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 8/2/2026 where claims 1-20 are pending and ready for examination.
The Examiner has withdrawn the 35 USC 112(b) rejection from the prior Office Action (6/3/2026)
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Behm (US 5414845) in view of Bansal (US 20100242042) and in further view of Holly (US 20190384794)
Regarding claim 1. Behm discloses A method of reconnecting devices to a network after unintended disconnection, comprising:
receiving, in a database, information about nodes experiencing the unintended disconnection (Behm; Behm teaches receiving , in a database, information identifying particular nodes that are no longer registered and are unavailable to participate in processing tasks associated with the service (i.e, nodes experiencing an unintended disconnection from the service ). Behm further teaches that nodes periodically renew their registration; when a node fails to renew within a specified period, it is removed from the registered pool and considered unregistered, and its availability information is collection in the machine-availability section of the scheduler’s database for used by the scheduler;
see e.g. Column 4, Lines 20 – 42: A batch node 22 runs the jobs and once a batch node registers with the system it is considered part of the registered pool 120. The batch nodes send a message to the scheduler 19 to register and then that node is placed in the database as a registered node with its characteristics. All nodes which are not of the registered machine pool are considered part of the unregistered machine pool 130. Machines periodically renew their registrations. If a machine fails to renew within a specified period of time (e.g., 2 registration periods), it is removed from the registered pool and considered part of the unregistered pool. At any given point, a registered machine is either available or unavailable for subsequent scheduling of additional jobs. Availability is determined by the local machine which may be given hints provided by the scheduler 19. This availability is collected in a machine availability section 140 of the scheduler's database to be accessed by the scheduler and its policy module. That availability is made known by messages sent by the nodes via the network to the scheduler. Like the scheduler itself, this system is implemented using a fault tolerant messaging system such as ISIS
Examiner’s note: Behm contemplates an unintended disconnection because each node is expected to periodically renew its registration, and when a node fails to renew within the prescribed period, the node is removed from the registered pool and treated as unavailable/unregistered. Thus, the failure to receive the expected renewal communication corresponds to an unintended loss of the nodes connection to the service; see e.g. Colum 4, Lines 20-42))
scheduling, concurrently in a master scheduler, reconnection requests to be transmitted to the nodes (Behm, Behm teaches that the scheduling system permits all nodes to be requested to re-register with the system , thereby causing nodes that are no longer registered/unavailable to re-establish participation with the service (i.e. reconnection requests transmitted to the nodes). Although Behm does not expressly teach scheduling the reconnection requests, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Behm’s disclosed scheduler API to automate the scheduling of Behm’s known re-registration requests, i.e., reconnection request, as automation of a known activity to achieve the same result is an obvious modification.
see e.g. Column 5, Lines 51 – 53 “... functions as asking all nodes to re-register with the system ..”
see e.g. Column 5, Lines 25 – 29 “... the scheduler Application Program Interface (API). The API is such that multiple delivery systems may simultaneously request scheduling services from the scheduler”
The Examiner notes that a message transmitted within a conventional computing environment comprising a processor and memory is necessarily scheduled for execution and transmission within that computing environment, including arbitration of the processing and communication resources used to transmit the message. Thus, Behm’s transmission of re-registration requests to the nodes inherently includes scheduling the reconnection requests for transmission);
Behm does not expressly disclose:
deploying, a worker scheduler downstream of the master scheduler, the worker scheduler comprising a first layer scheduler and a second layer scheduler, wherein the second layer scheduler is positioned downstream of the first layer scheduler to distribute task traffic among layers when overloaded (;
sending the requests to the first layer scheduler of the worker scheduler;
sending the requests from the first layer scheduler to the nodes if the first layer scheduler has sufficient resource capacity to process the requests; and
sending excess requests to the nodes through the second layer scheduler of the worker scheduler if the first layer scheduler does not have the sufficient resource capacity.
