the first executable instructions, to increase the resource pool based on a notification from one of the credit nodes (Seely, page 5, paragraph 42; i.e., [0042] Comparing the redeemed amount of the allocated first amount of packet transmission credits to the credit threshold may include determining the packet transmission credit threshold. Determining the packet transmission credit threshold may include determining one or more of a packet transmission credit increment threshold and/or a packet transmission decrement threshold relative to the allocated first amount of packet transmission credits. A packet transmission increment threshold may include a threshold value and/or range of values of packet transmission credits redeemed by the source node 102 that will trigger an increase in the amount of packet transmission credits allocated to the source node 102 in a subsequent allocation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Frigerio-Inbaraj-Castinado-McCanna to substitute amount packet transmission credit from Seely for allocate resource from Frigerio-Inbaraj-Castinado-McCanna to monitor and/or control the traffic of data across the network may be utilized (Seely, page 1, paragraph 1).
As to claim 8, Frigerio-Inbaraj-Castinado-McCanna teaches the processing network as recited in claim 1. But Frigerio-Inbaraj-Castinado-McCanna failed to teach the claim limitation wherein determine whether the resources allocated to the node exceeds an amount of the real time transaction; and in response to the resources allocated to the node exceeding an amount, adjust the resource allocated to the node by the amount.
However, Seely teaches the limitation wherein determine whether the resources allocated to the node exceeds an amount of the real time transaction (Seely, page 5, paragraph 42; page 8, paragraph 69; i.e., [0042] A packet transmission increment threshold may include a threshold value and/or range of values of packet transmission credits redeemed by the source node 102 that will trigger an increase in the amount of packet transmission credits allocated to the source node 102 in a subsequent allocation); and in response to the resources allocated to the node exceeding the amount, adjust the resource allocated to the node by the amount (Seely, page 3, paragraph 28; i.e., [0028] adjust the amount of packet transmission credits allocated thereto. In this manner, system 100 bandwidth and/or space on the fabric 106 may be preserved by eliminating the request and reply messages. Further, the source node 102 sends requests and/or waits for replies and/or arrival confirmations).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Frigerio-Inbaraj-Castinado-McCanna to substitute amount packet transmission from Seely for allocate resource from Frigerio-Inbaraj-Castinado-McCanna to monitor and/or control the traffic of data across the network may be utilized (Seely, page 1, paragraph 1).
Claim(s) 13, 15 is/are directed to a method claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 5, 8. Therefore, claim(s) 13, 15 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 5, 8.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6, 8-16 has/have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. Applicant’s arguments include the failure of previously applied art to expressly disclose “wherein, in response to the instruction to shut down, the one of the multiple nodes is configured to: halt responding to the message broker computing device of the data center; process transactions included in a queue associated with the one of the multiple nodes; and return a remaining portion of the resources allocated to the one of the multiple nodes to the resource manager” (see Applicant’s response, 9/23/25, page 11). It is evident from the detailed mappings found in the above rejection(s) that *1st reference* disclosed this functionality (see McCanna, page 15, paragraph 214-215, 223). Further, it is clear from the numerous teachings (previously and currently cited) that the provision for “wherein, in response to the instruction to shut down, the one of the multiple nodes is configured to: halt responding to the message broker computing device of the data center; process transactions included in a queue associated with the one of the multiple nodes; and return a remaining portion of the resources allocated to the one of the multiple nodes to the resource manager” was widely implemented in the networking art. Thus, Applicant’s arguments drawn toward distinction of the claimed invention and the prior art teachings on this point are not considered persuasive.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument(s) filed 9/23/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1
Appellant argues on page 9 of the Argument (claim(s) 1, 9 & 16),
“At [0054], for example, Inbaraj discloses that the PSME 232 provides reset support to power on and power off of a drawer and modules. In this specific paragraph, there is no reason given for why the PSME 232 would power off the drawer or modules.”.
Examiner’s response to Argument 1:
As describe in Inbaraj (Inbaraj, page 5, paragraph 54; page 8, paragraph 86; page 9, paragraph 88; i.e., [0054] The PSME 232 may also provide individual node reset support including power on and power off of the drawer and modules ( e . g . , the module 240 and the computing blade 250 ) that are managed by the PSME 232; [0086] When a composed - node such as the compute node 511 ( 1 ) is decomposed , the physical elements allocated for that composed - node is returned back to the resource pool 320; [0088] The resource manager 401 instructs or operates the computing racks 112 - 1 to 112 - n to return the resources of the compute node 511 ( 1 ) to the resource pool 320), the claim limitation disclosed the method of “instruct the one of the multiple nodes to shut down and return remaining resources already allocated to the one of the multiple nodes to the resource pool specific to the institution”. Therefore, a reasonable interpretation of "based on determining that the additional resources are not included in the resource pool specific to the institution, instruct the one of the multiple nodes to shut down and return remaining resources already allocated to the one of the multiple nodes to the resource pool specific to the institution" has been made. Clearly, and the Examiner believes the “powering off the modules (computing blade) is equating to “shut down”, and return the resources of the computing node to the resource pool is equating to return remaining resources” are within the scope of such interpretation. Therefore, Frigerio-Inbaraj-Castinado-McCanna discloses the claim limitation.
Argument 2
Appellant argues on page 9-10 of the Argument (claim(s) 1, 9 & 16),
“At [0086], Inbaraj discloses resource monitoring. Specifically, when the node is not being utilized, the resource utilization specific to that node 511(1) falls below a threshold. The node 511(1) is then instructed to move its load to another node, after which the resource manger 401 decomposes the node 511(1). To be clear, the basis to decomposed the node 511(1) is expressly provided as the node 511(1) is not being utilized. And, at [0088], Inbaraj discloses returning the resources of the computer node 511(1) to the resource pool 320. There is no reason for the node 511(1) to be decomposed in this specific paragraph. The decomposition however is NOT based on any determination about the resources included in the resource pool, as is recited in Claim 1. That is, in Inbaraj, as cited, the level/amount of resources specifically in the “resource pool 320” is completely irrelevant to whether the node 511(1) is decomposed or not. The only basis to decompose the node 511(1) in Inbaraj, as cited, is that the resources in the specific node 511(1) are not being used. This is not what is claimed, and therefore Inbaraj is deficient”.
Examiner’s response to Argument 2:
As describe in Inbaraj (Inbaraj, page 8, paragraph 86; page 9, paragraph 88; i.e., [0086] When a composed - node such as the compute node 511 ( 1 ) is decomposed , the physical elements allocated for that composed - node is returned back to the resource pool 320; [0088] The resource manager 401 instructs or operates the computing racks 112 - 1 to 112 - instruction to return the resources of the compute node 511 ( 1 ) to the resource pool 320), the claim limitation disclosed the method of “instruct the one of the multiple nodes to return remaining resources already allocated to the one of the multiple nodes to the resource pool specific to the institution”. Therefore, a reasonable interpretation of "based on determining that the additional resources are not included in the resource pool specific to the institution, instruct the one of the multiple nodes to return remaining resources already allocated to the one of the multiple nodes to the resource pool specific to the institution" has been made. Clearly, and the Examiner believes the “return the resources of the computing node to the resource pool is equating to return remaining resources” are within the scope of such interpretation. Inbaraj’s decomposion or not is not used to reject the claim limitation such as “return remaining resources”. Therefore, Frigerio-Inbaraj-Castinado-McCanna discloses the claim limitation.
Listing of Relevant Arts
Benari, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 20140136710 A1 discloses return the resources that were assigned to the nodes to the pool of available resources.
Fan, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 20130166260 A1 discloses return resources back to the resource manager.
Contact Information
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
THUONG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3864. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00-6:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Noel Beharry can be reached on 571-270-5630. 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.
/THUONG NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2416