Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The Office Action is in response to claims filed on 2/20/2026 where claims 1-20 are pending and ready for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 18, claims 1, 11, and 18 recite a “first layer scheduler” followed by a “second layer scheduler” configured to distribute traffic tasks, However, it is unclear what relationship is required by the phrase “followed by”.
Under one reasonable interpretation, “followed by” denotes a temporal relationship in which scheduling performed by the first layer scheduler occurs before scheduling performed by the second layer scheduler. Under another reasonable interpretation, “followed by” denotes an architectural or positional relationship in which the first-layer scheduler are arranged in different layers of a scheduling hierarchy, regardless of the temporal order of operation.
Because the claims do not reasonably inform one of ordinary skill in the art whether “followed by” requires a temporal sequence of scheduling operations or instead requires a structural relationship between schedule layers, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear, Accordingly, the scope of the claimed scheduler arrangement cannot be determined with reasonable clarity.
The dependent claims of 1, 11, and 18 are also rejected as they do not cure the deficiencies detailed above.
The Examiner respectfully reminds the Applicant that the claims define the metes and bound s of the patent right. See MPEP 2171. Accordingly, the technological environment and relationships among the claimed elements should be set forth in the claim language with sufficient clarity such that one of ordinary skill in the art is reasonably informed of the scope of the claimed invention. The metes and bounds of the claim should not depend upon an unstated interpretation of a drawing, figure, or embodiment to determine where the recited first layer scheduler is “followed by” the second layer scheduler in a temporal sense, an architectural sense, or a positional sense. Applicant is invited to amend the claims to clarify the intended relationship between the recited scheduler layers.
The Applicant may potentially overcome the deficiencies detailed above with the following claims language: “... deploying a worker scheduler downstream of the master scheduler, the work scheduler comprising a fist layer scheduler and a second layer scheduler, wherein the second layer scheduler is positioned downstream of the first layer scheduler ...”
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 TODD L. BARKER whose telephone number is (571) 270 0257. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 7:30am to 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor Vivek Srivastava can be reached on (571) 272 7304.
/TODD L BARKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights