DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
This Final Office Action is in response to the applicant’s remarks and arguments filed on 11/25/25. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application, these claims are being considered on the merits.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s remarks and/or arguments filed on 11/25 have been fully considered with the following results:
Regarding the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s remarks have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, as a result of further search and consideration, the Examiner has created a new grounds of rejection for claims 1, 8, and 15 and subsequently all claims dependent on them. For further explanation, please refer to the 103 rejection section below.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balko et al. (US 20110145518) in view of Harwood et al. (US 20220342700), Zorin et al. (US 20230409386), and Boutboul et al. (US 20060080417).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15, Balko teaches: A computer implemented method / system / non-transitory computer-readable device comprising: receiving, by at least one processor, a triggering event (using trigger network based on a RETE algorithm which may be used for processing event-condition-action rules par. 0035 – 0036) from a client device (as the RETE algorithm can be used for event-condition-action rules transactionally, and the system may be implemented in a client/server arrangement, trigger events/token transactions may be from client to server par. 0032 – 0036 and 0005-0006); generating, by the at least one processor, a processing map (generation of workflow model in a manner similar to that of a RETE-graph or trigger network par. 0033 – 0039), wherein the processing map indicates a processing flow between a plurality of processing instances to execute a task associated with the triggering event (application program causes device to perform one or more tasks in accordance with the workflow model on various repositories or potentially other user devices depending on repository memory and communication network par. 0037 – 0039 and 0026 - 0028)
Balko does not explicitly teach the identification of each node in a topography map.
However, Harwood teaches: wherein the plurality of processing instances belongs to a topography map specifying a network topography including the plurality of processing instances (computing devices operatively connected to other computing devices of a device set, creating a topology of computing devices within the device set through a network par. 0037; see also par. 0018, 0021);
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Balko with the teachings of Harwood since the topology created between computing devices provides the capability for devices within a network to share/provide necessary information to other devices within the ecosystem, including physical location (Harwood: par. 0039).
Harwood does not explicitly teach the identification process of each processing instance by using events nor does it teach each instance identifying further instances autonomously.
However, Zorin teaches: for each of the plurality of processing instances: based on the topography map, identifying, by the at least one processor, the respective processing instance (topological analysis module configured to obtain topology of nodes and edges as a DAG, populating and updating as necessary, thereby each node of the DAG can be traversed and identified par. 0005 and 0022 – 0030); and outputting, by the at least one processor, the processing map and data associated with the triggering event to the respective processing instance to execute the task (OI handling task streams by outputting, to the other nodes, outputs from tasks which may determine task dependencies and DAG mappings par. 0005 – 0006 as well as data which includes related events to the tasks for execution to take place par. 0062 – 0063 and 0022 - 0030)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Balko and Harwood with the teachings of Zorin since the OI and DAG system of Zorin could be used to implement the methods of Balko and Harwood which would result in improved resource management as well as simplifying orchestration of interdependent tasks in cloud environments (Zorin: par. 0062 - 0063). Further, the topology map of Zorin could be enhanced through Harwood by providing the capability for physical locations to be outlined within the map/network connections.
Zorin does not explicitly teach each processing instance working autonomously to read the processing map.
However, Boutboul teaches: Wherein each processing instance works autonomously to read the processing map to identify a subsequent processing instance (automated topology formation including a master node, the master node receives communication in the form of information from an entity within the topology that may include topology event notifications par. 0007, the master node may then update the topology to alleviate any issues within the environment par. 0073, therefore the nodes within the topology are able to essentially traverse the environment toward a subsequent node and inform a master node of its situation), and to output a result of the task to the subsequent processing instance (as a result of informing the master node, the entity node which informed the master node may then be able to provide its load further to subsequent nodes par. 0073 – 0085).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Balko, Harwood, and Zorin with the teachings of Boutboul since the overload condition checking of Boutboul provides dynamic topology updates to ensure that nodes are not overloaded and/or to alleviate any overload from the environment (Boutboul: par. 0073). This would further enhance the teachings of the prior combination through allowing each node to essentially traverse its own routes within the environment while providing information about the next nodes it will be communicating with, thereby allowing autonomous alleviation/dynamic topology adjustments.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16, Harwood teaches: generating the topography map by grouping two or more processing instances based on a plurality of factors (topology ecosystem is generated with controllers having a map of capabilities and capacity of various portions of the ecosystem/resources within the given device set par. 0021 – 0024)
For motivation to combine see claim 1 above.
Harwood does not explicitly teach processing of tasks being different from instance to instance.
However, Zorin teaches: wherein each processing instance is configured to execute a processing task (the nodes of the DAG are used in producing, consuming, or transforming data from the tasks which are mapped onto them par. 0022) and wherein the processing task executed by a first processing instance is different from the processing task executed by a second processing instance (traversing the DAG allows for the TES to identify tasks that may depend on other tasks being completed, therefore each node may execute different tasks par. 0024).
For motivation to combine see claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17, Zorin teaches: wherein a first processing instance of the plurality of processing instances outputs a result to a second processing instance of the plurality of processing instances and wherein the second processing instance is identified based on the processing map and the topography map (runtime dependencies determined by the edges of the DAG show that tasks may be dependent on another task completing and the node may communicate with execution statuses to proceed through DAG par. 0043, 0024, and 0006).
For motivation to combine see claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19, Zorin teaches: updating the topography map (determining and populating the topology of nodes and edges based on update information par. 0022); and outputting the updated topography map to processing instances associated with the updated topography map (updating the topology and synchronizing sets of tasks and task dependencies within the topology/workflow environment par. 0022).
For motivation to combine see claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Boutboul teaches: detecting a potential overload at a processing instance (a node experiencing an overload condition within the topology par. 0073); and updating the topography map to prevent the potential overload at the processing instance (master node using an automated topology application to update the topology because of the overload condition event par. 0073).
For motivation to combine see claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 7, 14, and 20, Zorin teaches: receiving a request for a topography map update from a processing instance (OI receiving update information requesting creating of a new task corresponding to a task creating request, thereby requesting a new node be added and the topology be updated par. 0027 – 0028); and in response to a determination that an updated topography map is available, sending the updated topography map to the plurality of processing instances associated with the updated topography map (the OI will weave in a new node into the DAG and unless an issue is detected the updated topology information will be consumed by nodes par. 0027).
For motivation to combine see claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 4, 11, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balko in view of Harwood, Zorin, and Boutboul, and further in view of Moon et al. (US 20040078105).
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18, Moon teaches: wherein the topography map comprises two or more processing instances configured to execute the same processing task (nodes may be assigned to node groups which perform the same functionality par. 0052) and wherein a processing instance is configured to send an output to a first available processing instance of the two or more processing instances (the choice or assignment of which node is used may be through a first available approach par. 0052).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Balko, Harwood, Zorin, and Boutboul with the teachings of Moon since the node group functionality of Moon provides dynamic workflow process changing based on availability and assignment settings (Moon: par. 0052).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sarva et al. (US 20200204492) which outlines a scalable service platform for facilitating flow symmetry between autonomous systems in which routing instances may traverse destination addresses.
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 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 JORDAN SCOTT MOTTER whose telephone number is (703)756-1550. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 a.m. - 4:30 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, Pierre Vital can be reached at 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 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.
/J.S.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2198
/PIERRE VITAL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2198