DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 4-11, 14-16, and 19-26 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 .
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) 1, 4-11, 14-16, and 19-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bade (US Pat No. 11,522,947) in view of Manevich et al. (US PG Pub No. 2023/0059580 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bade teaches a method for managing resources of a distributed system, the method comprising:
obtaining, by an orchestrator of the distributed system, 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 the portion of the total number of the 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).
Bade does not teach the consensus process is a blockchain process that utilizes a proof of stake mechanism for management of the distributed ledger that stores management data for the distributed system, the proof of stake mechanism selects, from a total number of orchestrators of the distributed system, a portion of the total number of the orchestrators to vote on approval of the proposed transaction, and members of the portion of the total number of the orchestrators are selected randomly from the total number of orchestrators, such that different subsets vote on different proposed transactions.
Manevich teaches a consensus process is a blockchain process that utilizes a proof of stake mechanism for management of the distributed ledger ([0033]; [0100]), the proof of stake mechanism selects, from a total number of orchestrators of the distributed system, a portion of the total number of the orchestrators to vote on approval of the proposed transaction ([0039]), and members of the portion of the total number of the orchestrators are selected randomly from the total number of orchestrators ([0040]; [0030]), such that different subsets vote on different proposed transactions ([0041]; [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a proof of stake mechanism for management of the distributed ledger and selecting a random portion of the total number of the orchestrators to vote on approval of the proposed transaction. One would be motivated by the desire to rotate the validating by randomly and unpredictably selecting a new subset of nodes for each success round to prevent an adversary from being able to target or collude with the current committee as taught by Manevich.
Regarding claim 4, Manevich teaches wherein votes cast by the portion of the orchestrators are used to identify whether the orchestrators approved the proposed transaction ([0031]).
Regarding claim 5, Manevich 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 ([0039]).
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, 14-16 and 19-20, they are medium and orchestrator claims of claims 1 and 4-5 above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 and 4-5 above.
Regarding claim 21, Manevich teaches wherein the members of the portion of the total number of the orchestrators further comprises the orchestrator in addition to the members of the portion that are selected randomly from the total number of orchestrators ([0030]; [0040]).
Regarding claim 22, Manevich teaches wherein the orchestrator and half of the total number of orchestrators constitute the majority represented by the portion of the total number of the orchestrators ([0121]).
Regarding claim 23, Manevich teaches wherein, in response to the portion of the total number of the orchestrators comprising a compromised orchestrator, the compromised orchestrator is removed from the vote ([0079]).
Regarding claim 24, Manevich teaches wherein the obtaining of the workorder comprises aggregating a set of actions, each action of the set of actions corresponding to a management policy used by all of the orchestrators ([0032]).
Regarding claim 25, Manevich teaches wherein the proposed transaction is obtained by the orchestrator in response to the another orchestrator changing to an offline status, and the updating of the local instance of the distributed ledger at the orchestrator comprises indicating that the another orchestrator is offline ([0172]).
Regarding claim 26, Manevich teaches wherein each member of the portion of the total number of the orchestrators generates a vote is based on comparing a content of the proposed transaction to its corresponding local instance of the distributed ledger ([0046]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 4-11, 14-16, and 19-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights