CTNF 18/505,990 CTNF 79507 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-9 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. Re claims 1 and 8-9, these claim(s) recite(s) to a method, medium and device respectively for batch scheduling under step 1. Re claim 1, an application scheduling method, comprising: receiving an application scheduling request from a client, wherein the application scheduling request comprises description information used to indicate a chain invoking relationship between applications to be scheduled; grouping the applications to be scheduled into at least one scheduling object group based on the chain invoking relationship, wherein applications to be scheduled that are located in the same scheduling object group have the same chain invoking relationship; and scheduling the applications to be scheduled to a target node by using the scheduling object group as a unit . Under Prong I step 2A, the limitations in italic “grouping…” and “scheduling…” are functions that can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, thus it is reasonable to identify these limitation as reciting a mental process. Nothing in these limitations would prevent one ordinary skill in the art to operate with pen and pager as of evaluating application attributes to see if they are can be grouped within same type/group of application attributes for scheduling. Under Prong II step 2A, the other limitations including non-italic limitations “receiving…” (claims 1 and 8-9) and memory and processor (claims 8-9) are considered as additional elements. However, these additional elements are not sufficiently and significantly amount to more than the judicial exception because the additional elements memory and processor recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The other additional element of “receiving…” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Under step 2B, these additional elements either individually or in combination is not integrated into a practical application because these additional elements are not sufficiently and significantly amount to more than the judicial exception because the additional elements memory and processor recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The other additional element of “receiving…” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, none of the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101 as directing to an abstract idea. Re claim 2, each scheduling object group comprises all applications to be scheduled that have the same chain invoking relationship . This italic limitation is further defining the scheduling object which is part of grouping and scheduling processes that can be mentally done in human mind as analyzed above. Therefore, none of the additional element recites an invention concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101. Re claim 3, the application scheduling request further comprises resource occupation information; and the grouping the applications to be scheduled into at least one scheduling object group based on the chain invoking relationship comprises: grouping the applications to be scheduled into at least one scheduling object group based on the chain invoking relationship and the resource occupation information, wherein applications to be scheduled that are located in the same scheduling object group have the same chain invoking relationship and satisfy a resource occupation limitation condition . These italic limitations are further detailing the grouping of applications object which is part of grouping and scheduling processes that can be mentally done in human mind as analyzed above. Therefore, none of the additional element recites an invention concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101. Re claim 4, the application scheduling request further comprises resource occupation information; and the scheduling the applications to be scheduled to a target node by using the scheduling object group as a unit comprises: scheduling the applications to be scheduled to the target node based on the resource occupation information by using the scheduling object group as a unit. These italic limitations are further detailing the scheduling of applications object which is part of grouping and scheduling processes that can be mentally done in human mind as analyzed above. Therefore, none of the additional element recites an invention concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101. Re claim 5, the scheduling the applications to be scheduled to the target node based on the resource occupation information by using the scheduling object group as a unit comprises: scheduling the applications to be scheduled to the target node based on the resource occupation information and a load balancing algorithm by using the scheduling object group as a unit . These italic limitations are further detailing the scheduling of applications object which is part of grouping and scheduling processes that can be mentally done in human mind as analyzed above. Therefore, none of the additional element recites an invention concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101. Re claim 6, each scheduling object group comprises all applications to be scheduled that have the same chain invoking relationship; and the scheduling the applications to be scheduled to the target node based on the resource occupation information by using the scheduling object group as a unit comprises: performing, through pressure testing analysis, resource reduction