Detailed Action
This action is in response to amendments filed on 06/25/2026.
This application was filed on 10/17/2023 which claims priority to Korean application KR-10-2022-0153802 filed on 11/16/2022.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-4, 7-13, and 16-20 are pending.
Claims 1-4, 7-13, and 16-20are rejected.
Applicant's Response
In Applicant's Response dated 06/25/2026, Applicant amended claims 1, 3-4, 7-9, 11-13, and 16-20, and canceled claims 5-6, and 14-15. Applicant argued against various rejections previously set forth in the Office Action mailed on 04/01/2026.
In light of Applicant' s amendments and remarks, all rejections of claims under 35 U.S.C. 112 set forth previously are withdrawn.
In light of Applicant' s amendments and remarks, rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being signals and/or carrier waves set forth previously are withdrawn.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “task managing system configured to receive…a process managing system configured to confirm… a performed managing system configured to confirm” (claim 1); “managing system configured to broadcast” (claim 8), “process managing system is configured to integrate and manage…assign” (claim 9), “database configured to store…remote logic storage configured to store”. The examiner notes that ““task managing system configured to receive…” (claim 1); and “database configured to store…remote logic storage configured to store”. are interpreted to be non-specialized functions.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. See, figure 1-2, fig. 15, and at least paragraphs 0020, 0049-0057, 0072-0077.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Representative claim 1 is directed to a computing resource management system using software modularization in a cluster computing environment in which computing devices are connected, including an application process running on each computing device and an algorithm processing process configured to run independently of the application process and perform task processing on the application process, the computing resource management system comprising:
a task managing system configured to receive a task request message from the application process requiring a task from each computing device;
a process managing system configured to confirm an algorithm processing process of computing devices connected to the cluster computing environment, and determine whether there is an algorithm processing process in an idle state to which the application process requested for the task will be assigned; and
a performed managing system configured to confirm a result of the application process whose the task is performed by the algorithm processing process.
wherein:
the task managing system, the process managing system, and the performed managing system are arranged to be distributed across the computing devices which are different from each other, and
the process managing system is configured to: when there is no algorithm processing process in an idle state to which the application process requested for an urgent task will be assigned, request at least one computing device connected to the cluster computing environment to create an additional algorithm processing process by considering residual computing resources of the computing devices connected in the cluster computing environment, and
when there is an algorithm processing process in an idle state to which the application process requested for the task will be assigned after creating the additional algorithm processing process, request the additional algorithm processing process to be removed from the at least one computing device.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely,
mental processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper (see, October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update, 84 Fed. Reg. 55,942, hereinafter “PEG”).
For instance, humans can mentally and/or via aid of pen/paper perform resource management including a mentally via observation/judgement confirm an algorithm processing process/application of computing devices connected to the cluster computing environment, and mentally determine via observation/judgment whether there is an algorithm processing process in an idle state to which the application process requested for the task will be assigned; and a performed managing system configured/mentally to confirm/assign a result of an application process whose task is performed by the algorithm processing process, wherein mentally determining when there is no algorithm processing process in an idle state to which the application process requested for an urgent task will be assigned, mentally and/or via pen/paper request at least one computing device connected to the cluster computing environment to create an additional algorithm processing process by considering residual computing resources of the computing devices connected in the cluster computing environment, and mentally determining when there is an algorithm processing process in an idle state to which the application process requested for the task will be assigned… , mentally with aid of paper/pen request the additional algorithm processing process to be removed from the at least one computing device.
Per prong 2, Step 2A, the additional non-emphasized elements as noted above, are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(f, g, h). For instance,
“computing resource management system using software modularization in a cluster computing environment in which computing devices are connected, including an application process running on each computing device and an algorithm processing process configured to run independently of the application process and perform task processing on the application process, the computing resource management system comprising” - are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(f, g, h)
“a task managing system configured to receive a task request message from the application process requiring a task from each computing device” - are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; - see MPEP 2106.05(f, g, h)
“when there is no algorithm processing process in an idle state to which the application process requested for an urgent task will be assigned, request at least one computing device connected to the cluster computing environment to create an additional algorithm processing process by considering residual computing resources of the computing devices connected in the cluster computing environment, and when there is an algorithm processing process in an idle state to which the application process requested for the task will be assigned after creating the additional algorithm processing process, request the additional algorithm processing process to be removed from the at least one computing device” if considered as additional elements - are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results and does not sufficiently tie any limitation (or combination of limitations) to purported improvement disclosed in the specification.
