DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination. Applicant has amended claims 1, 10, 13-17, 19 and 20.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/19/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein the first computing engine refrains from assigning the unit of work to the first workload processor” which is not clearly taught by the specification. The specification seems to disclose the first computing engine is configured to assign the descriptor to a first workload category of a plurality of workload categories based at least in part on a resource requirement fingerprint that characterizes the unit of work. There’s no indication that “the first computing engine refrains from assigning the unit of work to the first workload processor”. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite.
Claims 19-20 suffer the same problem as claim 1 above and therefore are also indefinite.
Claims 2-18 depend on claim 1 but fail to cure the deficiency of claim 1 above, and therefore are also indefinite.
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 teach 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, 2, 4-14, 16, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cong et al. (US 2017/0083381 A1) in view of Chaudhry et al. (US 2012/0110584 A1).
As to claim 1, Cong teaches a method comprising:
obtaining, by a first computing engine, a descriptor for a unit of work to be executed on a workload processing system (para [0016] "...receiving a task from a client, the task including a plurality of instances...") comprising two or more workload processors (para [0017] "...determine an initial computing resource allocation of a cluster of machines..."), wherein the descriptor comprises a data structure including at least a resource requirement fingerprint of the descriptor for the unit of work (para [0147]);
based at least in part on:
(i) the resource requirement fingerprint of the descriptor (para [0147]), and
(ii) available resources within the first workload processor (para [0126], "...calls all the maximum available resource supported by the physical machine to process the instance..."), and
determining, by the second computing engine, the unit of work associated with the descriptor (para [0016]), and
causing, by the second computing engine, the first workload processor to execute the unit of work (para [0126]).
Cong does not teach assigning, by the first computing engine, the descriptor to a first workload category of a plurality of workload categories based at least in part on a resource requirement fingerprint that characterizes the unit of work, selecting, by the second computing engine, the descriptor from the first workload category.
However, Chaudhry teaches assigning, by the first computing engine, the descriptor to a first workload category of a plurality of workload categories based at least in part on a resource requirement fingerprint that characterizes the unit of work (para [0007] "...system classifies the scheduled tasks into different groups based on the resource requirements of each task."); and selecting, by the second computing engine, the descriptor from the first workload category (para (0014] "...for each second cluster element used by the scheduled tasks in the given group... sub-second-element executes... the scheduled tasks.").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Chaudhry to the system of Cong because Chaudhry teaches organizing units of work into categories can help ensure that work units are processed without failure (see para [0017]).
As to claim 2, Cong and Chaudhry teach the method of claim 1. Chaudhry further teaches further comprising: assigning, to the first workload category, a priority indicator, and wherein the selecting is based at least in part on the priority indicator (para [0049] "...management modules may also determine scheduling weights or priority values based on pre-established policies and job objectives, and perform job scheduling accordingly...").
As to claim 4, Cong and Chaudhry teach the method of claim 2. Chaudhry further teaches wherein assigning the priority indicator comprises determining one or more of an allocation by an entity, an actual use by the entity or an age of the unit of work (para [0049]).
As to claim 5, Cong and Chaudhry teach the method of claim 1.
Cong further teaches further comprising: obtaining, by the first computing engine, a second job descriptor for a second unit of work to be executed on a workload processing system (para [0016]);
in response to determining, by the first computing engine, that the second unit of work satisfies criteria, assigning the second job descriptor to a first workload processing system and to a second workload processing system concurrently (para [0052] "...the resource description manifest may include... concurrency needs..."; para [0050] "...each task-may contain one or more instances, and each instance of the same task may parallel process data."); and
selecting, by the first computing engine, the first workload processing system to process the second unit of work (para [0126]), and
providing, by the first computing engine, a third execution indicator to the first workload processing system to cause the first workload processing system to execute the second unit of work (para [0057], "...determines whether the resource description manifest indicates a request for utilizing an actual computing resource allocation..."; para [0126]).
As to claim 6, Cong and Chaudhry teach the method of claim 5. Chaudhry further teaches wherein the first workload processing system transmits a first execution indicator to the first computing engine to indicate an availability to execute the second unit of work (para [0049] "Jobs and tasks may be scheduled when the required resources become available...").
As to claim 7, Cong and Chaudhry teach the method of claim 5.
Chaudhry further teaches further comprising: in response to receiving, by the first computing engine and from the first workload processing system, a first execution indicator, delivering, by the first computing engine to the second workload processing system, a second execution indicator (para [0068] "...cluster status information that may be used by the risk manager to contain the de-scheduling probability within the desired limit. The status information may include, for example, job execution status..."; para [0065] "Instructions 208 may also be configured to perform distribution of risk management information 234, which includes backup tasks, to other cluster management entities...").
As to claim 8, Cong and Chaudhry teach the method of claim 7. Chaudhry further teaches wherein the first execution indicator and the second execution indicator are the same execution indicator (para [0065]).
As to claim 9, Cong and Chaudhry teach the method of claim 5. Cong further teaches wherein the first computing engine generates the second unit of work by combining a plurality of sub-units of work (para [0016]).
As to claim 10, Cong and Chaudhry teach the method of claim 1.
Cong further teaches based at least in part on: (i) the resource requirement fingerprint of the descriptor (para [0147]), and (ii) available resources within a second workload processor that is managed by the second computing engine (para [0126]), and
determining, by the second computing engine, the unit of work associated with the descriptor (para [0016]), and causing, by the second computing engine, the second workload processor to execute the unit of work (para [0126]).
Chaudhry further teaches further comprising: assigning, by the second computing engine, the descriptor to a second workload category of a second plurality of workload categories based at least in part on a resource requirement fingerprint (para [0007]), selecting, by a third computing engine, the descriptor from the second workload category (para [0014]).
As to claim 11, Cong and Chaudhry teach the method of claim 10. Chaudhry further teaches wherein the first workload category and the second workload category are arranged hierarchically (para [0049]).
As to claim 12, Cong and Chaudhry teach the method of claim 1. Cong further teaches further comprising: executing, by the first workload processor, the unit of work (para [0126]).
As to claim 13, Cong and Chaudhry teach the method of claim 1.
Chaudhry further teaches wherein the assigning comprises: determining a first workload policy relevant to the unit of work (para [0085] "...may also classify the tasks by taking into account other criteria, such as scheduling policy..."), evaluating the first workload policy to produce a first policy result (para [0051] "...manager may receive the pre-established degree of similarity from the cluster management policy..."), and assigning the descriptor to the first workload category of the plurality of workload categories based at least in part on the first policy result (para [0085]).
As to claim 14, Cong and Chaudhry teach the method of claim 13.
Chaudhry further teaches further comprising: evaluating a second workload policy to produce a second policy result (para [0051]), and assigning the descriptor to the first workload category of the plurality of workload categories based at least in part on the first policy result and the second policy result (para [0088] "...group the tasks have identical or similar resource requirements and performance restriction (e.g., preferred/to-avoid machines/racks, etc.) or scheduling policies...").
As to claim 16, Cong and Chaudhry teach the method of claim 1. Cong further teaches where the resource requirement fingerprint comprises one or more of number of CPUs needed (para [0052] "...resource needs (such as CPUs, memory, and the like)..."), memory requirement, storage requirement, number of GPUs needed or network bandwidth.
As to claim 17, Cong and Chaudhry teach the method of claim 1. Cong further teaches wherein a second workload processor of the workload processing system is managed by a third computing engine, wherein the second computing engine differs from the third computing engine (para [0163] "...a second calling unit 663 and a third calling unit 665.").
As to claim 19, it is the same as the method claim 1 above except this is a system claim, and therefore is rejected under the same ground of rejection.
