DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to amendments filed on 9/15/2026.
Claims 1, 2, 11, 16 and 18 are amended.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
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, 2, 4, 8, 10 – 12, 14, 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao et al (US 20260119997, hereinafter Rao), in view of Ahmed (US 20180349168), and further in view of Fang et al (US 20180060133, hereinafter Fang).
As per claim 1, Rao discloses: A method comprising:
receiving a wrapped job comprising a computing job wrapped with a plurality of conditions associated with execution of the computing job; (Rao [0023]: “A first deployment file is generated, where the first deployment file includes an AI model, a workflow description file, a wrapper script, and a dependency library.”; [0029]: “The wrapper script is adapted to run each node in the workflow. The wrapper script is a script in which a system command or a tool is embedded, and the script retains a series of parameters transmitted to each node. Each node in the workflow may be run based on the parameter transmitted by the wrapper script to each node.”; [0033]: “The first deployment file is sent to the edge device”.)
generating instructions to orchestrate execution of the computing job in a [resource] based on the wrapped job; (Rao [0033]: “The first deployment file is sent to the edge device, so that the edge device generates the workflow based on the workflow description file, creates the running environment for each node in the workflow based on the dependency library, and runs each node in the workflow based on the wrapper script.”)
Rao did not explicitly disclose:
wherein the resource comprises a container;
configuring a monitor based on the wrapped job, the monitor configured to detect at least one execution condition of the plurality of conditions based on a parameter indicated by the at least one execution condition in the wrapped job;
and modifying, by a processing device, execution of the computing job in response to detection, by the monitor, of the at least one execution condition of the plurality of conditions associated with execution of the computing job.
However, Ahmed teaches:
wherein the resource comprises a container. (Ahmed [0011]: containers.)
and modifying, by a processing device, execution of the computing job in response to detection, by the monitor, of the at least one execution condition of the plurality of conditions associated with execution of the computing job. (Ahmed [0066]: “the computing platform transmits control instructions to the cluster that cause the container to scale up, scale down, shutdown, or migrate to another VM based on the forecasting operation 315.”.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Ahmed into that of Rao in order to have the node comprises a container, and modifying execution of the computing job in response to detecting at least one execution condition of the plurality of conditions associated with execution of the computing job. Rao [0033] teaches deploying workflow to edge device by creating running environment for the each node of the workflow, one of ordinary skill in the art can easily see that the containers claimed are merely a commonly known execution environment for executing workflows. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art can easily see corrective action can be performed in accordance to the parameter’s requirement. Applicant have thus merely claimed the combination of known parts in the field to achieve predictable results of provisioning jobs to containers for execution and manage containers during execution of the said job and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
Fang teaches:
configuring a monitor based on the wrapped job, the monitor configured to detect at least one execution condition of the plurality of conditions based on a parameter indicated by the at least one execution condition in the wrapped job; (Fang [0060])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Fang into that of Rao and Ahmed in order to configure a monitor based on the wrapped job, the monitor configured to detect at least one execution condition of the plurality of conditions based on a parameter indicated by the at least one execution condition in the wrapped job. Rao [0038] teaches a monitoring node performs the monitoring. One of ordinary skill in the art can easily see the monitoring node would need to be configured first prior to perform its monitoring functions, and therefore applicants have merely claimed the combination of known parts in the field to achieve predictable results of enabling monitoring of the system and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 2, the combination of Rao, Ahmed and Fang further teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein to modify execution of the computing job, the processing device is to at least one of start execution of the computing job, stop execution of the computing job, restart execution of the computing job, migrate execution of the computing job from a first container to a second container, or terminate execution of the computing job. (Ahmed [0066])
As per claim 4, the combination of Rao, Ahmed and Fang further teach:
The method of claim 1, further comprising monitoring execution of the computing job to detect the at least one execution condition. (Rao [0038])
As per claim 8, the combination of Rao, Ahmed and Fang further teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of conditions include an orchestration condition and the instructions to orchestrate execution of the computing job in the container are generated based on the orchestration condition. (Ahmed [0066])
As per claim 10, the combination of Rao, Ahmed and Fang further teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one execution condition comprises one or more conditions in a service level agreement. (Ahmed [0066])
As per claim 11, it is the system variant of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale. (Rao [0006])
As per claim 12, it is the system variant of claim 2 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 14, it is the system variant of claim 4 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 18, it is the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium variant of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale. (Rao [0007])
As per claim 20, it is the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium variant of claim 8 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao, Ahmed and Fang, and further in view of Chong et al (US 20200374742, hereinafter Chong).
As per claim 3, the combination of Rao, Ahmed and Fang did not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one execution condition comprises a first condition and a second condition joined by a Boolean operator.
However, Chong teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one execution condition comprises a first condition and a second condition joined by a Boolean operator. (Chong [0250])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Chong into that of Rao, Ahmed and Fang in order to have the at least one execution condition comprises a first condition and a second condition joined by a Boolean operator. Chong [0250] has shown that the claimed limitations are merely commonly known and used properties to define requirements and constraint in a SLA/QoS, and applicant have merely claimed the combination of known parts in the field to achieve predictable results and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 13, it is the system variant of claim 3 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 5, 7, 15, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao, Ahmed and Fang, and further in view of Bahl et al (US 20210019194, hereinafter Bahl).
As per claim 5, the combination of Rao, Ahmed and Fang did not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one execution condition comprises a budget for execution of the computing job and to modify execution of the computing job in response to detecting the at least one execution condition, the processing device is to stop execution of the computing job in response to execution of the job reaching the budget.
However, Bahl teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one execution condition comprises a budget for execution of the computing job and to modify execution of the computing job in response to detecting the at least one execution condition, the processing device is to stop execution of the computing job in response to execution of the job reaching the budget. (Bahl [0023]; [0073]: NTE budget.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Bahl into that of Rao, Ahmed and Fang in order to have the at least one execution condition comprises a budget for execution of the computing job and to modify execution of the computing job in response to detecting the at least one execution condition, the processing device is to stop execution of the computing job in response to execution of the job reaching the budget. Ahmed [0066] teaches shutting down the container in response to forecast. Bahl has shown that the claimed limitations are merely an example of such corrective actions to be taken, and one of ordinary skill in the art can easily see that other forms constraints and its corresponding corrective actions can be applied without deviating from the teaching of Rao and Ahmed. Applicant have merely claimed the combination of known parts in the field to achieve predictable results and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 7, the combination of Rao, Ahmed and Fang did not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one execution condition comprises an amount of output generated by the computing job, an amount of input consumed by the computing job, or an amount of execution time for the computing job, and to modify execution of the computing job in response to detecting the at least one execution condition, the processing device is to stop execution of the computing job in response to generation of the amount of output by the computing job, consumption of the amount of input by the computing job, or expiration of the amount of execution time for the computing job.
However, Bahl teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one execution condition comprises an amount of output generated by the computing job, an amount of input consumed by the computing job, or an amount of execution time for the computing job, and to modify execution of the computing job in response to detecting the at least one execution condition, the processing device is to stop execution of the computing job in response to generation of the amount of output by the computing job, consumption of the amount of input by the computing job, or expiration of the amount of execution time for the computing job. (Bahl [0023]; [0073]: NTE budget.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Bahl into that of Rao, Ahmed and Fang in order to have the at least one execution condition comprises an amount of output generated by the computing job, an amount of input consumed by the computing job, or an amount of execution time for the computing job, and to modify execution of the computing job in response to detecting the at least one execution condition, the processing device is to stop execution of the computing job in response to generation of the amount of output by the computing job, consumption of the amount of input by the computing job, or expiration of the amount of execution time for the computing job. Ahmed [0066] teaches shutting down the container in response to forecast. Bahl has shown that the claimed limitations are merely an example of such corrective actions to be taken, and one of ordinary skill in the art can easily see that other forms constraints and its corresponding corrective actions can be applied without deviating from the teaching of Rao and Ahmed. Applicant have merely claimed the combination of known parts in the field to achieve predictable results and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 15, it is the system variant of claim 5 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 17, it is the system variant of claim 7 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 19, it is the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium variant of claim 5 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao, Ahmed and Fang, and further in view of Nagpal et al (USPAT 10089144, hereinafter Nagpal).
As per claim 6, the combination of Rao, Ahmed and Fang did not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one execution condition comprises an execution start time and an execution stop time and to modify execution of the computing job in response to detecting the at least one execution condition, the processing device is to start execution of the computing job at the execution start time and stop execution of the computing job at the execution stop time.
However, Nagpal teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one execution condition comprises an execution start time and an execution stop time and to modify execution of the computing job in response to detecting the at least one execution condition, the processing device is to start execution of the computing job at the execution start time and stop execution of the computing job at the execution stop time. (Nagpal col 8, lines 13 – 27.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Nagpal into that of Rao, Ahmed and Fang in order to have the at least one execution condition comprises an execution start time and an execution stop time and to modify execution of the computing job in response to detecting the at least one execution condition, the processing device is to start execution of the computing job at the execution start time and stop execution of the computing job at the execution stop time. Ahmed [0066] teaches shutting down the container in response to forecast. Nagpal has shown that the claimed limitations are merely an example of such corrective actions to be taken, and one of ordinary skill in the art can easily see that other forms constraints and its corresponding corrective actions can be applied without deviating from the teaching of Rao and Ahmed. Applicant have merely claimed the combination of known parts in the field to achieve predictable results and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 16, it is the system variant of claim 6 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rao, Ahmed and Fang, and further in view of Oslake et al (US 20130268914, hereinafter Oslake).
As per claim 9, the combination of Rao, Ahmed and Fang did not explicitly teach:
The method of claim 8, wherein the orchestration condition comprises an application-level sharding condition.
However, Oslake teaches:
The method of claim 8, wherein the orchestration condition comprises an application-level sharding condition. (Oslake [0040] – [0041])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Oslake into that of Rao, Ahmed and Fang in order to have the at least one execution condition conditions include an orchestration condition and the instructions to orchestrate execution of the computing job in the container are generated based on the orchestration condition. Ahmed [0066] teaches shutting down the container in response to forecast. Oslake has shown that the claimed limitations are merely a common example of what the orchestration conditions are. One of ordinary skill in the art can easily see that other forms constraints and its corresponding corrective actions can be applied without deviating from the teaching of Rao and Ahmed. Applicant have merely claimed the combination of known parts in the field to achieve predictable results and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 20 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 CHARLES M SWIFT whose telephone number is (571)270-7756. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 7PM.
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, April Blair can be reached at 5712701014. 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.
/CHARLES M SWIFT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2196
Prosecution Insights