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 .
Detailed Action
Office Action is in response to the instant Application 18/487,378 filed on 10/16/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS), submitted on 10/16/2023, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 8 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 8 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,847,502. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 14, with regards to Remotely Managing Execution Of Jobs In A Cluster Computing Framework of the instant Application are anticipated by the limitations recited in 1, 8 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11,847,502.
Regarding claims 2-7, 9-13 and 15-20; claims 2-7, 9-13 and 15-20 are also rejected under Double Patenting for similar reasons respectively and are dependent on claims 1, 8 and 14 and therefore inherit the rejection from issues of the independent claims.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The instant Application is allowed for similar reasons as parent Application 16/717,234, filed 12/17/2019, now U.S. Patent # 11,847,502.
An updated search was conducted on 1/20/2025 and the claims are still in condition for Allowance. None of the searched prior art disclosed, taught or even suggested in combination “provide, to a driver device, the plurality of jobs and execution criteria for the execution of at least one of the plurality of jobs; receive, from the driver device, failure information associated with the execution of the at least one of the plurality of jobs according to the execution criteria; and send, based on receiving the failure information, the at least one of the plurality of jobs, and either the execution criteria or modified execution criteria, to another master device for another execution of the at least one of the plurality of jobs according to the execution criteria or the modified execution criteria, wherein the other master device is associated with another driver device,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 8 and 11.
The above limitations are not taught by conventional means, with regards to job processing. Conventional means would monitor job/process execution and how the jobs are executed, as such that is taught in the closest prior art of Sivasubramanian et al (US 2010/0250748) in view of McPherson et al. (US 2018/0150529) and Tracht et al. (US 2016/0112509). While the instant application does disclose this, it further goes into details about how it handles and processes jobs among master devices. This adds a novelty to the claims and as a result the claims are in condition for Allowance.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODERICK TOLENTINO whose telephone number is (571)272-2661. The examiner can normally be reached Mon- Fri 8am-4pm.
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, Luu Pham can be reached at 571-270-5002. 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.
RODERICK . TOLENTINO
Examiner
Art Unit 2439
/RODERICK TOLENTINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2439