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 § 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 under the mental process without significantly more. The claim(s) 1 recite(s):
Re claim 1, a computer-implemented method for distributing stateful workloads to clusters, comprising:
obtaining, for a cluster, a previous configuration from a shared database, wherein the previous configuration includes a previous indication of a previous owner of a stateful workload;
obtaining, for the cluster and from the shared database, a configuration including an indication of a current owner of the stateful workload;
based on determining that the cluster is the current owner:
determining, based on the indication of the current owner, whether the cluster is the previous owner of the stateful workload;
based on determining that the cluster is the previous owner of the stateful workload, continuing processing a next state of the stateful workload; and
based on determining that the cluster is not the previous owner of the stateful workload, waiting for a duration before processing the next state of the stateful workload; and
based on determining that the cluster is not the current owner, refraining from processing the stateful workload.
Claims 11 and 19 have similar limitations as cited in claim 1. In addition, these claims 11 and 19 are also include additional high level generic computer system components including “one or more memories…; and one or more processors…: store, in the one or more memories…of a stateful workload;” (claim 11) and “a non-transitory computer-readable medium…workloads to clusters” (claim 19).
Under Prong I step 2A, the italic limitations above are identified as limitations that can be mentally done in human mind by merely observing and evaluating whether the current the owner of the cluster is the previous owner given information in database.
Under Prong II step 2A, all the non-italic limitations above including additional limitations in claims 1, 11, and 19 are considered as additional elements however, these additional elements are merely pre and post activities solution and high level generic computer system components known in the technology. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because either individually or in combination of these additional element does not integrate into a practical application wherein the obtaining limitations are merely for collecting/gathering the information over the network and the limitations of continuing processing, waiting for processing, and refraining from processing are merely considered as “apply it” which are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under step 2B, individually or in combination of these additional element does not integrate into a practical application wherein the obtaining limitations are merely for collecting/gathering the information over the network, see MPEP 2106.05(d) and (g) and the limitations of continuing processing, waiting for processing, and refraining from processing are merely considered as “apply it” which are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Re claim 2, this limitation “determining that the cluster is the current owner is based on consistent hashing using an attribute of the cluster indicated in the configuration and a property of a workspace of the stateful workload.” is considered as limitation that can be mentally be done in human mind under Prong I step 2A. There is no additional element that would sufficiently amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Re claim 3, this limitation “determining the duration based on whether the previous owner of the stateful workload acknowledged the configuration or not.” is considered as limitation that can be mentally be done in human mind under Prong I step 2A. There is no additional element that would sufficiently amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Re claim 4, this limitation “obtaining the configuration is performed based on a request from a job handler in the cluster for an indication of the current owner of the stateful workload.” is considered as additional element in Prong II step 2A. However, this additional is merely collecting/gathering additional data which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(d) and (g).
Re claim 5, this limitation “determining the cluster is the current owner is based on whether a cache of the configuration process is up to date.” is considered as limitation that can be mentally be done in human mind under Prong I step 2A. There is no additional element that would sufficiently amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Re claim 6, this limitation “periodically reporting health status to a cluster health manager.” is considered as additional element in Prong II step 2A. However, this additional is merely collecting/gathering additional data which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(d) and (g).
Re claim 7, this limitation “periodically reporting the health status includes declaring an unhealthy status based on failure to obtain the configuration from the shared database.” is considered as additional element in Prong II step 2A. However, this additional is merely collecting/gathering additional data which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(d) and (g).
Re claim 8, this limitation “killing a process of the stateful workload based on receiving an indication from the cluster health manager, wherein the indication is based on the cluster health manager not receiving the reported health status.” is considered as additional element in Prong II step 2A. However, this additional is considered as “apply-it” which are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Re claim 9, this limitation “the shared database allows one update of the current owner per a transition period defined for changing ownership for stateful workloads.” is considered as additional element in Prong II step 2A. However, this additional is merely storing additional data in a database at a high level of known computer structure which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(d) and (g).
Re claim 10, this limitation “obtaining the configuration is based on receiving, from the shared database or a cluster administrator, a notification indication that the configuration has been updated.” is considered as additional element in Prong II step 2A. However, this additional is merely collecting/gathering additional data which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(d) and (g).
Re claims 11 – 20, these claims have similar limitations cited in claims {1-6, 9-10, and 1-2} respectively. Thus, claims 11-20 are also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claims {1-6, 9-10, and 1-2} respectively above.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9-14, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ferraro et al. (U.S. 2021/0055960).
Re claim 1, Ferraro et al. disclose in Figures 1-10 a computer-implemented method for distributing stateful workloads to clusters (e.g. abstract, Figures 1 and paragraphs [0030-0032] discloses stateful workload/task being assigned and distributed to clusters), comprising: obtaining, for a cluster, a previous configuration from a shared database, wherein the previous configuration includes a previous indication of a previous owner of a stateful workload (e.g. Figures 1, paragraphs [0038 and 0040] and claim 5 wherein information of the cluster members including ownership must be stored in database for tracking purposes); obtaining, for the cluster and from the shared database, a configuration including an indication of a current owner of the stateful workload (e.g. Figure 1, paragraphs [0028, 0038 and 0050] wherein the cluster ownership are changing over time as they need to store and track the information); based on determining that the cluster is the current owner: determining, based on the indication of the current owner, whether the cluster is the previous owner of the stateful workload (e.g. Figures 3-4 and 9 and paragraph [0045] and abstract wherein the cluster ownership is determined); based on determining that the cluster is the previous owner of the stateful workload, continuing processing a next state of the stateful workload (e.g. Figures 3-4 and paragraph [0002-0003 and 0051]); and based on determining that the cluster is not the previous owner of the stateful workload, waiting for a duration before processing the next state of the stateful workload (e.g. Figures 3-4 and paragraph [0045] wherein the workload/task is not scheduled to execute till rightful ownership); and based on determining that the cluster is not the current owner, refraining from processing the stateful workload (e.g. Figures 3-4 and paragraph [0050] wherein the task/workload will not be executed if it does not belong to rightful ownership).
Re claim 2, Ferraro et al. disclose in Figures 1-10 determining that the cluster is the current owner is based on consistent hashing using an attribute of the cluster indicated in the configuration and a property of a workspace of the stateful workload (e.g. paragraphs [0026-0027 and 0036] hash function is used to determine ownership).
Re claim 3, Ferraro et al. disclose in Figures 1-10 determining the duration based on whether the previous owner of the stateful workload acknowledged the configuration or not (e.g. Figures 3-4 and paragraph [0045]).
Re claim 4, Ferraro et al. disclose in Figures 1-10 obtaining the configuration is performed based on a request from a job handler in the cluster for an indication of the current owner of the stateful workload (e.g. Figures 4-5 and paragraphs [0030-0032]).
Re claim 9, Ferraro et al. disclose in Figures 1-10 the shared database allows one update of the current owner per a transition period defined for changing ownership for stateful workloads (e.g. Figures 1-3, abstract and paragraphs [0045-0046]).
Re claim 10, Ferraro et al. disclose in Figures 1-10 obtaining the configuration is based on receiving, from the shared database or a cluster administrator, a notification indication that the configuration has been updated (e.g. Figures 4-5 and paragraphs [0030-0032]).
Re claim 11, it is a device claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 11 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Re claim 12, it is a device claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Re claim 13, it is a device claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 3. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
Re claim 14, it is a device claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 4. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4 above.
Re claim 17, it is a device claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 9. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 9 above.
Re claim 18, it is a device claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 10. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 10 above.
Re claim 19, it is a medium claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Re claim 20, it is a medium claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferraro et al. (U.S. 2021/0055960) in view of Abhigyan et al. (U.S. 2021/0099388).
Re claim 5, Ferraro et al. fail to disclose in Figures 1-10 determining the cluster is the current owner is based on whether a cache of the configuration process is up to date. However, Abhigyan et al. disclose determining the cluster is the current owner is based on whether a cache of the configuration process is up to date (e.g. paragraphs [0079 and 0115] which disclose the ownership can be determined from the cache). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to add determining the cluster is the current owner is based on whether a cache of the configuration process is up to date as seen in Abhigyan et al.’s invention into Ferraro et al.’s invention because it would enable to directly and efficiently identifying the ownership of a process.
Re claim 15, it is a device claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 5. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
Claim(s) 6-8 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferraro et al. (U.S. 2021/0055960) in view of White (U.S. 2023/0121924).
Re claim 6, Ferraro et al. fail to disclose in Figures 1-10 periodically reporting health status to a cluster health manager. However, White discloses periodically reporting health status to a cluster health manager (e.g. paragraphs [0021, 0035 and 0041-0042] wherein a mechanism is used to check for healthiness of a system). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of claimed invention to add periodically reporting health status to a cluster health manager as conceptually seen White’s invention into Ferraro et al.’s invention because it would enable to efficiently manage the resources of the system in operation.
Re claim 7, Ferraro et al. in view of White disclose periodically reporting the health status includes declaring an unhealthy status based on failure to obtain the configuration from the shared database (e.g. White – paragraphs [0041-0042 and 0061-0062] detection of failure or unhealthiness of a system).
Re claim 8, Ferraro et al. in view of White disclose killing a process of the stateful workload based on receiving an indication from the cluster health manager, wherein the indication is based on the cluster health manager not receiving the reported health status (e.g. White - paragraphs [0021, 0035 and 0041-0042] wherein a mechanism is used to check for healthiness of a system and Ferraro et al. - Figures 3-4 and paragraph [0050] wherein the task/workload will not be executed if it does not belong to rightful ownership).
Re claim 16, it is a device claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 6. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0390356 discloses a method for resource allocation optimization.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0086023 discloses a method of distributing stateful workloads to clusters including obtaining, for a cluster, a previous configuration from a shared database, wherein the previous configuration includes a previous indication of a previous owner of a stateful workload.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0344716 discloses a method of a first compute device comprising: interface circuitry to connect to a network; instructions; programmable circuitry to interpret a policy based on a first attribute and a second attribute to identify an action associated with the first compute device, the first attribute to describe the first compute device, the second attribute obtained via the interface circuitry from a second compute device to describe the second compute device.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0115261 discloses techniques for migrating a stateful workload between a source container cluster and a destination container cluster that have different storage backends.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0364492 discloses circuit arrangement includes a preprocessing circuit configured to obtain context information related to a user location, a learning circuit configured to determine a predicted user movement based on context information related to a user location to obtain a predicted route and to determine predicted radio conditions along the predicted route.
U.S. Patent No. 12,500,912 discloses method for querying multiple datasets.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chat C Do whose telephone number is (571)272-3721. The examiner can normally be reached {M - Th} 4:30am - 2:30pm.
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, Dede Zecher can be reached at 571-272-0800. 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.
/Chat C Do/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193