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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 8th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Claims 1, 5, 9-11, and 19-20 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7-10, filed 12/08/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 3, 4, 7, 13, 14, 17 under US 20240160453 A1 (Ueda et. al) have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1 and 11, applicant claims Ueda fails to disclose: if the request to instantiate the one or more containers includes a request for a fractional processor allocation from the plurality of processing devices: modify, by the logical host, the request to instantiate the one or more containers to remove the request for the fractional processor allocation to obtain a modified request; and invoke, by the logical host, instantiation of the one or more containers according to the modified request. Ueda teaches in paragraph 15, 20, 22, the container deployment system obtains a modification request, that modification request modifies the container by altering the computing resources allocated, and then is able to start a virtual machine. Request done is to receive a portion of the fractional processor resource, which are shared resources. Simply put, Ueda teaches that the deployment system is able to modify resource allocation requests based on the available shared resources, dynamically allocating more of a processor capacity according to current usage.
Regarding claim 3,4, 7, 13, 14, and 17, applicant claims Doshi to disclose: plurality of processing devices in a best-effort set and further, that it fails to address executing an OS on such a set and that it also fails to disclose: responding to the request for the fractional processor allocation by adding one processing device of the plurality of processing devices to one or more processing devices of the plurality of processing devices in a best-effort set. Doshi teaches that the processer can allocate more resources according to what is available to be allocated, where the resources are allocated based on availability. This is done to accomplish a best-effort scheduling method, which is automatically completed by Kubernetes. See paragraph 250 and 401. Further, assigning cores to the container, where there is a limit to how many cores that can be assigned to a container, and that container can be used to run an OS in a VM setting, paragraph 401. Finally, paragraph 176, 261, allocating resources to a node based off a set service level agreement for that node, scaling up the amount of capacity, and it would be obvious that it can choose to scale only by one. Therefore, based on the teachings provided by the reference the argument is not persuasive.
Regarding claim 5 and 15, applicant claims Ueda to disclose: if the request to instantiate the one or more containers include a request for non-fractional processor allocation, invoke, by the logical host, instantiation of the one or more containers according to the request to instantiate the one or more containers without removing the request for non-fractional processor allocation. Ueda teaches that the Kubernetes is able to instantiate new containers, without modifying the original request for processors. See paragraph 35 and 53. Therefore, based on the teachings provided by the reference the argument is not persuasive.
Regarding claim 6 and 16, applicant claims Doshi to disclose: responding to the request for the fractional processor allocation. Doshi teaches that the processer can allocate more resources according to what is available to be allocated, where the resources are allocated based on availability. Fractional processor allocation is defined as just a portion of the CPU cores. Thus, see paragraph 176, 261, allocating resources to a node based off a set service level agreement for that node, scaling down the amount of capacity, and it would be obvious that it can choose to scale only by one. Therefore, based on the teachings provided by the reference the argument is not persuasive.
Regarding claim 9 and 10, 19, and 20, applicant claims Doshi to disclose: a hook configured to detect the request for fractional processor allocation. Doshi teaches, detecting a request for more resources and sending resources to the nodes. That resource can be a fractional processor allocation, and the hook is simply defined as the request for more resources. See paragraph 25. Therefore, based on the teachings provided by the reference the argument is not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-10, filed 12/08/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 11, 12, 15 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are not persuasive. Regarding Ueda not teaching evaluating whether a request includes a fractional processor allocation or any actions performed in response to a request including a fractional processor allocation. However, Ueda discloses a container deployment system where a logical host receives a request to instantiate a container and allocates processing resources based on availability (see Ueda 15, 20, and 22). In particular, Ueda describes a Kubernetes environment that handles resource requests by incrementing or decrementing the number of allocated CPUS and processor assignments associated to a received request. (See paragraph 20, and 33), If the request asks for more resources than available, the system modifies the allocation to correspond to currently available shared processor cores.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6-10 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 5.
Claim 5-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The no path.
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, 2, 5, 11, 12, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240160453 A1 (Ueda et. al).
Regarding claim 1, Ueda recites, An apparatus comprising: a computing device including a plurality of processing devices and one or more memory devices operably coupled to the plurality of processing devices, the one or more memory devices storing executable code that, when executed by the plurality of processing devices, causes the plurality of processing devices to: receive, by a logical host, a request to instantiate one or more containers, if the request to instantiate the one or more containers includes a request for a fractional processor allocation from the plurality of processing devices; modify, by the logical host, the request to instantiate the one or more containers to remove the request for fractional processor allocation to obtain a modified request; and invoke, by the logical host, instantiation of the one or more containers according to the modified request (paragraph 15, 20, 22, the container deployment system obtains a modification request, that modification request modifies the container by altering the computing resources allocated, and then is able to start a virtual machine. Request done is to receive a portion of the fractional processor resource, which are shared resources. Simply put, Ueda teaches that the deployment system is able to modify resource allocation requests based on the available shared resources, dynamically allocating more of a processor capacity according to current usage).
It would be obvious before the filing date of this application, to modify the system of Ueda to allocate only a fractional portion of a processor to a requested container instead of allocating a full processor core. Shared processor environments and proportional allocation of computing resources to different environments are well-known techniques for improving efficiency and maximizing usage of multi-processor systems.
Regarding claim 2, Ueda recites, The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the executable code, when executed by the plurality of processing devices, further causes the plurality of processing devices to: invoke, by the logical host, instantiation of the one or more containers by a container runtime interface (CRI) (paragraph 20-21 and 23).
Regarding claim 5, Ueda recites, wherein the executable code, when executed by the plurality of processing devices, further causes the plurality of processing devices to: if the request to instantiate the one or more containers includes a request for a non- fractional processor allocation, invoke, by the logical host, instantiation of the one or more containers according to the request to instantiate the one or more containers without removing the request for the non-fractional processor allocation. (Paragraph 35, 53, instantiating a new container, and such instantiation is done without modifying the original request).
It would be obvious before the filing date of this application to allow for the entire processer to be allocated, instead of just a portion, as this allows for the virtual container to have more resources for processing its workloads.
Regarding claim 11, Ueda recites, A method comprising: receiving, by a logical host on a computing device comprising a plurality of processing devices, a request to instantiate one or more containers, the request including a request for a fractional processor allocation from the plurality of processing devices and in response to the request to instantiate the one or more containers including the request for the fractional processor allocation; modifying, by the logical host, the request to remove the request for the fractional processor allocation to obtain a modified request; and invoking, by the logical host, instantiation of the one or more containers according to the modified request (paragraph 15, 20, 22, the container deployment system obtains a modification request, that modification request modifies the container by altering the computing resources allocated, and then is able to start a virtual machine).
It would be obvious before the filing date of this application to allow for the entire processer to be allocated, instead of just a portion, as this allows for the virtual container to have more resources for processing its workloads.
Regarding claim 12, Ueda recites, The method of claim 11, further comprising: invoking, by the logical host, instantiation of the one or more containers by a container runtime interface (CRI) (paragraph 20-21 and 23).
Regarding claim 15, Ueda recites, The method of claim 11, wherein the logical host is a KUBERNETES Kubelet (paragraph 20, 33, the management system being within Kubernetes).
Claim(s) 3, 4, 6-10, 13, 14, 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240160453 A1 (Ueda et. al), as applied to claim 1, 2, 5, 11, 12, 15 above, and further in view of US 20210117249 A1 (Doshi et. al).
Regarding Claim 3, Ueda teaches, The apparatus of claim 2.
Ueda does not teach, wherein the executable code, when executed by the plurality of processing devices, further causes the plurality of processing devices to: configure, by the CRI, the one or more containers to execute on one or more processing devices of the plurality of processing devices in a best-effort set.
However, Doshi teaches, wherein the executable code, when executed by the plurality of processing devices, further causes the plurality of processing devices to: configure, by the CRI, the one or more containers to execute on one or more processing devices of the plurality of processing devices in a best-effort set (paragraph 250, 401, assigning cores to the container, where there is a limit to how many cores that can be assigned to a container, paragraph 401 a CRI can be used as the execution environment).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the docker management system of Ueda, with the resource assignment system of Doshi, as it allows for assignment of specific hardware to workloads.
Regarding Claim 4, Ueda does not teach, The apparatus of claim 3, wherein the executable code, when executed by the plurality of processing devices, further causes the one or more processing devices to: execute an operating system of the computing device on the one or more processing devices of the plurality of processing devices in the best-effort set.
However, Doshi teaches, The apparatus of claim 3, wherein the executable code, when executed by the plurality of processing devices, further causes the one or more processing devices to: execute an operating system of the computing device on the one or more processing devices of the plurality of processing devices in the best-effort set (paragraph 250, 401, assigning cores to the container, where there is a limit to how many cores that can be assigned to a container, and that container can be used to run an OS, paragraph 401).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the docker management system of Ueda, with the resource assignment system of Doshi, as it allows for assignment of specific hardware to workloads.
Regarding Claim 6, Ueda teaches, The apparatus of claim 5.
Ueda does not teach, wherein the logical host is configured to respond to the request for the fractional processor allocation by decrementing by one a number of the plurality of processing devices available to be allocated.
However, Doshi teaches, wherein the logical host is configured to respond to the request for the fractional processor allocation by decrementing by one a number of the plurality of processing devices available to be allocated (paragraph 176, 261, allocating resources to a node based off a set service level agreement for that node, scaling down the amount of capacity, and it would be obvious that it can choose to scale only by one).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the docker management system of Ueda, with the resource assignment system of Doshi, as it allows for assignment of specific hardware to workloads.
Regarding Claim 7, Ueda teaches, The apparatus of claim 6.
Ueda does not teach, wherein the logical host is configured to respond to the request for the fractional processor allocation by adding one processing device of the plurality of processing devices to one or more processing devices of the plurality of processing devices in a best-effort set.
However, Doshi teaches, wherein the logical host is configured to respond to the request for the fractional processor allocation by adding one processing device of the plurality of processing devices to one or more processing devices of the plurality of processing devices in a best-effort set (paragraph 176, 261, allocating resources to a node based off a set service level agreement for that node, scaling up the amount of capacity, and it would be obvious that it can choose to scale only by one).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the docker management system of Ueda, with the resource assignment system of Doshi, as it allows for assignment of specific hardware to workloads.
Regarding Claim 8, Ueda teaches, The apparatus of claim 7.
Ueda does not teach, wherein the executable code, when executed by the plurality of processing devices, further causes the one or more processing devices to: execute an operating system of the computing device on the one or more processing devices of the plurality of processing devices in the best-effort set.
However, Doshi teaches, wherein the executable code, when executed by the plurality of processing devices, further causes the one or more processing devices to: execute an operating system of the computing device on the one or more processing devices of the plurality of processing devices in the best-effort set (paragraph 250, 401, assigning cores to the container, where there is a limit to how many cores that can be assigned to a container, and that container can be used to run an OS, paragraph 401).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the docker management system of Ueda, with the resource assignment system of Doshi, as it allows for assignment of specific hardware to workloads.
Regarding claim 9, Ueda teaches, The apparatus of claim 7, wherein the logical host is configured with a hook configured to detect the request for fractional processor allocation (paragraph 25, detecting a request for more resources and sending resources to the nodes).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the docker management system of Ueda, with the resource assignment system of Doshi, as it allows for assignment of specific hardware to workloads.
Regarding Claim 13, Ueda teaches, The method of claim 12.
Ueda does not teach, further comprising: configuring, by the CRI, the one or more containers to execute on one or more processing devices of the plurality of processing devices in a best-effort set.
However, Doshi teaches, further comprising: configuring, by the CRI, the one or more containers to execute on one or more processing devices of the plurality of processing devices in a best-effort set (paragraph 250, 256, assigning cores to the container, where there is a limit to how many cores that can be assigned to a container).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the docker management system of Ueda, with the resource assignment system of Doshi, as it allows for assignment of specific hardware to workloads.
Regarding Claim 14, Ueda does not teach, The method of claim 13, further comprising: executing, by the computing device, an operating system of the computing device on the one or more processing devices of the plurality of processing devices in the best- effort set (paragraph 250, 401, assigning cores to the container, where there is a limit to how many cores that can be assigned to a container, and that container can be used to run an OS, paragraph 401).
However, Doshi teaches, The method of claim 13, further comprising: executing, by the computing device, an operating system of the computing device on the one or more processing devices of the plurality of processing devices in the best- effort set (paragraph 250, 401, assigning cores to the container, where there is a limit to how many cores that can be assigned to a container, paragraph 401 a CRI can be used as the execution environment).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the docker management system of Ueda, with the resource assignment system of Doshi, as it allows for assignment of specific hardware to workloads.
Regarding Claim 16, Ueda teaches, The method of claim 15.
Ueda does not teach, wherein the logical host is configured to respond to the request for the fractional processor allocation by decrementing by one a number of the plurality of processing devices available to be allocated.
However, Doshi teaches, wherein the logical host is configured to respond to the request for the fractional processor allocation by decrementing by one a number of the plurality of processing devices available to be allocated (paragraph 176, 261, allocating resources to a node based off a set service level agreement for that node, scaling up the amount of capacity, and it would be obvious that it can choose to scale only by one).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the docker management system of Ueda, with the resource assignment system of Doshi, as it allows for assignment of specific hardware to workloads.
Regarding Claim 17, Ueda teaches, The method of claim 16.
Ueda does not teach, wherein the logical host is configured to respond to the request for the fractional processor allocation by adding one processing device of the plurality of processing devices to one or more processing devices of the plurality of processing devices in a best-effort set.
However, Doshi teaches, wherein the logical host is configured to respond to the request for the fractional processor allocation by adding one processing device of the plurality of processing devices to one or more processing devices of the plurality of processing devices in a best-effort set (paragraph 176, 261, allocating resources to a node based off a set service level agreement for that node, scaling up the amount of capacity, and it would be obvious that it can choose to scale only by one).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the docker management system of Ueda, with the resource assignment system of Doshi, as it allows for assignment of specific hardware to workloads.
Regarding Claim 18, Ueda teaches, The method of claim 17.
Ueda does not teach, further comprising: configuring, by the CRI, the one or more containers to execute on one or more processing devices of the plurality of processing devices in a best-effort set.
However, Doshi teaches, further comprising: configuring, by the CRI, the one or more containers to execute on one or more processing devices of the plurality of processing devices in a best-effort set ((paragraph 250, 401, assigning cores to the container, where there is a limit to how many cores that can be assigned to a container, paragraph 401 a CRI can be used as the execution environment).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the docker management system of Ueda, with the resource assignment system of Doshi, as it allows for assignment of specific hardware to workloads.
Regarding claim 19, Ueda recites, The method of claim 17, wherein the logical host is configured with a hook, the method further comprising: passing, by the logical host, the request to instantiate the one or more containers to the hook; and detecting, by the hook, the request for the fractional processor allocation (paragraph 176, 261, allocating resources to the node by the host, and paragraph 25, detecting a request for more resources and sending resources to the nodes).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the docker management system of Ueda, with the resource assignment system of Doshi, as it allows for assignment of specific hardware to workloads.
Regarding claim 20, Ueda recites, The method of claim 19, wherein modifying the request to remove the request for fractional processor allocation to obtain the modified request is performed by the hook (paragraph 8 and 23, the host can receive a request to change the amount of the processor allocated to the service, which would allow it to remove the request for more resources).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the docker management system of Ueda, with the resource assignment system of Doshi, as it allows for assignment of specific hardware to workloads.
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 CHRISTIAN BAKHIT whose telephone number is (571)272-4314. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 6:30-5 PM.
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, LEWIS BULLOCK can be reached at (571) 272-3759. 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.
/C.M.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2199
/LEWIS A BULLOCK JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2199