DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the amendment filed 01/16/2026.
Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-18, and 20-23 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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 may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-11, 15, 16, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 20160226966) in view of Ahmed et al. (US 20160283135) and further in view of Dave (US 6230303).
It is noted that any citations to specific, pages, columns, paragraphs, lines, or figures in the prior art references and any interpretation of the reference should not be considered to be limiting in any way. A reference is relevant for all it contains and may be relied upon for all that it would have reasonably suggested to one having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2123.
As to claim 1:
Lin teaches a method (Abstract: a method for assigning a task on a computer network) comprising:
providing a plurality of tasks to a queue ([0078]: puts the tasks in a local task queue); and
provisioning each of the plurality of tasks to one of a plurality of clusters ([0036]: assigns (S106) each of the plurality of tasks to the corresponding at least one server; [0043]: The respective game task is assigned to a specific computer on computer cluster 206…the corresponding game task is therefore assigned to computer 1 of computer cluster 206; and [0044]: Consistently assigning (S206) each data analysis task of different game tasks included in task configuration database 202 into the same machine in computer cluster 206); wherein provisioning each of the plurality of tasks comprises provisioning based on a proximity-based allocation process from the queue based on priority (Abstract: In accordance with a predetermined task assignment model, each of the plurality of servers has a respective distance from the first location which is computed based on the respective location information of the respective server. The server further identifies at least one server of the plurality of servers and assigns the task to the identified at least one server, when a distance between the first location and a second location of the at least one server is less than any other distances between the first location and the other servers of the plurality of servers; [0029]: the task assignment server identifies (40) at least one server of the plurality of servers to implement the task based on distances between the plurality of servers and the first location. In accordance with a predetermined task assignment model, each of the plurality of servers has a respective distance from the first location, and the respective distance is computed based on the respective location information of the respective server. A distance between the first location and a second location of the at least one server is less than any other distances between the first location and the other servers of the plurality of servers. After identifying the at least one server, the task assignment server assigns (50) the task to this identified at least one server; see also, [0032-0034]) comprising:
identifying a network element location associated with each of the plurality of tasks ([0011], [0029], and claim 1: identifying a first location associated with the task);
identifying a geographic location for each of the plurality of clusters (Abstract, [0029], and claim 1: obtains location information that indicates locations of a plurality of servers on the computer network; [0040]: Computer cluster 206 is sometimes referred to as a server cluster that includes servers 1, 2, 3, . . . N); and
prioritizing a nearest cluster of the plurality of clusters ([0036]: In accordance with the locations associated with the servers and the tasks, the task assignment server determines (S104) at least one server of the plurality of servers that is closest to each of the plurality of tasks. Then, the task assignment server assigns (S106) each of the plurality of tasks to the corresponding at least one server, i.e., the closest server, for further processing; see also, [0040], [0052-0053], [0055], and [0058]).
Lin, however, does not explicitly teach the queue is a priority-based backlog queue.
Ahmed teaches the queue is a priority-based backlog queue ([0060]: The high priority I/Os are added to the high priority queue…the process determines the backlog of the high priority queue).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lin with Ahmed because it would have provided a policy driven mechanism to monitor, moderate and expedite flow of information through a complex I/O path.
The combination of Lin and Ahmed does not explicitly teach, Dave teaches prioritizing a nearest cluster of the plurality of clusters based on the identified network element location associated with each of the plurality of tasks and the identified geographic location for each of the plurality of clusters (see “Based Cluster Allocation”: Col.22, line 23-Col.23, line 4).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Dave with Lin as modified by Ahmed because it would have provided the enhanced capability for allocating the proximity-based clusters.
As to claim 2:
Lin teaches provisioning each of the plurality of tasks further comprises prioritizing the plurality of clusters based on user selection of one or more of the plurality of clusters (Fig.2, [0043] and [0047]).
As to claim 4:
Lin teaches provisioning each of the plurality of tasks further comprises provisioning based on a round robin allocation protocol ([0085]).
As to claim 6:
Lin teaches each of the plurality of clusters comprises a plurality of compute nodes ([0040] and [0046-0047]).
As to claim 8:
Lin teaches the nearest cluster is located a shortest physical distance away from a task associated with the network element location when compared with remaining clusters of the plurality of clusters (claim 1), and wherein prioritizing the nearest cluster of the plurality of clusters comprises: determining whether the nearest cluster is healthy and available ([0036], [0040], [0045], and [0047]) ; and in response to determining the nearest cluster is healthy and available ([0045]), generating a plan indicating the task associated with the network element location should be executed by the nearest cluster ([0046] and claim 1).
As to claim 9:
Lin teaches provisioning each of the plurality of tasks comprises first provisioning based on manual user selection of clusters and then provisioning based on the proximity-based allocation process ([0047-0049]).
As to claim 10:
Lin teaches the method is executed by a multi-data center automation platform engine associated with a containerized workload system, and wherein the multi-data center automation platform engine comprises a worker cluster manager configured to: validate a new cluster to be added to a bank of available worker clusters; register the new cluster within the bank of available worker clusters such that the new cluster is eligible to receive tasks provided to the queue; and monitor health of the plurality of clusters in real-time ([0038], [0061, [0078], and [0085]).
Lin, however, does not explicitly teach the queue is a priority-based backlog queue.
Ahmed teaches the queue is a priority-based backlog queue ([0060]: The high priority I/Os are added to the high priority queue…the process determines the backlog of the high priority queue).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lin with Ahmed because it would have provided a policy driven mechanism to monitor, moderate and expedite flow of information through a complex I/O path.
As to claim 21:
Lin teaches identifying the network element location associated with each of the plurality of tasks comprises retrieving from inventory a latitude and longitude location associated with each of the plurality of tasks; and wherein identifying the geographic location for each of the plurality of clusters comprises retrieving from the inventory a latitude and longitude location associated with a bare metal server supporting each of the plurality of clusters ([0052-0053] and [0056-0058]).
As to claims 11, 15, and 22:
Note the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 21 above, respectively. Claims 11, 15, and 22 are the same as claims 1, 8, and 21, except claims 11, 15, and 22 are system claims and claims 1, 8, and 21 are method claims.
As to claims 16, 20, and 23:
Note the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 21 above, respectively. Claims 16, 20, and 23 are the same as claims 1, 8, and 21, except claims 16, 20, and 23 are non-transitory computer readable storage medium claims and claims 1, 8, and 21 are method claims.
Claims 3, 12, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin (US 20160226966) in view of Ahmed et al. (US 20160283135), Dave (US 6230303), and further in view of Ikäheimo et al. (US 20220158912).
As to claim 3:
The combination of Lin, Ahmed, and Dave does not teach, Ikäheimo teaches the user selection of the one or more of the plurality of clusters ([0105]) comprises the user identifying one or more preferred labels for executing at least a portion of the plurality of tasks ([0512] and [0591]), wherein each of the one or more preferred labels is associated with one or more pods or containers within a containerized workload system ([0168-0169] and [0613]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Ikäheimo and Dave with Lin as modified by Ahmed because it would have provided the enhanced capability for monitoring services provided by virtual execution elements (e.g., virtual machines or containers) deployed to virtualized computing infrastructure within a network.
As to claims 12 and 17:
Lin teaches the instructions are such that provisioning each of the plurality of tasks further comprises prioritizing the plurality of clusters based on user selection of one or more of the plurality of clusters (Fig.2, [0043] and [0047]).
The combination of Lin and Ahmed does not teach, Ikäheimo teaches the user selection of the one or more of the plurality of clusters ([0105]) comprises the user identifying one or more preferred labels for executing at least a portion of the plurality of tasks ([0512] and [0591]), wherein each of the one or more preferred labels is associated with one or more pods or containers within a containerized workload system ([0168-0169] and [0613]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Ikäheimo with Lin as modified by Ahmed because it would have provided the enhanced capability for monitoring services provided by virtual execution elements (e.g., virtual machines or containers) deployed to virtualized computing infrastructure within a network.
Allowable Subject Matter
3. Claims 5, 13, and 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, subject to the results of a final search by the Examiner.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 01/16/2026 have been fully considered but are deemed to be moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by Applicant's amendments.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record, listed on PTO 892 provided to Applicant is considered to have relevancy to the claimed invention. Applicant should review each identified reference carefully before responding to this office action to properly advance the case in light of the prior art.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VAN H. NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-3765. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday from 9:00AM to 5:30 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, LEWIS BULLOCK, can be reached at telephone number (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center or Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center or the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/VAN H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights