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 .
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.
Claims 4 - 6 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 4 in lines 4 – 5 recites the limitation “the failure of the byte-addressable storage medium.” This limitation lacks antecedent basis rendering it indefinite. For claim interpretation purposes this limitation is read as “a failure of the byte … medium.”
Note that claim 3, from which claim 4 depends, refers only to “a failure of the first resource component” which is a distinct “failure” limitation from the one above.
Claim 5 in lines 3 – 4 recites the limitation “the failure of the storage medium. This limitation lacks antecedent basis rendering it indefinite. For claim interpretation purposes this limitation is read as “a failure of the storage medium.”
Note that claim 3, from which claim 5 depends, refers only to “a failure of the first resource component” which is a distinct “failure” limitation from the one above.
Claim 6 depends on indefinite claim 5 and is found as indefinite for like reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim 1 recites “a system, comprising: a memory that stores executable components; and a processor that executes the executable components stored in the memory, wherein the executable components comprise” which is a machine. Claim 12 recites “a method, comprising: monitoring, by a system comprising a processor, operational states of resource elements of a computing device in a computing cluster” which is a process. Claim 17 recites “a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising computer executable instructions that, when executed by a processor, facilitate performance of operations” which is a manufacture.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1, recites “determines,” “selects,” “identifying,” “selected,” “determined” and “performed” which specifically recite “a resource monitoring component that determines operational statuses of resource components of a node device operating in a computing cluster associated with the system;”, “a role selection component that selects an operational role for the node device in response to the resource monitoring component;” and “identifying a change to a first operational status, of the operational statuses and corresponding to a first resource component of the resource components,” “the operational role being selected by the role selection component based on second resource components, of the resource components,” “that are determined by the resource monitoring component to be operational, wherein the operational role specifies operations,” “operations to be performed by the node device in the computing cluster.” That is, other than reciting “a memory that stores executable components; and a processor that executes the executable components stored in the memory,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, “determines,” “selects,” “identifying,” “selected,” “determined” and “performed” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper writing the changes down on a sheet of paper and examine the list to identify the relevant ones (rationale).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Claims 12, recites “monitoring,” “in response” and “assigning” which specifically recites “monitoring, by a system comprising a processor, operational states of resource elements of a computing device in a computing cluster;,” “in response to determining, via the monitoring, that a first resource element of the resource elements has transitioned between a functioning operational state and a non-functioning operational state,” and “assigning, by the system, a computational function to the computing device based on second resource elements, of the resource elements, having the functioning operational state.” That is, other than reciting “monitoring, by a system comprising a processor, operational states of resource elements of a computing device in a computing cluster” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, “monitoring,” “in response,” and “assigning,” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper writing the changes down on a sheet of paper and examine the list to identify the relevant ones (rationale).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Claims 12, recites “facilitate performance,” “tracking performance,” “determining,” “in response,” and “causing” which specifically recites “facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising:,” “tracking performance metrics for resources associated with a node device of a computing cluster;,” “determining, via the tracking, that a resource of the resources has transitioned between a functional state and a non-functional state;,” “in response to the determining” and “causing the node device to perform a first function, the first function being different from a second function performed by the node device before the determining.” That is, other than reciting “a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising computer executable instructions that, when executed by a processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, facilitate performance,” “tracking performance,” “determining,” “in response,” and “causing” in the context of this claim encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper writing the changes down on a sheet of paper and examine the list to identify the relevant ones (rationale).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion).
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the additional elements (from claim 1) “a system, comprising: a memory that stores executable components; and a processor that executes the executable components stored in the memory,” (from claim 12) “a system comprising a processor, operational states of resource elements of a computing device in a computing cluster,” and (from claim 17) “a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising computer executable instructions that, when executed by a processor.” These limitations are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). This/these claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitations (from claim 1) “a system, comprising: a memory that stores executable components; and a processor that executes the executable components stored in the memory,” (from claim 12) “a system comprising a processor, operational states of resource elements of a computing device in a computing cluster,” and (from claim 17) “a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising computer executable instructions that, when executed by a processor.” are recognized by the courts as well-understood, routine, and conventional activities when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group Inc.).