Per Step 2B, the additional non-emphasized elements as noted above are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). For instance,
“computing resource management system using software modularization in a cluster computing environment in which computing devices are connected, including an application process running on each computing device and an algorithm processing process configured to run independently of the application process and perform task processing on the application process, the computing resource management system comprising” - are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(f, g, h)
“a task managing system configured to receive a task request message from the application process requiring a task from each computing device” - are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; - see MPEP 2106.05(f, g, h)
“when there is no algorithm processing process in an idle state to which the application process requested for an urgent task will be assigned, request at least one computing device connected to the cluster computing environment to create an additional algorithm processing process by considering residual computing resources of the computing devices connected in the cluster computing environment, and when there is an algorithm processing process in an idle state to which the application process requested for the task will be assigned after creating the additional algorithm processing process, request the additional algorithm processing process to be removed from the at least one computing device” if considered as additional elements - are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results and does not sufficiently tie any limitation (or combination of limitations) to purported improvement disclosed in the specification.
Accordingly, the above limitations singularly or in combination do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 11, and 20 are method and medium claims corresponding to system claim 1 and are of substantially same scope.
Accordingly, claims 11, and 20 are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-4, 7-10, and 12-13, 16-19 when considered individually or in combination per steps as noted above are rejected under the same rational as set forth above for claims 1, 11, and 20. In particular,
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the task managing system, the process managing system, and the performed managing system are performed in at least one computing device connected in the cluster computing environment.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the task managing system is configured to, receive the task request of the application process requiring a task from a computing device including only an application process running on computing devices in addition to the computing devices connected in the cluster computing environment.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein a computing device including the application process requested for the task is different from a computing device including the algorithm processing process to which the application process requested for a task will be assigned.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the task managing system is configured to, broadcast the application process requiring the task, or transmit the application process to at least one of the computing devices including an algorithm processing process to process algorithm for the application process.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the performed managing system is configured to, broadcast a result of the application process whose the task is performed, or transmit the result to at least one of the computing devices including the application process.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the process managing system is configured to, integrate and manage the algorithm processing process of the computing devices connected to the cluster computing environment, and assign the application process requested for a task to an algorithm processing process in an idle state.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites further comprising: a database configured to store data required for performing algorithmic processing of the application process, wherein the data includes metadata or parameter data; and a remote logic storage configured to store low-level (RAW) data.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
As per claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 further incorporated, further recites wherein the resource assigning operation comprises: assigning the application process requested for the task to the algorithm processing process in an idle state responding to the task request message loaded in a task managing system on a first-come-first-served basis.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
As per claim 13, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the task request operation comprises: receiving a task request of the application process requiring the task from a computing device including only an application process running on the computing device in addition to the computing devices connected to the cluster computing environment.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
As per claim 16, the rejection of claim 11 further incorporated, further recites wherein the task request operation comprises: broadcasting the application process requiring the task, or transmitting the application process to a computing device including an algorithm processing process to process the algorithm for the application process.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
As per claim 17, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein the task performed operation comprises: broadcasting a result of the application process whose the task is performed, or transmitting the result to the computing device including the application process.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
As per claim 18, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites wherein a computing device including the application process requested for the task in the task request operation is different from a computing device including the algorithm processing process to which the application process requested for the task will be assigned in the resource assigning operation.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
As per claim 19, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, further recites comprising: prior to the task request operation, in order to operate the application process running on each computing device independently of the algorithm processing process performing task processing on the application process, separating the algorithm processing process from the application process; and integrating and managing the algorithm processing process of each computing device connected to the cluster computing environment in a single process pool.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
Accordingly, claims 1-4, 7-13, 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract idea.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claims 11-13, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Rose et al. (US 20060048161 A1, referred hereinafter as D1) in view of Moler (US 20090320026 A1, referred hereinafter as D2).
As per claim 11, D1 discloses,
A computing resource management method using software modularization in a cluster computing environment in which computing devices are connected, (D1, abstract, fig 1 show networked computing devices in a cluster executing application/processes).
including an application process running on each computing device, (D1, abstract, fig 1, 0017, 0019, 0037-0038 show networked computing devices in a cluster executing master and slave BoT application/processes.).
and an algorithm processing process configured to run independently of the application process and perform task processing on the application process, the computing resource management system comprising, (D1, abstract, fig 1, 0017, 0019, 0037-0038 show networked computing devices in a cluster executing master and slave BoT application/processes, where slave boT application/process configured to run independently of the master BoT application process and perform task processing on the application process or provided tasks, the computing resource management system comprising).
a task operation of receiving a task request message from the application process requiring a task from each computing device, (D1, abstract, fig 1-2, 0017, 0019, 0037-0038 show grid user/GRM/master Bot submitting task for processing which reads on a task managing system configured (e.g. CRM) to receive a task request message from the application process (e.g. user/GRM/master BoT application) requiring a task from each computing device/node).
a resource assigning operation of confirming an algorithm processing process of computing devices connected to the cluster computing environment, and determining whether there is an algorithm processing process in an idle state to which the application process requested for the task will be assigned, (D1, abstract, fig 1-2, 0017, 0019, 0037-0038, 0041-0044 show/discloses grid user/GRM submitting task for processing, and system of D1 determining idle connected nodes/processes and loading executing application/task to the connected idle node/processes which fairly reads on a process managing system configured to confirm an algorithm processing process of computing devices connected to the cluster computing environment, and determine whether there is an algorithm processing process in an idle state to which the application process requested for the task will be assigned).
and a task performed operation confirming a result of the application process whose the task is performed, (D1, abstract, fig 1-2, 0017, 0019, 0037-0038, 0041-0044 show/discloses grid user/GRM submitting task for processing, and system of D1 determining idle connected nodes/processes and loading executing application/task to the connected idle node/processes, and per steps 220-222 determining if all task have been completed which fairly reads on a performed managing system configured to confirm a result of an application process whose task is performed by the algorithm processing process).
wherein: the task request operation, the resource assigning operation, and the task performed operations are performed across computing devices, (D1, abstract, fig 1-2, 0017, 0019, 0037-0038 show networked grid computing having separate nodes, clients executing application/methods/modules send/receive requests/tasks (e.g. the task request operation), distributes tasks to various nodes (e.g. the resource assigning operation), and verify if nodes finished tasks (the task performed operations).).
the task performed operation comprises: when there is no algorithm processing process in an idle state to which the application process requested for an urgent task will be assigned, requesting at least one computing device connected to the cluster computing environment to create an additional algorithm processing process by considering residual computing resources of the computing devices connected in the cluster computing environment, andwhen there is an algorithm processing process in an idle state to which the application process requested for the task will be assigned after creating the additional algorithm processing process, requesting the additional algorithm processing process to be removed from the at least one computing device, (D1, abstract, fig 1-2, 0017, 0019, 0037-0038, 0041-0044 show/discloses grid user/GRM submitting task for processing, and system of D1 determining idle connected nodes/processes and loading executing application/task to the connected idle node/processes, and per steps 220-222 determining if all task have been completed which fairly reads on a performed managing system configured to confirm a result of an application process whose task is performed by the algorithm processing process. Furthermore, the examiner notes that above limitations of the method include contingent limitations “when” and are therefore given little no patentable weight. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, “[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed” (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10. When analyzing the claimed system as a whole, the PTAB determined that “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur.” Schulhauser at 14. Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);" however to render the claimed system obvious, the prior art must teach the structure that performs the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations. Schulhauser at 9, 14.).
As noted above, D1 arguably discloses including an application process running on each computing device; nevertheless, for the sake completeness, D2 (0058, 0079, 0095) explicitly discloses - an application process running on each computing device and computing results via the application, where the results are returned back to the requesting node/environment/application that submitted the task.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D2. This would have been obvious with predicable results of processing in parallel via application installed on multiple devices as disclosed by D2 and known the art.
As noted above, D1 discloses the task request operation, the resource assigning operation, and the task performed operations are performed across computing devices; however, D1 fails to expressly disclose – [devices] which are different from each other.
However, the examiner takes official notice that devices which are different from each other being used to execute various functions/operations were known before effective filing of the invention.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include devices which are different from each other. This would have been obvious with predicable results of using different computing devices to execute various functions as known in the art and to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As per claim 12, the rejection of claim 11 further incorporated, D1 discloses
wherein the resource assigning operation comprises: assigning the application process requested for the task to the algorithm processing process in an idle state responding to the task request message loaded in a task managing system…, (D1, abstract, fig 1-3, 0017, 0019, 0037-0038, 0041-0044, 0046 show/discloses storage medium storing grid user application/GRM/CRM and Master BoT applications executing on one of nodes of the networked cluster for submitting tasks/data for processing, selecting different nodes to process tasks via slave BoT nodes, where D1 further discloses loading/transmitting slave BoT application/process to idle nodes in order to process the tasks which reads on assigning the application process requested for a task to an algorithm processing process in an idle state responding to a task request message loaded in a task managing system.).