on a part that is in the resource occupation information and that corresponds to each chain invoking relationship, to obtain reduced resource occupation information; and scheduling the applications to be scheduled to the target node based on the reduced resource occupation information by using the scheduling object group as a unit . These italic limitations are further detailing the scheduling of applications object which is part of grouping and scheduling processes that can be mentally done in human mind as analyzed above. Therefore, none of the additional element recites an invention concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101. Re claim 7, the resource occupation information comprises a total quantity of occupied processor resources; and the scheduling the applications to be scheduled to the target node based on the reduced resource occupation information by using the scheduling object group as a unit comprises: scheduling each scheduling object group to a target node that satisfies a need of the reduced resource occupation information; associating each target node with applications to be scheduled that belong to a scheduling object group scheduled to the target node; and associating, by using a core binding operation, the applications to be scheduled that belong to the scheduling object group scheduled to the target node with processor resources corresponding to the target node, so that the applications to be scheduled that belong to the scheduling object group scheduled to the target node share a bound processor core group . These italic limitations are further detailing the scheduling of applications object which is part of grouping and scheduling processes that can be mentally done in human mind as analyzed above. Therefore, none of the additional element recites an invention concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-4 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by D’Souza (U.S. 6,948,172) . Re claim 1, D’Souza discloses in Figures 3-12 an application scheduling method (e.g. abstract and col. 2 lines 30-65 wherein tasks/applications are grouped together for scheduling), comprising: receiving an application scheduling request from a client, wherein the application scheduling request comprises description information used to indicate a chain invoking relationship between applications to be scheduled (e.g. col. 1 lines 20-30; col. 2 lines 40-65; and col. 5 line 60 to col. 6 line 6 wherein tasks as applications are received for scheduling to process and the dependencies are maintained among the tasks/groups for scheduling); grouping the applications to be scheduled into at least one scheduling object group based on the chain invoking relationship (e.g. Figure 4 with component 44 and col. 4 line 43 to col. 5 line 2 wherein the tasks are organized/grouped/assigned into logical groups for scheduling), wherein applications to be scheduled that are located in the same scheduling object group have the same chain invoking relationship (e.g. abstract and col. 5 lines 24-60 and col. 6 line 45 to col. 7 line 5 wherein tasks/applications within the group is scheduled together within allotted time for processing); and scheduling the applications to be scheduled to a target node by using the scheduling object group as a unit (e.g. Figures 4-6 with components 46 and 48 and col. 5 lines 24-45 wherein the groups are schedule as whole). Re claim 2, D’Souza further discloses in Figures 3-12 each scheduling object group comprises all applications to be scheduled that have the same chain invoking relationship (e.g. abstract and col. 5 lines 24-60 and col. 6 line 45 to col. 7 line 5 wherein tasks/applications within the group is scheduled together within allotted time for processing). Re claim 3, D’Souza further discloses in Figures 3-12 the application scheduling request further comprises resource occupation information (e.g. abstract and col. 7 lines 5-28 with common sharing resources among the tasks/applications of the scheduled group); and the grouping the applications to be scheduled into at least one scheduling object group based on the chain invoking relationship (e.g. abstract and col. 5 lines 24-60 and col. 6 line 45 to col. 7 line 5 wherein tasks/applications within the group is scheduled together within allotted time for processing) comprises: grouping the applications to be scheduled into at least one scheduling object group based on the chain invoking relationship and the resource occupation information (e.g. abstract and col. 5 lines 24-60 and col. 6 line 45 to col. 7 line 5 based on the tasks/applications/modules of the group and resources assigned to the group), wherein applications to be scheduled that are located in the same scheduling object group have the same chain invoking relationship and satisfy a resource occupation limitation condition (e.g. abstract and col. 5 lines 24-60 and col. 6 line 45 to col. 7 line 27 wherein tasks/applications within the group is scheduled together within allotted time for processing). Re claim 4, D’Souza further discloses in Figures 3-12 the application scheduling request further comprises resource occupation information (e.g. abstract and col. 7 lines 5-28 with common sharing resources among the tasks/applications of the scheduled group); and the scheduling the applications to be scheduled to a target node by using the scheduling object group as a unit (e.g. Figures 4-6 with components 46 and 48 and col. 5 lines 24-45 wherein the groups are schedule as whole) comprises: scheduling the applications to be scheduled to the target node based on the resource occupation information by using the scheduling object group as a unit (e.g. abstract and col. 5 lines 24-60 and col. 6 line 45 to col. 7 line 5 wherein tasks/applications within the group is scheduled together within allotted time for processing). Re claim 8, it is a medium claim having similar limitations as cited in the claim 1. Thus, claim 8 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above. Re claim 9, it is a device claim having similar limitations as cited in the claim 1. Thus, claim 9 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Souza (U.S. 6,948,172) in view of Benedetti et al. (U.S. 7,302,450) . Re claim 5, D’Souza further discloses in Figures 3-12 the scheduling the applications to be scheduled to the target node based on the resource occupation information by using the scheduling object group as a unit (e.g. abstract and col. 5 lines 24-60 and col. 6 line 45 to col. 7 line 5 wherein tasks/applications within the group is scheduled together within allotted time for processing) comprises: scheduling the applications to be scheduled to the target node based on the resource occupation information (e.g. abstract and col. 6 line 45 to col. 7 line 5 with resource dependency among the tasks/applications). D’Souza fails to disclose the scheduling the applications is also based on a load balancing algorithm by using the scheduling object group as a unit. However, Benedetti et al. disclose in Figures 1-3 the scheduling the applications is also based on a load balancing algorithm by using the scheduling object group as a unit (e.g. abstract, col. 3 line 62 to col. 4 line 8 and col. 10 lines 12-18 wherein load balancing is applied in resources). 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 the scheduling the applications is also based on a load balancing algorithm by using the scheduling object group as a unit as seen in Benedetti et al.’s invention into D’Souza’s invention because it would enable to optimize the overall performance by distributing the load evenly. Re claim 6, D’Souza further discloses in Figures 3-12 each scheduling object group comprises all applications to be scheduled that have the same chain invoking relationship (e.g. abstract and col. 5 lines 24-60 and col. 6 line 45 to col. 7 line 5 wherein tasks/applications within the group is scheduled together within allotted time for processing); and the scheduling the applications to be scheduled to the target node based on the resource occupation information by using the scheduling object group as a unit (e.g. abstract and col. 5 lines 24-60 and col. 6 line 45 to col. 7 line 5 wherein tasks/applications within the group is scheduled together within allotted time for processing) comprises: scheduling the applications to be scheduled to the target node based on the reduced resource occupation information by using the scheduling object group as a unit (e.g. abstract, Figures 6-7 and col. 3 line 56 to col. 4 line 15 wherein scheduling the group of tasks/applications based on the optimal resource list handler). D’Souza fails to disclose performing, through pressure testing analysis, resource reduction on a part that is in the resource occupation information and that corresponds to each chain invoking relationship, to obtain reduced resource occupation information. However, Benedetti et al. disclose in Figures 1-3 performing, through pressure testing analysis, resource reduction on a part that is in the resource occupation information and that corresponds to each chain invoking relationship, to obtain reduced resource occupation information (e.g. col. 5 line 39 to col. 6 line 25 test is applied to verified resource allocation). 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 performing, through pressure testing analysis, resource reduction on a part that is in the resource occupation information and that corresponds to each chain invoking relationship, to obtain reduced resource occupation information as seen in Benedetti et al.’s invention into D’Souza’s invention because it would enable to optimize the limited resources . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Souza (U.S. 6,948,172) in view of Benedetti et al. (U.S. 7,302,450) and further Kiehn (U.S. 2013/0247061) . Re claim 7, D’Souza in view of Benedetti et al. disclose the resource occupation information comprises a total quantity of occupied processor resources; and the scheduling the applications to be scheduled to the target node based on the reduced resource occupation information by using the scheduling object group as a unit relationship (e.g. D’Souza - abstract and col. 5 lines 24-60 and col. 6 line 45 to col. 7 line 5 wherein tasks/applications within the group is scheduled together within allotted time for processing) comprises: scheduling each scheduling object group to a target node that satisfies a need of the reduced resource occupation information (e.g. Benedetti et al. – abstract and col. 5 line 39 to col. 6 line 25); associating each target node with applications to be scheduled that belong to a scheduling object group scheduled to the target node (e.g. D’Souza – abstract). D'Souza fails to disclose associating, by using a core binding operation, the applications to be scheduled that belong to the scheduling object group scheduled to the target node with processor resources corresponding to the target node, so that the applications to be scheduled that belong to the scheduling object group scheduled to the target node share a bound processor core group. However, Kiehn discloses in Figures 1-5 associating, by using a core binding operation, the applications to be scheduled that belong to the scheduling object group scheduled to the target node with processor resources corresponding to the target node, so that the applications to be scheduled that belong to the scheduling object group scheduled to the target node share a bound processor core group (e.g. abstract, Figures 4-5 and paragraphs [0017-0018] which disclose schedule is done on multi-cores system). 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 associating, by using a core binding operation, the applications to be scheduled that belong to the scheduling object group scheduled to the target node with processor resources corresponding to the target node, so that the applications to be scheduled that belong to the scheduling object group scheduled to the target node share a bound processor core group as seen in Kiehn’s invention into D’Souza’s invention because it would enable to efficiently utilize the multi-cores system . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2026/0023981 discloses a technical solution to accelerate deep learning with inter-iteration scheduling based on operation categorization associated with the deep learning. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0325234 discloses a system for dynamically scheduling tasks accesses a plurality of tasks. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0103978 discloses a method may be performed by at least one processor that implements a network-based media processing (NBMP) workflow manager. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0293367 discloses an on-chip memory coupled to the set of processing elements, and a scheduler coupled with the set of processing elements, the scheduler to schedule the thread groups of the kernel to the set of processing elements, wherein the scheduler is to schedule a thread group of the second kernel to execute subsequent to a thread group of a first kernel. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0330013 discloses a computer-implemented method and system for intelligent scheduling and planning includes storing scheduling and/or planning information in a plurality of nodes and a plurality of edges of a graph data store. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0293102 discloses a mechanism for facilitating intelligent thread scheduling at autonomous machines. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0160974 discloses an analytics system that executes processing jobs infers dependencies between jobs to be executed based on identification of dependencies between a "sink" job and a source data object on which the sink job depends. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0247061 discloses methods and related apparatus for the allocation of computing resources to perform computing tasks. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0220517 discloses a method and computer-usable medium including instructions for performing a method for scheduling executable transactions within a multicore processor comprising a plurality of processor elements. U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2006/0179281 discloses a multithreading processor with an efficient and fair thread scheduler. U.S. Patent No. 9,727,379 discloses a method of specifying behavior among a group of computing tasks included in a request to be performed in a domain of computing resources. U.S. Patent No. 8,024,740 discloses repeatedly exchange verification requests and verification reports for successively reconfiguring each successive resource according to dependent relationships between computing resources. U.S. Patent No. 7,302,450 discloses a workload scheduler supporting an efficient distribution and balancing of the workload is proposed. U.S. Patent No. 6,948,172 discloses an operating system combines preemptive scheduling with cooperative or non-preemptive scheduling. U.S. Patent No. 11,709,714 discloses an apparatus includes a plurality of processors including a plurality of graphics processors to process data; a memory; and one or more caches for storage of data for the plurality of graphics processors, wherein the one or more processors are to schedule a plurality of groups of threads for processing by the plurality of graphics processors. U.S. Patent No. 11,675,620 discloses method to automate deployment of a software defined data center includes generating, by executing an instruction with at least one processor, a task list based on tasks provided in an automation plan to deploy the software defined data center. 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 Application/Control Number: 18/505,990 Page 2 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/505,990 Page 3 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/505,990 Page 4 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/505,990 Page 5 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/505,990 Page 7 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/505,990 Page 8 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/505,990 Page 9 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/505,990 Page 10 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/505,990 Page 11 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/505,990 Page 12 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/505,990 Page 13 Art Unit: 2193 Application/Control Number: 18/505,990 Page 14 Art Unit: 2193