Bansal discloses:
deploying, a worker scheduler downstream of the master scheduler, the worker scheduler comprising a first layer scheduler and a second layer scheduler, wherein the second layer scheduler is positioned downstream of the first layer scheduler to distribute task traffic among layers when overloaded (Bansal; Bansal teaches a hierarchical scheduler in which macro model 86 functions as the master scheduler, and the subordinate micro model 88 and nano model 90 function as first and second layers of a downstream worker scheduler, respectively; Butler expressly arranges the macro, micro, and nano models from top to button, with the micro model operating based on the macro model’s decisions and the nano model implementing the micro model’s flow-balancing decisions;
see e.g. [0018], [0033]-[0038], [0045]-[0048].
Bansal further teaches that the stream processing system is typically overloaded, with offered load exceeding system capacity, and that the micro/nano scheduling layers flow-balance and continually rebalance processing allocations to address bursty stream traffic, buffer flooding, and starvation of downstream processing elements.
See e.g. [0011], [0013]-[0015], [0037], [0048]-[0050]);
sending the requests to the first layer scheduler of the worker scheduler (Bengal; Bengal teaches the first layer scheduler is micro model 88, and that the micro model performs its scheduling based upon the decisions/output of the upstream macro model 86. Functionally, the scheduling request/work handed down by the macro level is therefore sent to and acted upon by the micro-level scheduler.
See e.g. [0036], [0045]-[0048]);
sending the requests from the first layer scheduler to the nodes if the first layer scheduler has sufficient resource capacity to process the requests (Bengal; Bengal teaches sending the request from the first layer scheduler to the nodes when sufficient resource capacity is available, wherein micro model 88—the first layer scheduler—allocates processing elements to processing nodes based on the available processing resources and flow-balancing requirements; When those resources are sufficient, the micro-level allocation is carried out at the selected processing nodes; when capacity/burstiness requires further balancing, the downstream nano model revises the allocation;
see e.g. [0036]-[0037], [0048]-[0050]) and
sending excess requests to the nodes through the second layer scheduler of the worker scheduler if the first layer scheduler does not have the sufficient resource capacity (Bengal; Bengal teaches sending excess request through the second layer scheduler when the first layer lacks sufficient resource capacity, wherein, under overloaded/bursty conditions, nano model 90 implements and continually revises the flow-balancing decisions of micro model 88 to redistribute processing allocations to downstream processing elements;
see e.g. [0013]-[0015], [0037], [0048]-[0050])).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Bengal’s scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implanting a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of distributed data processing.
As evidence of the rationale above, Holly discloses:
Scheduling messages (Holly; Holly teaches the scheduling of messages;
See e.g. [0092] “... scheduling notifications ...”
See e.g. [0061], [0071])
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Holly’s scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of distribute data processing.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 1 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Behm in view of Bansal and in further view of Holly and in further view of O’Toole (US 20060218301)
Regarding claim 2, Behm in view of Bansal and in further view of Holly disclose the method of claim 1, Behm does not expressly disclose wherein the disconnection comprises a system interruption involving on the order of thousands of nodes.
O’Toole discloses:
wherein the disconnection comprises a system interruption involving on the order of thousands of nodes (O’Toole;
see e.g. [0011] “... If a node is unable to communicate with another node (e.g., a parent of that node) or the computer for the node has shut down, then the logical relationship to that node may be unavailable. Thus, the root node is not overwhelmed in a very large network (e.g., thousands of nodes) with receiving many creation and termination signals communicated directly to the root node of many disconnections or connections of a large number of child nodes”)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate O’Toole’s characteristics/attributes. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of distributed data processing
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Behm in view of Bansal and in further view of Holly and in further view of Stewart (US 20240126440)
Regarding claim 3, Behm in view of Bansal and in further view of Holly disclose the method of claim 1, Behm does not expressly disclose wherein the first layer scheduler comprises a bounded queue storing the requests, and the second layer scheduler comprises an unbounded queue processing the excess requests.
Stewart discloses:
Bounded and unbounded queues (Stewart;
See e.g. [0029] There are a number of known data structures that can be used to implement queues. Queues can be categorized into bounded vs unbounded ...”)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Stewart’s queue categories. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of distributed data processing.
Behm in view of Bansal and in further view of Holly and in further view of Stewart disclose:
wherein the first layer scheduler comprises a bounded queue storing the requests, and the second layer scheduler comprises an unbounded queue processing the excess requests (The combined solution per Stewart’s categorized queues)
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 3 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale
Claims 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Behm in view of Bansal and in further view of Holly and in further view of Grant (US 20120265837)
Regarding claim 4, Behm in view of Bansal and in further view of Holly disclose The method of claim 1, Behm does not expressly disclose further comprising sending the reconnection requests to the nodes using a socket-based input/output (I/O) layer.
Grant discloses:
socket based communication (Grant;
see e.g. [0150] “... socket based applications ...”)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Grant utilization of sockets. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implanting a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of distributed data processing.
Behm in view of Bansal and in further view of Holly and in further view of Grant disclose:
further comprising sending the reconnection requests to the nodes using a socket-based input/output (I/O) layer (The combined solution per the utilization of Grant’s socket based communication)
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 4 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Behm in view of Bansal and in further view of Holly and in further view of Ishikawa (JP2010278777)
Regarding claim 5, Behm in view of Bansal and in further view of Holly disclose the method of claim 1 Behm does not expressly disclose further comprising defining a low or high priority level to each node of the nodes, wherein a priority level dictates a priority of a reconnection request schedule for a respective node.
Ishikawa discloses:
defining a low or high priority level to each node of the nodes, wherein a priority level dictates a priority of a reconnection request schedule for a respective node (Ishikawa;
see e.g. [0128] “... each node is assigned a priority ... reconnection process ... preferentially ...”)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the clamed invention to incorporate Ishikawa’s priority scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of distributed data processing.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Behm in view of Bansal and in further view of Holly and in further view of Ishikawa and in further view of Gladkikh (US 2019020529)
Regarding claim 6, Behm in view of Bansal and in further view of Holly and in further view of Ishikawa disclose the method of claim 5, Behm does not expressly disclose further comprising designating a low priority level node to be a long lived not connected (LLnC) node.
Gladkikh discloses:
Llnc node (Gladkikh; Gladkikh teaches a processing/distribution node having a long-lived connection used for distributed job processing, wherein the long-lived connection becomes interrupted and must subsequently be re-established, thereby teaching a long-lived not-connected nodes;
See e.g. [0022], [0031], [0039])
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Gladkikh’s LLNC node. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implanting a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of distribute data processing.
Behm in view of Bansal and in further view of Holly and in further view of Ishikawa and in further view of Gladkikh disclose:
further comprising designating a low priority level node to be a long lived not connected (LLnC) node. (The combined solution per Gladkikh. One of ordinary skill in the art would designate a low priority node as an LLNC node because delaying reconnection of lower-priority nodes reduces contention for limited processing and network resources, allowing higher-priority nodes to reconnect first)
Claim 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Behm in view of Bansal and in further view of Holly and in further view of Ishikawa and in further view of Gladkikh and in further view of Chaudry (US 20070127363)
Regarding claim 7. Behm in view of Bansal and in further view of Holly and in further view of Ishikawa and in further view of Gladkikh disclose The method of claim 6 further comprising Behm does not expressly disclose assigning a random time delay to an LLnC node to delay a time of the reconnection request schedule for the LLnC node, and wherein the random time delay is selected from a range of possible time delay values on the order of several minutes to several hours.
Chaudry discloses:
assigning a random time delay to an LLnC node to delay a time of the reconnection request schedule for the LLnC node, and wherein the random time delay is selected from a range of possible time delay values on the order of several minutes to several hours (Chaudry;
See e.g. [0030] “... appropriate delay randomization logic resident on the device variably delays its data session retry/reconnect mechanism with respect to reestablishing a new data session with the network (block 506). In one implementation, the delay logic is modulated based on generating a random time variable that may be bounded by a predetermined limit (e.g., 15 minutes). ...”
See e.g. [0031] “ ... [0031] Regardless of how the delay randomization logic is actually implemented in operation, it should be appreciated that randomizing the generation of reconnect requests by the mobile nodes towards the network may help reduce the burstiness of network messaging that would have resulted otherwise”
Although Chaudry expressly exemplifies a randomized delay of 15 minutes , Chaudry teaches that the delay may be adjusted based on network load and the number of disconnected nodes. Thus selecting a workable delay within a broader range, including several hours, would have been a matter of routine optimization of a result effective variable, See MPEP 21344.04(II)(A))
Therefore it would have been a prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Chaudry’s scheme . The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 7 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Behm in view of Bansal and in further view of Holly and in further view of Tock US 20200265039
Regarding claim 8, Behm in view of Bansal and in further view of Holly s disclose the method of claim 1, Behm does not expressly disclose further comprising updating the database with reconnection information after the reconnection requests are executed by the nodes.
Tock discloses:
Behm in view of Bansal and in further view of Holly discloses:
updating the database with reconnection information after the reconnection requests are executed by the nodes. (Tock; Tock tecahes updating a database with connection status information after a node reconnects, wherein the database tracks whether the connected node is connected or disconnected, and upon connection/reconnection the corresponding record is updated to CONNECTED along with the connecting server and lastupdate information;
see e.g. [0040]- [0044], [0047] – [0053])
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Tock’s scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for incorporating a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of distributed data processing.
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Behm in view of Bansal and in further view of Holly and in further view of Le (US 20160366233)
Regarding claim 9, Behm in view of Bansal and in further view of Holly disclose the method of claim 1, Behm does not expressly disclose wherein the master scheduler and worker scheduler are maintained in a control plane coupled to the database, and the nodes are maintained in a data plane coupled to the control plane.
Le discloses:
wherein the master scheduler and worker scheduler are maintained in a control plane coupled to the database, and the nodes are maintained in a data plane coupled to the control plane. (Le; Le teaches a control plane coupled to a shared database, wherein the control plane elements store their state in shared database 600, and further teaches data plane components deployed on worker nodes. The master node services include scheduler 618, API server 617, and controller manger 619. While the worker nodes execute the data plane components and communicated with the master/control plane components
see e.g. [0047] – [00490])
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Le’s scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of distributed data processing.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 9 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale
Claims 10 and 12-13, are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Behm in view of Bansal and in further view of Holly and in further view of Costache (US 11,853, 815)
Regarding claim 10, Behm in view of Bansal and in further view of Holly disclose the method of claim 1, Behm does not expressly disclose further comprising: scaling the worker scheduler to accommodate the reconnection requests based on system configuration, request volume, and feedback information; and gathering node and connection information in a feedback learner to provide the feedback information.
Costache discloses:
scaling the worker scheduler to accommodate the reconnection requests based on system configuration, request volume, and feedback information (Costache;
see e.g. Column 15, Lines 20-30,
see e.g. Column 17, Lines 7 - 41); and
gathering node and connection information in a feedback learner to provide the feedback information (Costache;
See e.g. Column 15, Lines 20-30, Column 17, Lines 31-65).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Costache’s scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for incorporating a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of distributed data processing.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 10 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 10 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Behm in view of Bansal and in further view of Holly and in further view of Le and in further view of Ishikawa and in further view of Costache;
Regarding Claim 18, claim 18 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claims 5 (Ishikawa), 9 (Le) and 10 (Costache); therefore they are rejected based on the same rationale(s).
Regarding Claim 19, claim 19 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claims 10; therefore they are rejected based on the same rationale(s).
Regarding Claim 20, claim 20 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 1; therefore they are rejected based on the same rationale(s).
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