As to claim 20, it is the same as the method claim 1 above except this is a non-transitory computer-readable storage media claim, and therefore is rejected under the same ground of rejection.
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cong et al. (US 2017/0083381 A1) in view of Chaudhry et al. (US 2012/0110584 A1) further in view of Marchand (US 2008/0229319 A1).
As to claim 3, Cong and Chaudhry teach the method of claim 2.
Chaudhry further teaches wherein the first workload category (para [0007]).
Neither Cong nor Chaudhry teach represents an affiliation.
Marchand teaches represents an affiliation (para [0040] "Credentials may include application identification 320 a, user identification 320 b, executable path 320 c, and start time 320 d such that the resource allocation mechanism may prioritize resource allocation based on user...").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Marchand to the system of Cong as modified by Chaudhry because Marchand teaches jobs associated with specific users may need to be prioritized over other jobs (see para [0040]).
As to claim 15, Cong and Chaudhry teach the method of claim 1.
Chaudhry further teaches further comprising: determining, by the first computing engine, a plurality of descriptors assigned to the first workload category (para [0007]), and assigning the first descriptor to a third workload category that stores descriptors associated with units of work (para [0007]).
Neither Cong nor Chaudhry teach determining, by the first computing engine, that a descriptor in the descriptors is associated with a unit of work that is not ready to execute.
Marchand teaches determining, by the first computing engine, that a descriptor in the descriptors is associated with a unit of work that is not ready to execute (para [0024] "...commences execution of applications when their resource requirements can be met... when an application resource usage interferes with execution of another application, execution of the corresponding application may be suspended."), that are not ready to execute (para [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Marchand to the system of Cong as modified by Chaudhry because Marchand teaches units of work may not be ready to execute in the event that their resource requirements conflict with currently executing units of work (see para [0024]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cong et al. (US 2017/0083381 A1) in view of Chaudhry et al. (US 2012/0110584 A1) further in view of Chester et al. (US 2021/0173719 A1) and Elliman (US 2020/0134083 A1).
As to claim 18, Cong and Chaudhry teach the method of claim 1.
Chaudhry further teaches assigning the descriptor to the first workload category of the plurality of workload categories (para [0007]).
Neither Cong nor Chaudhry teach wherein the assigning comprises: processing an input comprising features that include at least a subset of values in the descriptor using a machine learning model that is configured to generate category predictions, and based at least in part on a category prediction of the category predictions.
However, Chester teaches wherein the assigning comprises: teach processing an input comprising features that include at least a subset of values in the descriptor (para [0062] "The system receives capacity parameters, for a particular workload (302). The capacity parameters are generally user-specified parameters provided by the owner of the workload..."; para [0081] "...system can compute the target capacity level according to statistical or machine learning techniques to generate a value that is likely to meet the forecasted demand...").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teaching of Chester to the system of Cong as modified by Chaudhry because applying machine learning to attributes of a workload can aid in determining how to utilize system resources (see para [0065]).
Neither Cong, Chaudhry, nor Pivotal teach using a machine learning model that is configured to generate category predictions, and based at least in part on a category prediction of the category predictions.
Elliman teaches using a machine learning model that is configured to generate category predictions (para [0043] "...methodology that can predict categories for various metadata of data assets or data assets..."), and based at least in part on a category prediction of the category predictions (para [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teaching of Elliman to the system of Cong as modified by Chaudhry and Chester because Elliman teaches categorizing data is beneficial in systems that need to manage large volumes of data (see para (0002]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the remarks, Applicant argued in substance that Cong and Chaudhry do not teach the first computing engine and the second computing engine. Examiner respectfully disagrees because computing engine, based on the BRI, is software module, and Cong teaches different software modules perform different actions/functions as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
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 DIEM K CAO whose telephone number is (571)272-3760. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-4:00pm.
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 571-270-1014. 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.
/DIEM K CAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2196
DC
October 27, 2025