DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Section 2162 of the MPEP states:
To obtain a valid patent, a patent application must contain a full and clear description of the invention for which a patent is sought in the manner prescribed by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph. The requirement for an adequate written description ensures that the public receives something in return for the exclusionary rights that are granted to the inventor by a patent. The grant of a patent helps to foster and enhance the development and disclosure of new ideas and the advancement of scientific knowledge. Upon the grant of a patent in the U.S., information contained in the patent becomes a part of the information available to the public for further research and development, subject only to the patentee’s right to exclude others during the life of the patent.
Regarding the first written description issue, the applicant’s argument does not address the issue. The applicant did not define the “takeover parameters” in the original disclosure and thus the conclusion by the applicant that the “identifier of at least one task to be executed… is as such one of the takeover parameters” is not supported by the substance of the original disclosure. The applicant failed to provide a full and clear description of the invention when they originally filed it so it is not proper to make inferences about what the disclosure might have meant in order to contrive claim amendments.
Regarding the second written description issue, this aspect of the written description requirement is withdrawn, as the applicant is clear that the expected conditions cover the simple example shown in paragraph 23, where the conditions have nothing to do with the master or the slave but are defined solely with respect to the task.
As to the third written description issue, the documentation regarding the Kubernetes loops supplied by the applicant has nothing to do with the particulars of “configuring the master cluster” by means of the expected execution conditions. The applicant is arguing that the expected conditions are defined in paragraph 23 as being a requirement that the task has for RAM. Such a concept has nothing to do with the configuring the master cluster as claimed because the master cluster has a fixed amount of RAM installed. The applicant has not disclosed some concept of adjusting the amount of RAM in the master cluster based on the requirements of the task.
As to the fourth written description issue, the applicant’s arguments regarding “liberation” are not supported by the original disclosure. The applicant does not define any “liberation” parameter that is part of a configuration file that allows a slave cluster to “get back its independence”. There is no description of what the master would do to create a file with such a “parameter”. The Examiner is not disputing that the term “liberation” is known but the Examiner contends that the applicant has not disclosed an technology with a “full and clear description” that explains what a “liberation parameter” is.
The applicant’s argument regarding Koehler have been considered. The applicant argues that the current conditions and the expected conditions are nothing more than a static requirement of a task, such as the RAM requirement disclosed in paragraph 23 by the applicant. Koehler does not explicitly teach that the VMs migrated have resource requirements attached but those of ordinary skill will clearly recognize that a VM can have a minimum resource requirement attached to its usage and can be limited in its resource consumption. The Examiner has applied the Cardosa reference to show that such requirements can be considered. The Examiner contends that those of ordinary skill would recognize that the same rules for a VM could be applied regardless of where the VM is implemented. The Examiner cannot find any contribution of technology disclosed by the applicant that the Examiner could point to as patentable over the applied references.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Written Description Issue #1
Claims 1, 13, and 15 feature the following amendment:
receiving a request for taking control of the slave cluster comprising an identifier of at least one task intended to be executed by at least one computing node of the slave cluster,
creating a configuration file of the slave cluster comprising the identifier and expected execution conditions of the at least one task intended to be executed by the at least one computing node of the slave cluster
The applicant did not disclose that that the same “identifier” that is received in the request in the first limitation is then used in configuration file that is created. The applicant alleges that paragraphs 73, 75, and 88 provide support for this amendment. The “identifier” referred to in paragraph 73 and 75 that is disclosed as a identifier of at least task to be executed by a node of the first slave cluster. Paragraph 88 describes how tasks executed by the master cluster may be distributed into a plurality of tasks groups and that “In such a situation, the Configuration file FC comprises an identifier of at least one group of tasks”. Paragraph 88 is using the concept of an identifier to identify a group of tasks and therefore it is not the same identifier referred to in paragraphs 73 and 75 which is “an identifier idT of at least one task to be executed”. The first sentence of paragraphs 88 refers to grouping the tasks that are executed at the master and paragraphs 89-91 explain the purpose of grouping the tasks. The context of grouping explained in paragraphs 88-91 has nothing to do with the identifier of tasks which are received in the request described in paragraph 73. The Examiner notes that original claims 1 and 2 showed this distinction between a “takeover parameter” and an “identifier” in a configuration file so the “identifier” received in the request cannot be substituted for the “takeover parameters” referred to in paragraph 87 because the original claims demonstrate that they were intended to cover to distinct concepts.
Written Description Issue #2
Claim 3 features the following limitation:
receiving a request for modifying a configuration of the master cluster comprising expected execution conditions of a task by the at least one computing node of the master cluster,
configuring the master cluster by means of the expected execution conditions of the task, the expected execution conditions of the task becoming, upon completion of the configuration, new current execution conditions of the task,
creating an update file of the configuration of the slave cluster comprising the expected execution conditions of the task by the at least one computing node of the slave cluster, the expected execution conditions of the task being identical to the new current execution conditions of the task by at least one computing node of the master cluster,
Paragraph 130-133 attempt to describe these limitations. There is no description of how the “master cluster” is configured by means of expected conditions. Paragraph 132 provides literal support for this limitation but does not provide any description of how the function of configuring a master cluster is performed.
Written Description Issue #3
Claim 8 features the following limitation:
creating a configuration file of the slave cluster comprising liberation parameters of the slave cluster
The applicant did not provide any description of how to create a configuration file comprising liberation parameters. Paragraphs 40 and 120 reference the term “liberation parameters” but the applicant provides not definition of this term or how it would be used to create a configuration file. The disclosure clearly does not comply with the guidance given in sections 2161.01(I) and 2163.03(V) of the MPEP which state that the applicant must disclose how a function is performed.
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) 1-3, 13, 15, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0133718 by Koehler et al. in view of U.S. Patent Number 9,424,094 to Cardosa et al.
As to claim 1, Koehler teaches a method for controlling a first cluster of nodes, referred to as a slave cluster (paragraph 50 describes environment 112 as a cluster), by a second cluster of nodes, referred to as a master cluster, a cluster of nodes comprising at least one computing node (paragraph 50 describes environment 102 as a cluster), the control method being implemented by the master cluster (paragraph 53, the final sentence describes the functionality at environment 102 for managing migration) and comprising: receiving a request for taking control of the slave cluster identifying comprising an identifier of at least one task (VMs in ref. no. 104 are to be migrated from environment 102, which reads on the master to environment 112 which reads on the slave) intended to be executed by at least one computing node of the slave cluster (paragraph 36, operation 1 identifies virtualized entities to be migrated, paragraph 55, functionality of task manager 114 can be implemented at environment 102), creating a configuration file of the slave cluster comprising the identifier (paragraph 56, each virtualized entity selected) and expected execution conditions (paragraph 56, meta data for each virtualized entity) of the at least one task intended to be executed by the at least one computing node of the slave cluster, the expected execution conditions being identical to current execution conditions of the at least one task by at least one computing node of the master cluster (Figure 3 and paragraph 56), transmitting the configuration file to the slave cluster (Figure 3 and paragraph 56, the attributes are shared with the target), and receiving a message comprising information relating to an implementation, by the slave cluster, of a configuration of the slave cluster based on the configuration file (Paragraph 55, data structure 118 could be implemented at environment 102, thus status information from environment 112 would be received at environment 102); however Koehler does not teach that the configuration file comprises expected execution conditions comprising constraints on hardware resources of the at leas one computing node of the slave cluster.
Cardosa teaches that tasks/VMs can have constraint parameters on maximum hardware resources authorized for executing the at least one task (col. 5, lines 1-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the task distribution art at the time of the applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of Koehler regarding providing information to a device for migrating a VM with the teachings of Cardosa regarding managing a maximum authorization for hardware resources for a VM because information about the maximum authorized resources for a specific VM would be necessary for any device implementing that specific VM through migration.
As to claim 2, Koehler reads on the claimed scenario where the group comprises a single task.
As to claim 3, Koehler teaches the method further comprising: receiving a request for modifying a configuration of the master cluster comprising expected execution conditions of a task by the at least one computing node of the master cluster (ref. no. 210 in Figure 2), configuring the master cluster by means of the expected execution conditions of the task, the expected execution conditions of the task becoming, upon completion of the configuration, new current execution conditions of the task (ref. no. 260), creating an a configuration update file of the configuration of for the slave cluster comprising the expected execution conditions of the task by the at least one computing node of the slave cluster, the expected execution conditions of the task being identical to the new current execution conditions of the task by at least one computing node of the master cluster (Figure 5, see paragraphs 74 and 75 for relation of Figure 2 to Figure 5), and transmitting the configuration update file to the slave cluster (ref no. 270).
As to claims 13 and 15, they are rejected according to the same mapping of claim 1.
As to claim 16, see mapping in rejection of claim 1.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0133718 by Koehler et al. in view of U.S. Patent Number 9,424,094 to Cardosa et al. in further view of U.S. Patent Number 10,901,768 to Mandadi et al.
As to claim 4, the Koehler-Cardosa combination teaches the subject matter of claim 1; however the Koehler-Cardosa combination does not explicitly teach receiving a message indicating the failure of the update of the configuration by the slave cluster.
Mandadi teaches a method of receiving a message indicating the failure of the update of the configuration by the slave cluster (col. 11, lines 31-49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the task distribution art at the time of the applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of Koehler regarding migrating a task/VM to a slave cluster with the teachings of Madadi regarding receiving a message indicating a failure of an update of a configuration because such information can allow the master of Koehler to understand that the VM did not successfully migrate.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2020/0133718 by Koehler et al. in view of U.S. Patent Number 9,424,094 to Cardosa et al. in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2007/0244962 by Laadan et al.
As to claim 6, the Koehler-Cardosa combination teaches the subject matter of claim 1; however the Koehler-Cardosa combination does not explicitly teach a message emitted by an intermediate piece of equipment indicating the impossibility of transmitting a configuration file to the slave cluster
Laadan teaches receiving a message emitted by an intermediate piece of equipment indicating the impossibility of transmitting a configuration file to the slave cluster (paragraphs 61 and 87).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the task distribution art at the time of the applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of Koehler regarding managing servers in a cluster with the teachings of Laadan regarding detecting impossibility of transmitting because such error checking would ensure correct operations.
Claim Not Rejected with Prior Art
Claims 5 and 8 are not rejected with prior art. As to claim 5, Koehler was not found to teach the received message with information relating to an implementation, by the claimed slave cluster to which the updated configuration file was sent, where the implementation is of an update of the configuration of at least one other slave cluster to which the slave cluster, referenced in claims 1 and 3, transmitted a configuration file, in the context of claims 1, 3, and 4 from which it depends. As to claim 8, Koehler was not found to teach the creation of a configuration file comprising liberation parameters after a request has been received for “liberation” from the slave cluster. Neither claim 5 nor 8 are found allowable because they are not described in a technical manner that meets the guidance for written description provided in section 2162 of the MPEP.
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 DOUGLAS B BLAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-3893. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Glenton Burgess can be reached at 571-272-3949. 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.
/DOUGLAS B BLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights