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 .
This Office Action is in response to Applicant's preliminary amendment filed on 6/17/2024. By this amendment, claims 1-6 and 15-28 are amended. Claims 7-14 and 29-30 are canceled. Therefore, claims 1-6 and 15-28 have been examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "513" and "517" have both been used to designate ". Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: Fourth Obtaining Unit 513. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Page 3 Last Paragraph: "In an embedment". It should be "In an embodiment".
Page 12 Paragraph 7: Two instances of "311 a rejection". It should be "313 a rejection" to be in line with the drawings..
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 27 states "cause the device to; reschedule(318/305)". It should be "cause the device to; reschedule".
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 4, 18, and 25 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.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the load balancer" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the load balancer" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25 states that it is dependent upon claim 11. However, claim 11 is non-existent in the application. Because claim 5 incorporates the limitations of a non-existent claim, the metes and bounds of claim 5 cannot be determined. In order to further examine on the merits of the claim, the examiner interprets claim 25 depends on claim 16.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 15, 19, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgiev et al. (U.S. PG Pub 20140359182; hereinafter referred to as Georgiev), in view of Shih et al. (U.S Patent 9720732; hereinafter referred to as Shih).
As per claim 1, Georgiev teaches:
the method comprising for a plurality of clients, obtaining information on a pattern of data transfers of the real-time service (e.g. Georgiev: [0058] discloses "whenever a given application exhausts its time limit for the current interval the corresponding arbiter resource blocks (delays submission of) additional work requests from the arbitrator resource to the shared resource to prevent the given application from consuming to much processing time provided by the shared resource". Please note the application exhausting its time limit corresponds to Applicant's pattern of data transfer. Based on broadest reasonable interpretation, pattern of data transfer means a history of what the client did previously. And submitting requests until it exhausted the time limit is the application's previous actions. The shared resource is then used by other applications who could not send as many requests. So, keeping track of this information from multiple applications corresponds to Applicant's obtaining information on a pattern of data transfers for a plurality of clients.);
determining scheduling based at least on the obtained information on the pattern of data transfers (e.g. Georgiev: [0058] discloses whenever a given application exhausts its time limit for the current interval the corresponding arbiter resource blocks (delays submission of) additional work requests from the arbitrator resource to the shared resource to prevent the given application from consuming to much processing time provided by the shared resource. Please note the application exhausting its time limit corresponds to Applicant's pattern of data transfer because based on broadest reasonable interpretation, pattern of data transfer means what the client did previously. And submitting requests until it exhausted the time limit is the application's previous actions. As a result, work requests from the application are delayed which corresponds to Applicant's scheduling based on the pattern of data transfers.);
But Georgiev does not teach:
for at least one worker, obtaining information on run times, wherein a run time defines a time period during which the at least one worker processes data;
determining scheduling based at least on the obtained
and sending the offset to one or more clients of the plurality of clients.
However, Shih does teach:
for at least one worker, obtaining information on run times, wherein a run time defines a time period during which the at least one worker processes data (e.g. Shih: [0045] discloses if a new task execution query 303 for a task T2 is received from the same client, such that the task specification 307 for T2 is very similar to the task specification received earlier for T1, the resource manager 180 may be in a position to make a better estimate for how long it might take to complete T2, using records for the resources used by T1. );
determining scheduling based at least on the obtained (e.g. Shih: [0045] discloses “the resource manager 180 may be in a position to make a better estimate for how long it might take to complete T2, using records for the resources used by T1”. Please note the resource manager is able to make better scheduling decisions based on obtaining the runtime for a previous task.);
and sending the offset to one or more clients of the plurality of clients (e.g. Shih: [0020] discloses “the resource manager may provide an indication of the execution plan to the client in some embodiments, e.g., in order to receive an approval of the plan”. Please note the providing the execution plan, which includes determining when the task will execute, to the client corresponds to Applicant's sending the offset to one or more clients.).
Georgiev and Shih are in the same field of endeavor in terms of task management and therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Georgiev with the teachings of Shiv to for at least one worker, obtaining information on run times, wherein a run time defines a time period during which the at least one worker processes data; determining scheduling based at least on the obtained . This improves the decision-making capabilities of the system. As disclosed in Shih [0045] “the resource manager 180 may be able to identify similarities between a client's previously executed tasks and the current task specification 307 in some embodiments, allowing the resource manager 180 to make more informed choices”. And sending the offset to the clients achieves uniform synchronization so that all clients are on the same page as to when they should be ran.
As per claim 5, Georgiev-Shih teaches claim 1 as applied above. Shih further teaches obtaining an approval if all the one or more clients accept the offset (e.g. Shih: [0020] discloses the resource manager may provide an indication of the execution plan to the client in some embodiments, e.g., in order to receive an approval of the plan. [0019] discloses portions of the long-term computation tasks may be scheduled on resources during periods when the resources are not heavily utilized. Please note an execution plan is how things will be done which includes the scheduling of when the tasks are ran as disclosed in [0019]. Because of this, obtaining approval of the execution plan from a client corresponds to Applicant's obtaining approval of the offset from one or more clients.).
As per claim 15, Georgiev teaches:
the device comprising a processor and a memory, the memory having stored thereon instructions executable by the processor (e.g. Georgiev: [Fig. 14] discloses a processor 813. [0192] discloses “computer readable storage medium 812 can be any hardware storage device to store data such as memory”.), wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the device to:
for a plurality of clients, obtaining information on a pattern of data transfers of the real-time service (e.g. Georgiev: [0058] discloses "whenever a given application exhausts its time limit for the current interval the corresponding arbiter resource blocks (delays submission of) additional work requests from the arbitrator resource to the shared resource to prevent the given application from consuming to much processing time provided by the shared resource". Please note the application exhausting its time limit corresponds to Applicant's pattern of data transfer. Based on broadest reasonable interpretation, pattern of data transfer means a history of what the client did previously. And submitting requests until it exhausted the time limit is the application's previous actions. The shared resource is then used by other applications who could not send as many requests. So, keeping track of this information from multiple applications corresponds to Applicant's obtaining information on a pattern of data transfers for a plurality of clients.);
determining scheduling based at least on the obtained information on the pattern of data transfers (e.g. Georgiev: [0058] discloses “whenever a given application exhausts its time limit for the current interval the corresponding arbiter resource blocks (delays submission of) additional work requests from the arbitrator resource to the shared resource to prevent the given application from consuming to much processing time provided by the shared resource”. Please note the application exhausting its time limit corresponds to Applicant's pattern of data transfer because based on broadest reasonable interpretation, pattern of data transfer means what the client did previously. And submitting requests until it exhausted the time limit is the application's previous actions. As a result, work requests from the application are delayed which corresponds to Applicant's scheduling based on the pattern of data transfers.);
But Georgiev does not teach:
for at least one worker, obtaining information on run times, wherein a run time defines a time period during which the at least one worker processes data;
determining scheduling based at least on the obtained
and sending the offset to one or more clients of the plurality of clients.
However, Shih does teach:
for at least one worker, obtaining information on run times, wherein a run time defines a time period during which the at least one worker processes data (e.g. Shih: [0045] discloses if a new task execution query 303 for a task T2 is received from the same client, such that the task specification 307 for T2 is very similar to the task specification received earlier for T1, the resource manager 180 may be in a position to make a better estimate for how long it might take to complete T2, using records for the resources used by T1. );
determining scheduling based at least on the obtained (e.g. Shih: [0045] discloses “the resource manager 180 may be in a position to make a better estimate for how long it might take to complete T2, using records for the resources used by T1”. Please note the resource manager is able to make better scheduling decisions based on obtaining the runtime for a previous task.);
and sending the offset to one or more clients of the plurality of clients (e.g. Shih: [0020] discloses “the resource manager may provide an indication of the execution plan to the client in some embodiments, e.g., in order to receive an approval of the plan”. Please note the providing the execution plan, which includes determining when the task will execute, to the client corresponds to Applicant's sending the offset to one or more clients.).
Georgiev and Shih are in the same field of endeavor in terms of task management and therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Georgiev with the teachings of Shiv to for at least one worker, obtaining information on run times, wherein a run time defines a time period during which the at least one worker processes data; determining scheduling based at least on the obtained plurality of clients. This improves the decision-making capabilities of the system. As disclosed in Shih [0045] “the resource manager 180 may be able to identify similarities between a client's previously executed tasks and the current task specification 307 in some embodiments, allowing the resource manager 180 to make more informed choices”. And sending the offset to the clients achieves uniform synchronization so that all clients are on the same page as to when they should be ran.
As per claim 19, Georgiev-Shih teaches claim 15 as applied above. Shih further teaches obtaining an approval if all the one or more clients accept the offset (e.g. Shih: [0020] discloses “the resource manager may provide an indication of the execution plan to the client in some embodiments, e.g., in order to receive an approval of the plan”. [0019] discloses “portions of the long-term computation tasks may be scheduled on resources during periods when the resources are not heavily utilized”. Please note an execution plan is how things will be done which includes the scheduling of when the tasks are ran as disclosed in [0019]. Because of this, obtaining approval of the execution plan from a client corresponds to Applicant's obtaining approval of the offset from one or more clients.).
As per claim 22, Georgiev-Shih teaches claim 15 as applied above. Shih further teaches obtain a rejection if all the one or more clients do not accept the offset (e.g. Shih: [0019] discloses “portions of the long-term computation tasks may be scheduled on resources during periods when the resources are not heavily utilized”. Please note this corresponds to Applicant's offset because the tasks have to wait for a time when the compute resources are more free. [0020] discloses "the resource manager may provide an indication of the execution plan to the client in some embodiments, e.g., in order to receive an approval of the plan". Please note an execution plan is how things will be done which includes the scheduling of when the tasks are ran as disclosed in [0019]. The client can choose not to approve the execution plan and it necessarily follows that a rejection of the execution plan from a client corresponds to Applicant's obtain a rejection if all the one or more clients do not accept the offset.).
Claim(s) 2 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgiev-Shih, in view of Gao et al. (U.S. PG Pub 20230412769; hereinafter referred to as Gao).
As per claim 2, Georgiev-Shih teaches claim 1 as applied above. But Georgiev-Shih does not teach wherein the scheduling comprises information on a number of workers and an identification of a worker to send further data for processing.
However, Gao does teach wherein the scheduling comprises information on a number of workers and an identification of a worker to send further data for processing (e.g. Gao: [0050] discloses "automatically generates types, quantity, identification numbers, operating parameters and a scheduling strategy of nodes to be scheduled according to the usage of an application system or received user commands". Please note the scheduling strategy possesses the identification numbers of the workers. So, when the nodes are scheduled to do work it corresponds to Applicant's an identification of a worker to send further data for processing.).
Georgiev-Shih and Gao are in the same field of endeavor in terms of system management and therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Georgiev-Shih with the teachings of Gao to wherein the scheduling comprises information on a number of workers and an identification of a worker to send further data for processing. This improves efficiency because the system can optimize resource allocation by scheduling work to available workers. And having identifications of the workers means the system knows exactly where to send the data.
As per claim 16, Georgiev-Shih teaches claim 15 as applied above. But Georgiev-Shih does not teach wherein the scheduling comprises information on a number of workers and an identification of a worker to send further data for processing.
However, Gao does teach wherein the scheduling comprises information on a number of workers and an identification of a worker to send further data for processing (e.g. Gao: [0050] discloses "automatically generates types, quantity, identification numbers, operating parameters and a scheduling strategy of nodes to be scheduled according to the usage of an application system or received user commands". Please note the scheduling strategy possesses the identification numbers of the workers. So, when the nodes are scheduled to do work it corresponds to Applicant's an identification of a worker to send further data for processing.).
Georgiev-Shih and Gao are in the same field of endeavor in terms of system management and therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Georgiev-Shih with the teachings of Gao to wherein the scheduling comprises information on a number of workers and an identification of a worker to send further data for processing. This improves efficiency because the system can optimize resource allocation by scheduling work to available workers. And having identifications of the workers means the system knows exactly where to send the data.
Claim(s) 3 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgiev-Shih-Gao, in view of Garg et al. (JP2018524693; published August 30, 2018; English Translation provided by IP.com; hereinafter referred to as Garg).
As per claim 3, Georgiev-Shih-Gao teaches claim 2 as applied above. But Georgiev-Shih-Gao does not teach sending to a controller the information on the number of workers.
However, Garg does teach sending to a controller the information on the number of workers (e.g. Garg: [Page 6 Paragraph 4] discloses “the API server 102 sends an instruction to the cloud controller 104 along the connection 116 to assign a plurality of nodes 106…. the cloud controller 104 allocates the desired number of nodes using the connection 118”. Please note the server telling the controller to assign a plurality of nodes corresponds to Applicant's sending to a controller information on the number of workers.).