D1 fails to expressly disclose – on a first-come-first-served basis.
However, the examiner takes official notice processing task based on some order including based on a first-come-first-served basis was notoriously well known before the effective filing of the invention.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include executing task on a first-come-first-served basis. This would have been obvious with predicable results of executing tasks based on first come first served basis as known in the art and to one of ordinary skill.
As per claim 13, the rejection of claim 11 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the task request operation comprises: receiving a task request of the application process requiring the task from a computing device including only an application process running on computing devices in addition to the computing devices connected in the cluster computing environment, (D1, abstract, fig 1-2, 0017, 0019, 0037-0038, 0041-0044 show/discloses grid user/GRM/CRM and Master BoT application executing on one of nodes of the networked cluster for submitting tasks for processing, selecting nodes to process tasks, and determining if tasks completed which reads on receive a task request of an application process requiring a task from a computing device (e.g. receive task from grid user/GRM/CRM and/or Master BoT application) including… an application process running on computing devices in addition to the computing devices connected in the cluster computing environment).
D1 application executing on computing device; however, fails to expressly disclose – only [an application process running on computing].
However, the examiner takes official notice a computing device executing only one application was notoriously was well known before the effective filing of the invention.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include only an application process running on computing. This would have been obvious with predicable results of executing single application on a computing device as known in the art.
As per claim 16, the rejection of claim 11 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
broadcasting an application process requiring the task, or transmitting the application process to the computing device including the algorithm processing process to process algorithm for the application process, (D1, abstract, fig 1-2, 0017, 0019, 0037-0038, 0041-0044 show/discloses grid user/GRM/CRM and Master BoT application executing on one of nodes of the networked cluster for submitting tasks for processing, selecting different nodes to process tasks via slave BoT nodes, where D1 further discloses loading/transmitting slave BoT application/process to idle nodes in order to process the tasks which reads on transmit the application process to a computing device including an algorithm processing process to process algorithm for the application process.).
As per claim 17:
The rejection of claim 11 further incorporated, D1 discloses
D1 fails to expressly disclose- broadcasting a result of the application process whose the task is performed, or transmitting the result to a computing device including the application process.
D2 (0058, 0079, 0095) explicitly discloses - an application process running on each computing device and computing results via the application that are returned/transmitted back to the requesting node/environment/application that submitted the task.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D2. This would have been obvious with predicable results of processing in parallel via application installed on multiple devices as disclosed by D2 and known the art.
As per claim 18, the rejection of claim 11 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein a computing device including the application process requested for the task in the task request operation is different from a computing device including the algorithm processing process to which the application process requested for the task will be assigned in the resource assigning operation, (D1, abstract, fig 1-2, 0017, 0019, 0037-0038, 0041-0044 show/discloses grid user/GRM/CRM and Master BoT application executing on one of nodes of the networked cluster for submitting tasks for processing, selecting different nodes to process tasks via slave BoT nodes.).
Claims 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de Rose et al. (US 20060048161 A1, referred hereinafter as D1) in view of Moler (US 20090320026 A1, referred hereinafter as D2) in view of Nguyen (US 20210240542 A1, referred hereinafter as D4).
As per claim 19, the rejection of claim 11 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
comprising: prior to the task request operation, in order to operate the application process running on each computing device independently of the algorithm processing process performing task processing on the application process, (D1, abstract, fig 1-3, 0017, 0019, 0037-0038, 0041-0044, 0046 show/discloses prior to task request and thereafter grid user application/GRM/CRM and Master BoT applications executing on one of nodes of the networked cluster for submitting tasks/data for processing, selecting different nodes to process tasks via slave BoT nodes, where D1 further discloses loading/transmitting slave BoT application/process to idle nodes in order to process the tasks which reads on integrate and manage the algorithm processing process of the computing devices connected to the cluster computing environment, and assign the application process requested for a task to an algorithm processing process in an idle state.).
… the algorithm processing process [being separate] from the application process; and integrating and managing the algorithm processing process of each computing device connected to the cluster computing environment in a single process pool, (D1, abstract, fig 1-3, 0017, 0019, 0037-0038, 0041-0044, 0046 show/discloses Master BoT applications and slave BoT executing on one of nodes of the networked cluster for submitting tasks/data for processing, selecting different nodes to process tasks via slave BoT nodes from the pool of idle nodes.).