As such, claims 1, 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 2 - 11, 13 - 16 and 18 - 20 depend from claims 1, 12 and 17 and do not add additional elements that would overcome the rejection of claims 1, 12 or 17 and are rejected for at least this reason and the analysis below:
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the second resource components comprise the first resource component, and wherein the change to the first operational status corresponds to the node device connecting to the computing cluster. (insignificant extra solution activity - generic data processing)
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the change to the first operational status corresponds to a failure of the first resource component (insignificant extra solution activity - generic data processing)
4. The system of claim 3, wherein the operational role is a storage role, wherein the first resource component is a byte-addressable storage medium that stores a write journal for the node device, (insignificant extra solution activity - generic data storing)
and wherein the role selection component assigns the write journal to a block-addressable storage medium of the node device in response to the failure of the byte-addressable storage medium (insignificant extra solution activity - generic data writing/storing)
5. The system of claim 3, wherein the first resource component is a storage medium that stores a write journal for the node device, (insignificant extra solution activity - generic data storing)
and wherein the role selection component alters the operational role of the node device from a storage role to a processing role in response to the failure of the storage medium (insignificant extra solution activity - generic data processing)
6. The system of claim 5, wherein the storage role comprises lock management operations (insignificant extra solution activity - generic data storing), and wherein the processing role excludes the lock management operations (insignificant extra solution activity - generic data processing)
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the role selection component selects the operational role from a group of operational roles, comprising the operational role, that are supported by the second resource components (mental process - selecting)
8. The system of claim 7, wherein the role selection component selects the operational role based on a decision tree (mental process - selecting)
9. The system of claim 7, wherein the role selection component selects the operational role based on computing resources available to the node device via the second resource components (mental process - selecting)
10. The system of claim 1, wherein the resource components are selected from a group comprising hardware components and software components (mental process - selecting)
11. The system of claim 1, wherein the role selection component selects a backup role for the node device in response to the resource monitoring component determining that the node device comprises an interface to a tape library unit and in further response to the resource monitoring component determining that the interface is operational (mental process - selecting)
13. The method of claim 12, further comprising: determining, by the system, that the first resource element has transitioned from the non-functioning operational state to the functioning operational state in response to the computing device connecting to the computing cluster (insignificant extra solution activity - generic data processing)
14. The method of claim 12, wherein the second resource elements do not comprise the first resource element, and wherein the method further comprises: determining, by the system, that the first resource element has transitioned from the functioning operational state to the non-functioning operational state in response a failure of the first resource element (mental process – determining)
15. The method of claim 12, wherein the assigning of the computational function is based on a decision tree (mental process - assigning)
16. The method of claim 12, wherein the computational function is selected from a group of functions comprising a storage function, a processing function, and a backup function (mental process - selecting)
18. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the determining comprises determining that the resource has transitioned from the non-functional state to the functional state in response to the node device being determined to have attached to the computing cluster (mental process – determining)
19. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the determining comprises determining that the resource has transitioned from the functional state to the non-functional state in response to the resource being determined to have failed (mental process – determining)
20. The non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the first function is selected from a group of functions comprising a storage function, a processing assistance function, and a backup function (mental process – selecting)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Peng et al. (hereinafter Peng, US 2024/0202039).
Regarding claim 1, Peng discloses:
a system (see at least Fig. 1 and 4), comprising:
a memory that stores executable components (see at least Fig. 1, 4 and ph. [0052] for memory and said instructions that are executed); and
a processor that executes the executable components stored in the memory, wherein the executable components (see at least Fig. 1, 4 and ph. [0052] for the processor and the executed instructions) comprise:
a resource monitoring component that determines operational statuses of resource components of a node device operating in a computing cluster associated with the system (see at least ph. [0065] – [0067] for the status matrix evaluating defining resources statuses of service nodes in the cluster, obtaining status responses from example nodes and updating the status matrix based on obtained status responses from example service nodes); and
a role selection component that selects an operational role for the node device in response to the resource monitoring component identifying a change to a first operational status, of the operational statuses and corresponding to a first resource component of the resource components, the operational role being selected by the role selection component based on second resource components, of the resource components, that are determined by the resource monitoring component to be operational, wherein the operational role specifies operations to be performed by the node device in the computing cluster (see at least ph. [0035] for the interface gateway determining task criteria for task resource requirements and [0035], [0041] [0065] – [0067] for the disclosed interaction between the interface gateway and the status matrix to acquire status information about the nodes on the system, including in at least ph. [0041] the interface gateway being informed of the statuses of the nodes, including the changes of said statuses, for the purposes of evaluating fitness of nodes for performing tasks for the system while now being aware of the task resource requirements and the resource statuses of the nodes that best meet the needs of performing the tasks, it is noted that nodes must be operational for any node to have any resources available to process any task and that the resource components are deemed operational for fulfilling the needs of the task, and are thus selected).
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Peng discloses:
the change to the first operational status corresponds to a failure of the first resource component (see at least ph. [027] for task (and their respective resources) being associated with “fast failure” notification, therefore the task and its respective resources have a change in their status to such a failure that is notified to the system).
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Peng discloses:
the role selection component selects the operational role from a group of operational roles (see at least ph. [0035], [0041] [0065] – [0067] for the disclosed interaction between the interface gateway and the status matrix to acquire status information about the nodes on the system allowing the interface gateway to select appropriate nodes among any number of tasks, where each of these tasks are roles that can be executed/operated upon by the system, resulting in these being operational roles), comprising the operational role (this is a particular task among the any number of tasks that the interface gateway can select as from ph. [034], [0041], [0065] – [0067]), that are supported by the second resource components (from at least as from ph. [034], [0041], [0065] – [0067], where the tasks are “supported” by the resources from the nodes selected to process the tasks including any particular task).
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated and Peng discloses:
the role selection component selects the operational role based on computing resources available to the node device via the second resource components (ph. [034], [0041], [0065] – [0067] for the interface gateway selecting the appropriate node to operate the handling of a particular task based on the resources needed by the task and the resources of the node(s) available and makes the, apparently optimal selection from among said node(s)).
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Peng discloses:
the resource components are selected from a group comprising hardware components and software components (see at least ph. [0031] for nodes from the cluster having hardware and software capacity to process requests).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Peng in view of Tanaka et al. (hereinafter Tanaka, US 2012/0243685).
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and Peng discloses:
the second resource components comprise the first resource component (see at least ph. [0035] for the interface gateway determining task criteria for task resource requirements and [0035], [0041] [0065] – [0067] for the disclosed interaction between the interface gateway and the status matrix to acquire status information about the nodes on the system, including in at least ph. [0041] the interface gateway being informed of the statuses of the nodes, including the changes of said statuses, for the purposes of evaluating fitness of nodes for performing tasks for the system, and as such the requirements of the tasks are found within (i.e. comprised) the resources of the selected node), and wherein the change to the first operational status (see at least ph. [0041] the interface gateway being informed of the statuses of the nodes, including the changes of said statuses) corresponds to the node device connecting to the computing cluster
Peng does not disclose, however, Tanaka discloses:
change to the first operational status corresponds to the node device connecting to the computing cluster (see at least ph. [0033] for nodes joining (i.e. connecting) to the computer network/cluster that their status to join, past join, present join…).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Peng, by the teachings of Tanaka in order to maintain up-to-date information on the status of nodes available and not available on a network to know if they may or may not assist in the processing of system tasks.
Claims 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Peng in view of Zhuo et al. (hereinafter Zhuo, US 2022/0066900).
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 7 is incorporated and Peng discloses:
the role selection component selects the operational role (see at least ph. [0035], [0041] [0065] – [0067] for the interface gateway selecting the appropriate node for a particular task).
Peng does not disclose, however, Zhuo discloses:
making a selection based on a decision tree (see at least ph. [0019] for using a decision tree as an example as a selection algorithm).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Peng, by the teachings of Zhuo in order to provide a program with a known algorithmic feature to implement for decision making processes, as opposed to developing such an algorithm ad hoc.
Claims 12, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Peng in view of Clampitt et al. (hereinafter Clampitt, WO 2018/005297).
Regarding claim 12, Peng discloses:
a method (see at least Fig. 3), comprising:
monitoring, by a system comprising a processor, operational states of resource elements of a computing device in a computing cluster (see at least Fig. 1, 4 and ph. [0052] for the processor and the networked system where that networked system in at least ph. [0065] – [0067] for the status matrix evaluating defining resources statuses of service nodes in the cluster, obtaining status responses from example nodes and updating the status matrix based on obtained status responses from example service nodes for use by the interface gateway); and
in response to determining, via the monitoring, that a first resource element of the resource elements related resource state, assigning, by the system, a computational function to the computing device based on second resource elements, of the resource elements, having the functioning operational state (see at least ph. [0035] for the interface gateway determining task criteria for task resource requirements and [0035], [0041] [0065] – [0067] for the disclosed interaction between the interface gateway and the status matrix to acquire status information about the nodes on the system, including in at least ph. [0041] the interface gateway being informed of the statuses of the nodes, including the changes of said statuses, for the purposes of evaluating fitness of nodes for performing tasks for the system, and as such the requirements of the tasks are found within (i.e. comprised) the resources of the selected node).
Peng does not disclose, however, Clampitt discloses:
resource elements has transitioned between a functioning operational state and a non-functioning operational state (see at least pg. 45 ln. 26 – 31 for resources provided by the system are still available (off-line or on-line) and indicate state changes of the resources to reflect them as such).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Peng, by the teachings of Clampitt in order to provide a means of efficiently obtaining functioning status of a resource of the computing system.
Regarding claim 17, Peng discloses:
a non-transitory machine-readable medium comprising computer executable
instructions that, when executed by a processor, facilitate performance of operations, the
operations (see at least Fig. 1, 4 and ph. [0022] – [0026] for such mediums and processors that perform instructions disclosed throughout the reference such as at least the processing of tasks as per at least ph. [0021]) comprising:
tracking performance metrics for resources associated with a node device of a
computing cluster (see at least ph. [0035] for the interface gateway determining task criteria for task resource requirements and [0035], [0041] [0065] – [0067] for the disclosed interaction between the interface gateway and the status matrix to acquire status information about the nodes on the system, including in at least ph. [0041] the interface gateway being informed of the statuses of the nodes, including the changes of said statuses, for the purposes of evaluating fitness of nodes for performing tasks for the system, and as such the requirements of the tasks are found within (i.e. comprised) the resources of the selected node, where selecting on the resources needed and available demonstrates tracking metrics related to said resources);
in response to the determining, causing the node device to perform a first function, the first function being different from a second function performed by the node device before the determining (see at least ph. [0035] for the interface gateway determining task criteria for task resource requirements and [0035], [0041] [0065] – [0067] for the disclosed interaction between the interface gateway and the status matrix to acquire status information about the nodes on the system, including in at least ph. [0041] the interface gateway being informed of the statuses of the nodes, including the changes of said statuses, for the purposes of evaluating fitness of nodes for performing tasks for the system, and as such the requirements of the tasks are found within (i.e. comprised) the resources of the selected node, noting that the nodes, before selected were performing whatever tasks they had that did not include the task selected by the interface gateway and system as a whole, thus being different task sets to perform).
Peng does not disclose, however, Clampitt discloses:
determining, via the tracking, that a resource of the resources has transitioned between a functional state and a non-functional state (see at least pg. 45 ln. 26 – 31 for resources provided by the system are still available (off-line or on-line) and indicate state changes of the resources to reflect them as such).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Peng, by the teachings of Clampitt in order to provide a means of efficiently obtaining functioning status of a resource of the computing system.
Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated and Peng does not expressly disclose, however, Clampitt discloses:
determining that the resource has transitioned from the functional state to the nonfunctional state in response to the resource being determined to have failed (see at least pg. 45 ln. 26 – 31 for resources provided by the system are still available (off-line or on-line) and indicate state changes of the resources to reflect them as such and that the offline findings also include the use of a heartbeat module that will inform of the functioning of the component monitored (i.e. does it have or not have a heartbeat)).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Peng, by the teachings of Clampitt in order to provide a means of efficiently obtaining functioning status of a resource of the computing system.
Claims 13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Peng in view of Clampitt and further in view of Jose, Jr. et al. (hereinafter Jose, US 2022/0398128).
Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated and Peng does not expressly disclose, however, Clampitt discloses:
determining, by the system, that the first resource element has transitioned from the
non-functioning operational state to the functioning operational state in response to the
computing device connecting to the computing cluster (see at least pg. 45 ln. 26 – 31 for resources provided by the system are still available (off-line or on-line) and indicate state changes of the resources to reflect them as such).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Peng, by the teachings of Clampitt in order to provide a means of efficiently obtaining functioning status of a resource of the computing system.
Peng and Clampitt do not expressly disclose, however, Jose discloses:
indicate that the operational state is connecting to the computer cluster (see at least ph. [0047] for the data record including a state indicating a network connection state which then includes all typical states, connected, connecting, disconnected …).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Peng, as modified by Clampitt, by the teachings of Jose in order to be able to quickly obtain what resources are connected (and therefore presumably available) on a network.
Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated and Peng does not expressly disclose, however, Clampitt discloses:
the determining comprises determining that the resource meets the needs of a task (see at least ph. [0035] for the interface gateway determining task criteria for task resource requirements and [0035], [0041] [0065] – [0067] for the disclosed interaction between the interface gateway and the status matrix to acquire status information about the nodes on the system, including in at least ph. [0041] the interface gateway being informed of the statuses of the nodes, including the changes of said statuses, for the purposes of evaluating fitness of nodes for performing tasks for the system, and as such the requirements of the tasks are found within (i.e. comprised) the resources of the selected node).
Peng does not expressly disclose, however, Clampitt discloses:
determining comprises that the resource has transitioned from the non-functional state to the functional state (see at least pg. 45 ln. 26 – 31 for resources provided by the system are still available (off-line or on-line) and indicate state changes of the resources to reflect them as such).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Peng, by the teachings of Clampitt in order to provide a means of efficiently obtaining functioning status of a resource of the computing system.
Peng and Clampitt do not expressly disclose, however, Jose discloses:
determined a resource has attached to the computing cluster (see at least ph. [0047] for the data record including a state indicating a network connection state which then includes all typical states, connected, connecting, disconnected …).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Peng, as modified by Clampitt, by the teachings of Jose in order to be able to quickly obtain what resources are connected (and therefore presumably available) on a network.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Peng in view of Clampitt and further in view of Zhuo.
Regarding claim 15, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated and Peng does not expressly disclose, however, Clampitt discloses:
the assigning of the computational function is based on system resource information (see at least ph. [0035] for the interface gateway determining task criteria for task resource requirements and [0035], [0041] [0065] – [0067] for the disclosed interaction between the interface gateway and the status matrix to acquire status information about the nodes on the system, including in at least ph. [0041] the interface gateway being informed of the statuses of the nodes, including the changes of said statuses, for the purposes of evaluating fitness of nodes for performing tasks for the system, and as such the requirements of the tasks are found within (i.e. comprised) the resources of the selected node).
Peng and Clampitt do not expressly disclose, however, Zhuo discloses:
making a selection based on a decision tree (see at least ph. [0019] for using a decision tree as an example as a selection algorithm).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Peng, by the teachings of Zhuo in order to provide a program with a known algorithmic feature to implement for decision making processes, as opposed to developing such an algorithm ad hoc.
Claims 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Peng in view of Clampitt and further in view of Chopra et al. (hereinafter Chopra, US 9,069,482).
Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated and Peng discloses:
the computational function is selected from a group of functions comprising a storage function, a processing function, (see at least ph. [0021] for tasks requiring storage space and data processing that then will be some of the basis on which nodes are selected for tasks as per at least ph. [0035], [0041] [0065] – [0067]).
Peng and Clampitt do not expressly disclose, however, Chopra discloses:
selecting a node for a backup function (see at least Fig. 7 and col. 9 ln. 48 – 62 for selecting a storage node for a backup recovery operation).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Peng, as modified by Clampitt, by the teachings of Chopra in order to have a recovery means for a system should primary systems fail so that at least some level of system work may continue and /or pickup from work previously completed without starting all anew.
Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 17 is incorporated and Peng discloses:
the first function is selected from a group of functions comprising a storage function, a processing function, (see at least ph. [0021] for tasks requiring storage space and data processing that then will be some of the basis on which nodes are selected for tasks as per at least ph. [0035], [0041] [0065] – [0067]).
Peng and Clampitt do not expressly disclose, however, Chopra discloses:
selecting a node for a backup function (see at least Fig. 7 and col. 9 ln. 48 – 62 for selecting a storage node for a backup recovery operation).
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the teachings of Peng, as modified by Clampitt, by the teachings of Chopra in order to have a recovery means for a system should primary systems fail so that at least some level of system work may continue and /or pickup from work previously completed without starting all anew.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 – 6, 11 and 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Other References Cited Not Relied Upon
Shi et al. (US 2023/0266814) discloses observing of full traffic / full-power states “online state” with scale-down means changing from a traffic receiving state to a standby state.
Huang et al. (US 2024/0193010) discloses when available resources of worker nodes meet the resources required by a job group a manager selects a target worker node that directly meets the resource requirements of the job group with the best performance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CRAIG C DORAIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3371. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 6:00pm.
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, Pierre Vital can be reached at 5712724215. 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.
/CRAIG C DORAIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Prosecution Insights