Georgiev-Shih-Gao and Garg are in the same field of endeavor in terms of task scheduling and therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Georgiev-Shih-Gao with the teachings of Garg to sending to a controller the information on the number of workers. This improves system stability by allowing the controller to dynamically balance workloads and prevent system overloads.
As per claim 17, Georgiev-Shih-Gao teaches claim 16 as applied above. But Georgiev-Shih-Gao does not teach sending to a controller the information on the number of workers.
However, Garg does teach sending to a controller the information on the number of workers (e.g. Garg: [Page 6 Paragraph 4] discloses “the API server 102 sends an instruction to the cloud controller 104 along the connection 116 to assign a plurality of nodes 106…. the cloud controller 104 allocates the desired number of nodes using the connection 118”. Please note the server telling the controller to assign a plurality of nodes corresponds to Applicant's sending to a controller information on the number of workers.).
Georgiev-Shih-Gao and Garg are in the same field of endeavor in terms of task scheduling and therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Georgiev-Shih-Gao with the teachings of Garg to sending to a controller the information on the number of workers. This improves system stability by allowing the controller to dynamically balance workloads and prevent system overloads.
Claim(s) 4 and 19 Is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgiev-Shih, in view of Frank et al. (US PG Pub 20100138475; hereinafter referred to as Frank), and in further view of Collins et al. (U.S. PG Pub 20180091583; hereinafter referred to as Collins).
As per claim 4, Georgiev-Shih teaches claim 1 as applied above. Shih has taught the offset as disclosed in claim 1 above.
But Georgiev-Shih does not teach obtaining an approval of the
However, Frank does teach obtaining an approval (e.g. Frank: [0034] discloses “the load balancing manager 133 can re-balance the load between the server and the client (block 350) and inform the client of the re-balanced load (block 340) until the client accepts the load”.).
Georgiev-Shih and Frank are in the same field of endeavor in terms of computing processes and therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Georgiev-Shih with the teachings of Frank to obtaining an approval This improves stability by making sure the clients are in a state ready to receive whatever change the load balancer recommended. This approval also makes sure that everything is in sync.
But Georgiev-Shih-Frank does not teach obtaining an approval
However, Collins does teach obtaining an approval (e.g. Collins: [0058] discloses the agreement request may enter expired state 750 as a result of failing to be approved before expiration conditions are satisfied (e.g., a within an expiration time limit)).
Georgiev-Shih-Frank and Collins are in the same field of endeavor in terms of computing processes and therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Georgiev-Shih-Frank with the teachings of Collins to obtaining an approval This prevents system deadlocks so that a process is not left hanging indefinitely waiting for a response. This also improves security because sensitive requests are not left exposed for long period.
As per claim 19, Georgiev-Shih teaches claim 15 as applied above. Shih has taught the offset as disclosed in claim 15 above.
But Georgiev-Shih does not teach obtaining an approval of the
However, Frank does teach obtaining an approval (e.g. Frank: [0034] discloses “the load balancing manager 133 can re-balance the load between the server and the client (block 350) and inform the client of the re-balanced load (block 340) until the client accepts the load”.).
Georgiev-Shih and Frank are in the same field of endeavor in terms of computing processes and therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Georgiev-Shih with the teachings of Frank to obtaining an approval more clients This improves stability by making sure the clients are in a state ready to receive whatever change the load balancer recommended. This approval also makes sure that everything is in sync.
But Georgiev-Shih-Frank does not teach obtaining an approval
However, Collins does teach obtaining an approval (e.g. Collins: [0058] discloses the agreement request may enter expired state 750 as a result of failing to be approved before expiration conditions are satisfied (e.g., a within an expiration time limit)).
Georgiev-Shih-Frank and Collins are in the same field of endeavor in terms of computing processes and therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Georgiev-Shih-Frank with the teachings of Collins to obtaining an approval This prevents system deadlocks so that a process is not left hanging indefinitely waiting for a response. This also improves security because sensitive requests are not left exposed for long period.
Claim(s) 6, 20, 21, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgiev-Shih, in view of Padmanabhan et al. (U.S. Patent 11824970; hereinafter referred to as Padmanabhan).
As per claim 6, Georgiev-Shih teaches claim 1 as applied above. But Georgiev-Shih does not teach obtaining an approval if at least a number of clients higher than a first threshold accept the offset.
However, Padmanabhan does teach obtaining an approval if at least a number of clients higher than a first threshold accept the (e.g. Padmanabhan: [0235] discloses when a majority of nodes agree the transaction and/or new block is valid and may thus be accepted as a valid block on the primary blockchain.).
Georgiev-Shih and Padmanabhan are in the same field of endeavor in terms of computing processes and therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Georgiev-Shih with the teachings of Padmanabhan to obtaining an approval if at least a number of clients higher than a first threshold accept the . Obtaining approval through consensus above a threshold is a known technique and would have been obvious as a method for one of ordinary skill in the art to implement. This improves safety by ensuring a consensus among clients before applying offset, preventing small groups of nodes from corrupting the system.
As per claim 20, Georgiev-Shih teaches claim 15 as applied above. But Georgiev-Shih does not teach obtaining an approval if at least a number of clients higher than a first threshold accept the offset.
However, Padmanabhan does teach obtaining an approval if at least a number of clients higher than a first threshold accept the (e.g. Padmanabhan: [0235] discloses when a majority of nodes agree the transaction and/or new block is valid and may thus be accepted as a valid block on the primary blockchain. Please note that an offset was taught above in claim 15.).
Georgiev-Shih and Padmanabhan are in the same field of endeavor in terms of task scheduling and therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Georgiev-Shih with the teachings of Padmanabhan to obtaining an approval if at least a number of clients higher than a first threshold accept the . Obtaining approval through consensus above a threshold is a known technique and would have been obvious as a method for one of ordinary skill in the art to implement. This improves safety by ensuring a consensus among clients before applying offset, preventing small groups of nodes from corrupting the system.
As per claim 21, Georgiev-Shih-Padmanabhan teaches claim 20 as applied above. Padmanabhan further teaches wherein the first threshold is indicative of a number of clients that do not accept the (e.g. Padmanabhan: [0235] discloses "when a majority of nodes agree the transaction and/or new block is valid and may thus be accepted as a valid block on the primary blockchain". [0236] discloses "the nodes in the blockchain do not need to come to unanimous agreement about adding the transaction and/or new block to the blockchain, and indeed, after the threshold is met, a node need not begin, or continue, to participate in the voting process". Please note a majority means "a number or percentage equaling more than half of a total" according to Merriam-Webster. So having a majority in agreement surpasses the threshold for acceptance which corresponds to Applicant's first threshold is indicative of a number of clients that do not accept.).
As per claim 23, Georgiev-Shih teaches claim 15 as applied above. But Georgiev-Shih does not teach obtain a rejection if at least a number of clients higher than a second threshold do not accept the offset.
However, Padmanabhan does teach obtain a rejection if at least a number of clients higher than a second threshold do not accept the (e.g. Padmanabhan: [0235] discloses "when a majority of nodes agree the transaction and/or new block is valid and may thus be accepted as a valid block on the primary blockchain". Please note acceptance requires a majority for acceptance. Therefore a rejection comes from a majority for rejection which corresponds to Application's rejection if at least a number of clients higher than a second threshold do not accept. Because requiring a majority for rejection is a threshold.).
Georgiev-Shih and Padmanabhan are in the same field of endeavor in terms of computing processes and therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Georgiev-Shih with the teachings of Padmanabhan to obtain a rejection if at least a number of clients higher than a second threshold do not accept the . Obtaining approval through consensus above a threshold is a known technique and would have been obvious as a method for one of ordinary skill in the art to implement. So, if a rejection occurs from a group of clients greater than a second threshold, e.g. a majority, this improves safety by ensuring a consensus among clients before applying offset, preventing small groups of nodes from corrupting the system.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgiev-Shih, in view of Wang et al. (CN 113139795; published July 20, 2021; English Translation provided by IP.com; hereinafter referred to as Wang).
As per claim 24, Georgiev-Shih teaches claim 22 as applied above. But Georgiev-Shih does not teach reschedule in case of rejection.
However, Wang does teach reschedule in case of rejection (e.g. Wang: [Page 9 Paragraph 8] discloses "the users refuse to accept the tasks is detected, the distributed task feedback module feeds back to the business process task scheduling engine subsystem to indicate the business process task scheduling engine subsystem to reschedule the tasks.").
Georgiev-Shih and Wang are in the same field of endeavor in terms of task scheduling and therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Georgiev-Shih with the teachings of Wang to reschedule in case of rejection. Rescheduling in case of rejection is a known technique to a person of ordinary skill in the art. This improves system efficiency by making sure tasks that may conflict with each other are ran at different times to prevent system deadlocks.
Claim(s) 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgiev-Shih, in view of Poddar et al. (CN113204414; published August 3, 2021; English Translation Provided by IP.com; hereinafter referred to as Poddar).
As per claim 25, Georgiev-Shih-Gao teaches claim 16 as applied above. But Georgiev-Shih-Gao does not teach detect if the further data sent from the one or more clients are drifting from the offset; reschedule if the further data is drifting.
However, Poddar does teach detect if the further data sent from the one or more clients are drifting from the offset; reschedule if the further data is drifting (e.g. Poddar: [Page 4 Paragraph 6] discloses "to readjust the software VSyncs over time (such as continuously or periodically) so that each VSync maintains the same relative offset with respect to other applications, application containers, or other sources of processing tasks to be performed.").
Georgiev-Shih-Gao and Poddar are in the same field of endeavor in terms of task scheduling and therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Georgiev-Shih-Gao with the teachings of Poddar to detect if the further data sent from the one or more clients are drifting from the offset; reschedule if the further data is drifting. This is so that the worker runs more smoothly without getting overloaded. As disclosed by Poddar in [Page 4 Paragraph 5] signals may drift over time and lose at least some of this staggering, which may result in the application still requesting simultaneous completion of work.
Claim(s) 26 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgiev-Shih, in view of Beekhof et al. (U.S. PG Pub 20220138036; hereinafter referred to as Beekhof).
As per claim 26, Georgiev-Shih teaches claim 15 as applied above. But Georgiev-Shih does not teach obtain information on a status of a worker.
However, Beekhof does teach obtain information on a status of a worker (e.g. Beekhof: [0029] discloses “the control plane 215 may include a machine health check component (not shown) that determines whether each node 131 is healthy or unhealthy… whenever a health update (303) is received from the node's container engine (131A?)”.).
Georgiev-Shih and Beekhof are in the same field of endeavor in terms of system management and therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Georgiev-Shih with the teachings of Beekhof to obtain information on a status of a worker. This improves the health and clarity of the system by letting the system check on the state of a worker. So that if unhealthy nodes are found they can be shut down and their tasks rescheduled.
As per claim 27, Georgiev-Shih-Beekhof teaches claim 26 as applied above. Beekhof further teaches reschedule if the status of the worker is unhealthy or overloaded (e.g. Beekhof: [0037] discloses the workload recovery system described herein minimizes application downtime by making it possible to reschedule affected applications from unhealthy nodes onto other healthy node(s).).
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Georgiev-Shih, in view of Roth et al. (U.S. Patent 10366358; hereinafter referred to as Roth).
As per claim 28, Georgiev-Shih teaches claim 15 as applied above. But Georgiev-Shih does not teach verify if there is available capacity for processing data; reject the data if there is not available capacity.
However, Roth does teach verify if there is available capacity for processing data; reject the data if there is not available capacity (e.g. Roth: [0024] discloses “when a client 202 meets or exceed their allocated quota of outstanding computing work, requests of the client 202 whose satisfaction is contingent upon computing tasks being performed may be rejected”. Please note rejecting requests because a client met or exceeded their quota corresponds to Applicant's rejecting the data if there is not available capacity. This is because using up the quota means the client no longer has the capacity to send any more requests.).
Georgiev-Shih and Roth are in the same field of endeavor in terms of system management and therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the teachings of Georgiev-Shih with the teachings of Roth to verify if there is available capacity for processing data; reject the data if there is not available capacity. This improves system stability by making sure workers do not get overloaded and keep current tasks running smoothly. As disclosed by Roth [0032] “the total capacity of the data structure of backlogged tasks 306 is finite predictable latency in fulfilling client requests may be ensured”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL N TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-0856. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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 (571) 270-1014. 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.
/DANIEL NHU TRUONG/Examiner, Art Unit 2196
/APRIL Y BLAIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2196
Prosecution Insights