DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 16, line 1, “computer readable” should be hyphenated.
As to claim 20, line 3, “computer readable” should be hyphenated.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 1-15 are directed to methods and fall within the statutory category of processes. Claims 16-19 are directed to computer program products and full within the statutory category of articles of manufacture. Claim 20 is directed to a system and falls within the statutory category of machines.
Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1, 16, and 20: The limitations of “determining… that no computing hosts… have available resources capable of running the pending job…,” “identifying… candidate jobs for preemption…,” “ranking… the candidate jobs for preemption…,” “attempting to preempt… a top N candidate jobs…,” and “initiating… the pending job,” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can compare available resources and needed resources to determine that no hosts currently have the required amount, identify jobs based on some criteria that can be preempted, use some formula to rank those jobs, issue an instruction to stop a particular job based on the rankings, and issue a final instruction for the original job to begin.
Therefore, Yes, claims 1, 16, and 20 recite judicial exceptions.
The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1, 16, and 20: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements – “one or more processors,” “computing hosts within a computing cluster,” “one or more computer readable storage media and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media,” “one or more computer processors,” “one or more computer readable storage media,” which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)) which do not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1, 16, and 20 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claim is directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 16, and 20: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, Claims 1, 16, and 20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 2-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as non-statutory for at least the reasons stated above. The claims are dependent on Claim 1, but do not add any feature or subject matter that would solve the non-statutory deficiencies of Claim 1. Specifically, each claim simply clarifies details of the various claimed elements or adds further mental processes that are similar to the steps in claim 1. Claims 2-15 do not add any steps or elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert claim 1 into patent-eligible subject matter. Similarly, claims 16-19 also do not add any steps or elements, when considered both individually and as a combination, that would convert their independent claim into patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, claims 1-20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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, 5, 14, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Casotto (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2007/0044102 A1).
As per claim 1, Casotto teaches the limitations as claimed, including a computer-implemented method, the method comprising:
responsive to a pending job being selected to be run, determining, by one or more processors, that no computing hosts within a computing cluster have available resources capable of running the pending job and non-preemptive measures will not provide required resources for the pending job (Paragraph [0022] teaches the preempting set of jobs…waiting to use highly demanded resources);
identifying, by the one or more processors, candidate jobs for preemption and dynamic information and static information for each candidate job (Paragraph [0022] teaches “a preempt-able set of jobs” including low priority jobs; Paragraph [0026] teaches consideration of “suffer time” for preempting a job, which involves the lost time that will occur from preempting and correlates to dynamic information described in Paragraph [0039] of the instant specification);
ranking, by the one or more processors, the candidate jobs for preemption based on the dynamic information and the static information for each candidate job (Paragraph [0023]);
attempting to preempt, by the one or more processors, a top N candidate jobs whose released resources in combination with the available resources of the computing cluster satisfy the required resources of the pending job (Paragraph [0021]; Figure 4A); and
responsive to successfully preempting the top N candidate jobs, initiating, by the one or more processors, the pending job (Paragraph [0021]; Figure 4A).
As per claim 2, Casotto teaches that the dynamic information is an elapsed time from a last checkpoint of a respective candidate job and a predicted remaining time for completion of the respective candidate job, and wherein the static information is a configured priority value assigned to the respective candidate job (Paragraphs [0022] and [0026]).
As per claim 3, Casotto teaches reviewing, by the one or more processors, current jobs running and the available resources within the computing cluster at a point in time by taking a snapshot; and comparing, by the one or more processors, the available resources within the computing cluster to the required resources to run the pending job (Paragraph [0022]).
As per claim 5, Casotto teaches calculating, by the one or more processors, the elapsed time from the last checkpoint of the respective candidate job as a difference between a current time and a time of the last checkpoint recorded in a data structure for the respective candidate job, wherein the data structure stores a respective time of the last checkpoint detected for each running job within the computing cluster (Paragraph [0026]).
As per claim 10, Casotto teaches calculating, by the one or more processors, the predicted remaining time for completion of the respective candidate job as a difference between a predicted total time for completion recorded in a data structure for the respective candidate job, a start time recorded in the data structure for the respective candidate job, and a current time, wherein the data structure stores a respective predicted total time for completion and a respective start time for each running job within the computing cluster (Paragraphs [0022] and [0026]).
As per claim 14, Casotto teaches that ranking the candidate jobs for preemption based on the dynamic information and the static information for each candidate job is done with an objective of minimizing loss of computation time while optimizing a benefit and utilization of resources of the computer cluster (Figure 3; Paragraph [0023]).
As per claims 16-19, they are computer program product claims with no further limitations beyond those rejected above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 20, it is a system claim with no further limitations beyond those rejected above. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Casotto in view of Harizopoulos et al (U.S. Pat. No. 10,318,346 B1, hereinafter Harizopoulos).
As per claim 4, Casotto does not expressly teach pulling, by the one or more processors, the static information for each candidate job from a job submission script.
However, Harizopoulos teaches pulling, by the one or more processors, the static information for each candidate job from a job submission script (Col. 10, Line 52 – Col. 11, Line 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine the teachings of Harizopoulos with those of Casotto in order to allow for Casotto’s method to receive specific input data and priorities for each job, which could help to ensure that jobs were ordered properly, increasing satisfaction among prospective users.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Gregory Kessler whose telephone number is (571)270-7762. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30 - 5, Alternate Fridays 8:30-4.
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, Bradley Teets can be reached at (571)272-3338. 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.
/GREGORY A KESSLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2197