D1 fails to expressly disclose - separating [the algorithm processing process from the application process].
However, D4 (0022, 0041, figure 3) discloses decomposing/separating application functions form the main function and executing the decomposed functions in different nodes.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include teachings of D4 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results of optimizing deployment/execution of functions/application as disclosed by D4 (0027, 0063).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 7-10, and 20 would be allowable if above noted 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections are overcome via amendments and/or arguments. Reasons for allowance will be held in abeyance until all matters in the prosecution are closed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 06/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and/or moot in view of new/modified grounds of rejections.
35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant argues that “claim 1 can "efficiently perform[] application processing" and "divide[ resources] maximally and use[ resources] efficiently without a separate central server" to solve the problem of the prior art described above. Thus, additional elements of claim 1 are more than "apply it" or are not "mere instructions" when the claim recites a technological solution to a technological problem.” (response page 9-22).
The examiner disagrees.
As noted in the rejection, humans can mentally and/or via aid of pen/paper perform resource management including a mentally via observation/judgement confirm an algorithm processing process/application of computing devices connected to the cluster computing environment, and mentally determine via observation/judgment whether there is an algorithm processing process in an idle state to which the application process requested for the task will be assigned; and a performed managing system configured/mentally to confirm/assign a result of an application process whose task is performed by the algorithm processing process, wherein mentally determining when there is no algorithm processing process in an idle state to which the application process requested for an urgent task will be assigned, mentally and/or via pen/paper request at least one computing device connected to the cluster computing environment to create an additional algorithm processing process by considering residual computing resources of the computing devices connected in the cluster computing environment, and mentally determining when there is an algorithm processing process in an idle state to which the application process requested for the task will be assigned… , mentally with aid of paper/pen request the additional algorithm processing process to be removed from the at least one computing device as recited by independent claim 1 and similarly independent claims 11, and 20.
Furthermore, Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B,, the additional elements of:
“computing resource management system using software modularization in a cluster computing environment in which computing devices are connected, including an application process running on each computing device and an algorithm processing process configured to run independently of the application process and perform task processing on the application process, the computing resource management system comprising” - are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(f, g, h)
“a task managing system configured to receive a task request message from the application process requiring a task from each computing device” - are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; - see MPEP 2106.05(f, g, h)
“when there is no algorithm processing process in an idle state to which the application process requested for an urgent task will be assigned, request at least one computing device connected to the cluster computing environment to create an additional algorithm processing process by considering residual computing resources of the computing devices connected in the cluster computing environment, and when there is an algorithm processing process in an idle state to which the application process requested for the task will be assigned after creating the additional algorithm processing process, request the additional algorithm processing process to be removed from the at least one computing device” if considered as additional elements - are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(f, g, h).
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results and the recited limitation does not sufficiently tie any limitation (or combination of limitations) to purported improvement disclosed in the specification. In other words, specification stated benefit cannot establish eligibility when the improvement is not sufficiently reflected in the claim.
Accordingly, applicant’s argument is not persuasive and/or moot in view modified grounds/rational of rejections.
35 U.S.C. 103
With respect to claim 11, applicant argues that cited reference fail to disclose “the task performed operation comprises: when there is no algorithm processing process in an idle state to which the application process requested for an urgent task will be assigned, requesting at least one computing device connected to the cluster computing environment to create an additional algorithm processing process by considering residual computing resources of the computing devices connected in the cluster computing environment, and when there is an algorithm processing process in an idle state to which the application process requested for the task will be assigned after creating the additional algorithm processing process, requesting the additional algorithm processing process to be removed from the at least one computing device” (response page 21).
The examiner disagrees.
As noted in the rejection, the above argued limitations of method claim include contingent limitations “when” and are therefore given little no patentable weight. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, “[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed” (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10. When analyzing the claimed system as a whole, the PTAB determined that “[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur.” Schulhauser at 14. Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);" however to render the claimed system obvious, the prior art must teach the structure that performs the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations. Schulhauser at 9, 14.). In other words, the above limitation are not positively required by the claim.
Accordingly, applicant’s argument is not persuasive and/or moot in view modified grounds of rejections.
All other arguments depend on arguments addressed above.
The examiner disagrees as noted above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAFA A AMIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3181. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Young, can be reached on 571-270-3180. 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. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, 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.
/MUSTAFA A AMIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights