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 .
1. This is in response to communication filed on 2/28/24 in which claims 1-21 are pending.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
4. Claims 1, 4-10, 12-16, 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2012/0011347 to Little in view of WO 2020/222896 to Ghanbarinejad et al.
a. As per claim 1, Little et al teaches a computer-implemented method for coordinating data processing using multiple networked resources, the method comprising: maintaining an electronic registry of networked resources (See paragraph [0055]); receiving a data processing request (See paragraph [0127]); dividing the request among a plurality of data processing segments (See paragraph [0127]); setting a time-out duration for completion of processing of the given data processing segment at the selected networked resource (See paragraph [0127-0128], adaptive logic 1060 may request that a segment of a program portions be completed, may calculate the time to execute the segment); and routing the given data processing segment to the selected networked resource (See paragraph [0127]). However, Little et al fails to teach for at least one given data processing segment of the plurality of data processing segments selecting a networked resource from the registry of networked resources by toggling between: selecting the networked resource based on performance data relating to completion of historical data processing requests at one or more of the networked resources; and selecting the networked resource based on a random exploration function, wherein a performance of the selected networked resource is learned for subsequent selections of networked resources, wherein the toggling is based on a time-variable exploration function.
Ghanbarinejad et al selecting the networked resource based on performance data relating to completion of historical data processing requests at one or more of the networked resources; and selecting the networked resource based on a random exploration function, wherein a performance of the selected networked resource is learned for subsequent selections of networked resources, wherein the toggling is based on a time-variable exploration function. (See page 18, lines 14-21 and page 26, lines 5-15, the RxUE may randomly select a resource or use historical information (previous performance results using the resources, traffic on the resources, etc.) to select a resource, for example).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Ghanbarinejad et al in the claimed invention of Little et al in order for messages to be transmitted within a certain time period.
b. As per claim 13, Little et al teaches a computer-implemented system for coordinating data processing using multiple networked resources, the system comprising: a processing subsystem that includes one or more processors and one or more memories coupled with the one or more processors (See paragraph [0038-0039]), the processing subsystem configured to cause the system to: maintain an electronic registry of networked resources (See paragraph [0055]); receive a data processing request (See paragraph [0127]); divide the request among a plurality of data processing segments (See paragraph [0025, 0034, 0127]); set a time-out duration for completion of processing of the given data processing segment at the selected networked resource (See paragraph [0127-0128], adaptive logic 1060 may request that a segment of a program portions be completed, may calculate the time to execute the segment); and route the given data processing segment to the selected networked resource (See paragraph [0127]). However, Little et al fails to teach for at least one given data processing segment of the plurality of data processing segments; select a networked resource from the registry of networked resources, by toggling between selecting the networked resource based on performance data relating to completion of historical data processing request at one or more of the networked resources; and selecting the networked resource based on random exploration function, wherein a performance of the selected networked resource is learned for subsequent selections of networked resources, wherein the toggling is based on a time-variable exploration function.
Ghanbarinejad et al teaches one given data processing segment of the plurality of data processing segments; select a networked resource from the registry of networked resources, by toggling between selecting the networked resource based on performance data relating to completion of historical data processing request at one or more of the networked resources; and selecting the networked resource based on random exploration function, wherein a performance of the selected networked resource is learned for subsequent selections of networked resources, wherein the toggling is based on a time-variable exploration function (See page 18, lines 14-21 and page 26, lines 5-15, the RxUE may randomly select a resource or use historical information (previous performance results using the resources, traffic on the resources, etc.) to select a resource, for example).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Ghanbarinejad et al in the claimed invention of Little et al in order for messages to be transmitted within a certain time period.
c. As per claims 4 and 18, Little et al in view of Ghanbarinejad et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Little et al teaches wherein the setting a time-out duration is based at least partly on a minimum processing time of the selected networked resource (See paragraph [0120]).
d. As per claims 5 and 19, Little et al in view of Ghanbarinejad et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Little et al teaches wherein the setting a time-out duration is based at least partly on an expected processing time of the selected networked resource (See paragraph [0127], Adaptive logic 1060 may allocate resources (e.g., software UEs 410 and/or labs 420) to program portions 550 based on an amount of time each program portion may take for execution ).
e. As per claims 6 and 20, Little et al in view of Ghanbarinejad et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Little et al teaches where in the setting a time-out duration is based at least partly on a pre-determined duration (See paragraph [0127], may derive the amount of time from data from previous executions of the allocation).
f. As per claim 7, Little et al in view of Ghanbarinejad et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Little et al teaches wherein the selecting includes exploring the networked resources based at least partly on the output of the random number generator (See paragraph [0110-0111]).
g. As per claim 8, Little et al in view of Ghanbarinejad et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Little et al teaches wherein the selecting includes applying an adaptive algorithm that takes into account a completion metric associated with the given networked resource (See paragraph [0027, 0125 and0153]).
h. As per claims 9 and 14, Little et al in view of Ghanbarinejad et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Little et al teaches wherein the data processing request includes a request for computing resources (See paragraph [0023]).
i. As per claims 10 and 15, Little et al in view of Ghanbarinejad et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Little et al teaches wherein the data processing request includes a request for a trade of a security (See paragraph [0034, 0063, 0122], User-controlled logic 1010 may permit a user to specify how many resources (e.g., software UEs 410 and/or labs 420) are to be allocated to each program portion 550. The allocation may be performed in a first come, first served manner. If a program portion (e.g., program portion 1070) is completed, user-controlled logic 1010 may release the resources and may make them available to other program portions. If no resources are available, user-controlled logic 1010 may execute program portions 550 with resources of client 500. Alternatively, user-controlled logic 1010 may permit the user to identify specific resources (e.g., labs 420) to be used for a program portion, or to provide criteria for selecting resources to be allocated for a program portion) and the selecting is performed within an algorithmic trading process (See paragraph [0125]).
j. As per claim 12, Little et al in view of Ghanbarinejad et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Little et al teaches filtering the networked resources for a subset of viable networked resources (See paragraph [0055 and 0119]).
k. As per claim 16, Little et al in view of Ghanbarinejad et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Little et al teaches, wherein the data processing request includes a request for physical resources (See paragraph [0023, 0032 and 0067]).
l. As per claim 21, Little teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium or media having stored thereon machine interpretable instructions which, when executed by a processing system, cause the processing system to perform a method for coordinating data processing using multiple networked resources (See paragraph [0038-0039]), the method comprising: maintaining an electronic registry of networked resources (See paragraph [0055]); receiving a data processing request (See paragraph [0127]); dividing the request among a plurality of data processing segments(See paragraph [0025, 0034, 0127]); setting a time-out duration for completion of processing of the given data processing segment at the selected networked resource (See paragraph [0127-0128], adaptive logic 1060 may request that a segment of a program portions be completed, may calculate the time to execute the segment); and routing the given data processing segment to the selected networked resource (See paragraph [0127]). However, Little et a fails to teach for at least one given data processing segment of the plurality of data processing segments: selecting a networked resource from the registry of networked resources, by toggling between: selecting the networked resource based on performance data relating to completion historical data processing request at one or more of the networked resources; and selecting the networked resource based on a random exploration function, wherein a performance of the selected networked resource is learned for subsequent selections of networked resources, wherein the toggling is based on a time-variable exploration function.
Ghanbarinejad et al for at least one given data processing segment of the plurality of data processing segments: selecting a networked resource from the registry of networked resources, by toggling between: selecting the networked resource based on performance data relating to completion historical data processing request at one or more of the networked resources; and selecting the networked resource based on a random exploration function, wherein a performance of the selected networked resource is learned for subsequent selections of networked resources, wherein the toggling is based on a time-variable exploration function.
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Patil et al in the claimed invention of Little et al in order for messages to be transmitted within a certain time period (See page 18, lines 14-21 and page 26, lines 5-15, the RxUE may randomly select a resource or use historical information (previous performance results using the resources, traffic on the resources, etc.) to select a resource, for example).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Ghanbarinejad et al in the claimed invention of Little et al in order for messages to be transmitted within a certain time period.
5. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2012/0011347 to Little et al in view of WO 2020/222896 to Ghanbarinejad et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0233765 to Danilov et al.
a. As per claim 2, Little et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Little et al fails to teach further comprising: upon expiry of the time-out duration, receiving an indication of an unprocessed portion of the given data processing segment; and re-allocating the portion of unprocessed data to a new data processing segment.
Danilov et al teaches upon expiry of the time-out duration, receiving an indication of an unprocessed portion of the given data processing segment; and re-allocating the portion of unprocessed data to a new data processing segment (See paragraph [0047]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Danilov et al in order to provide process recovery and fault tolerance in the system.
6. Claims 3 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2012/0011347 to Little et al view of U.S. WO 2020/222896 to Ghanbarinejad et al et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of in view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0351379 to Shribman et al.
a. As per claims 3 and 17, Little et al in view of Patil et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Little et al fails to explicitly teach wherein a quantum associated with the given data processing segment is set at least partly based on an output of a random number generator.
Shribman et al teaches wherein a quantum associated with the given data processing segment is set at least partly based on an output of a random number generator (See paragraph [0450]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Shribman et al in the claimed invention of Little et al in order to select an additional processing segment.
7. Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2012/0011347 to Little et al view of WO 2020/222896 to Ghanbarinejad et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of in view of U.S. Publication No. 2023/0239380 to Crowder.
a. As per claim 22, Little et al in view of Patil et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Little et al fails to explicitly teach further comprising: during the time-out duration, transmitting, to the selected networked resource, a data processing cancellation request for the given data processing segment; selecting a new networked resource from the registry of networked resources for processing an unprocessed portion of the given data processing segment.
Crowder et al teaches during the time-out duration, transmitting, to the selected networked resource, a data processing cancellation request for the given data processing segment; selecting a new networked resource from the registry of networked resources for processing an unprocessed portion of the given data processing segment (See paragraph [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Crowder et al in the claimed invention of Little in view of Patil et al in order to efficiently and timely select and provide resources.
Conclusion
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DJENANE BAYARD whose telephone number is (571)272-3878. The examiner can normally be reached 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, John Follansbee can be reached on (571)272-3964. 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.
/DJENANE M BAYARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights