DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-11, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bade (US Pat No. 11,522,947).
Regarding claim 1, Bade teaches a method for managing resources of a distributed system, the method comprising:
obtaining, by an orchestrator of the distributed, a proposed transaction for a distributed ledger that stores management data for the distributed system (col 16 lines 56-58, wherein transactions are initiated at a node of a block chain and communicated to the various nodes; col 18 lines 41-49, wherein centralized orchestrator receives a request);
participating, by the orchestrator, in a consensus process for the proposed transaction (col 16 lines 58, wherein any of the nodes can validate a transaction; col 19 lines 1-7);
in an instance of the participating where the proposed transaction is approved by orchestrators of the distributed system (col 16 line 58):
updating, by the orchestrator, a local instance of the distributed ledger using the transaction to obtain an updated distributed ledger (col 16 lines 58-59, wherein the transaction is added to the local blockchain copy of the node; col 20 lines 6-11);
identifying, by the orchestrator, unprocessed management data from the updated distributed ledger (col 17 line 12-15, wherein a pending transaction is published to the blockchain);
obtaining, by the orchestrator and using the unprocessed management data, a workorder for a data processing system for the distributed system (col 17 lines 22-25, wherein “one a transaction has been authenticated in this manner, the nodes will consider the transactional record 315 to be valid and thereafter execute their designated processes accordingly”);
updating, by the orchestrator and using the workorder, operation of the data processing system to obtain an updated data processing system (col 17 lines 22-29, wherein “The transactional record 314 will provide information about the transaction processed and transmitted through and metadata coded therein for searchability of the transactional record 314 within the distributed ledger”); and
providing, by the orchestrator and using the updated data processing system, computer implemented services (col 20 lines 12-15; col 17 lines 1-6, wherein specific-purpose implementations of blockchains are used to provide computer implemented services).
Regarding claim 6, Bade teaches wherein the proposed transaction indicates reassignment of management of the data processing system from another orchestrator of the orchestrators to the orchestrator for management purposes (col 16 lines 50-61).
Regarding claim 7, Bade teaches wherein the proposed transaction indicates a change in condition of the data processing system (col 17 lines 1-6, wherein specific-purpose implementations of blockchains are used to provide computer implemented services).
Regarding claim 8, Bade teaches wherein the distributed system comprises data processing systems comprising the data processing system, and each of the orchestrators is tasked with managing a subset of the data processing systems (col 18 lines 24-40).
Regarding claim 9, Bade teaches wherein each of the orchestrators maintains a separate local instance of the distributed ledger (col 16 lines 50-56).
Regarding claim 10, Bade teaches wherein each of the separate local instances of the distributed ledger are eventually consistent with each other, and each of the local instances of the distributed ledger comprises first data reflecting a condition of each data processing system of the distributed system and management assignments for the orchestrators, the management assignments indicating the subset of the data processing systems each orchestrator is tasked with managing (col 16 lines 50-61).
Regarding claims 11 and 16, they are medium and orchestrator claims of claim 1 above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above.
Claim(s) 2-5, 12-15 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bade (US Pat No. 11,522,947) in view of Tsiatsikas (US PG Pub No. 2023/0224175 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Bade does not teach wherein the consensus process is a blockchain process that utilizes a proof of stake mechanism for management of the distributed ledger.
Tsiatsikas teaches the use of a proof of stake mechanism as the consensus process ([0061]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize proof of stake. One would be motivate by the desire to utilize proven consensus protocols as taught by Tsiatsikas.
Regarding claim 3, Tsiatsikas teaches wherein the proof of stake mechanism selects at least a portion of the orchestrators to vote on the proposed transaction ([0063]).
Regarding claim 4, Tsiatsikas teaches wherein votes cast by the portion of the orchestrators are used to identify whether the orchestrators approved the proposed transaction ([0063]).
Regarding claim 5, Tsiatsikas teaches wherein the portion of the orchestrators is selected at random from orchestrators, and the portion of the orchestrators is at least a majority of the orchestrators ([0063]).
Regarding claims 12-15 and 17-20, they are medium and orchestrator claims of claims 2-5 above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons as claims 2-5 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC C WAI whose telephone number is (571)270-1012. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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, Aimee Li can be reached at (571) 272-4169. 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.
/Eric C Wai/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195