DETAILED ACTION
This is the initial Office action based on the application submitted on June 11, 2024.
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 Objections
Claims 1, 8, 13, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “executing by a job scheduler process on a computer a framework script,” It should be read – executing, by a job scheduler process on a computer, a framework script, --.
Claim 8 recites “executing by a task scheduler process on a computer a first script,” should read – executing, by a task scheduler process on a computer, a first script, --.
Claim 8 recites “code in each discovered sub-task file” should read -- code in each of the one or more sub-task files --.
Claims 13 recites “the framework script” It should read – the first script --.
Claim 14 recites “execute by a job scheduler process on the computer a framework script,” should read – execute, by a job scheduler process on the computer, a framework script, --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3, 7, 8, 10, 14, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140215479 (hereinafter “Riemers”) in view of US 20150143381 (hereinafter “chin”).
As per Claim 1, Riemers discloses:
A method for controlling a computer comprising:
executing by a job scheduler process on a computer a framework script, […] (Abstract, “in a program that includes a defined number of job slots for data updating processing jobs, scheduling a first job in one of the slots, and executing the first job, wherein the first job includes scanning a list of additional jobs and scheduling those additional jobs for execution (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0002], “The present disclosure generally relates scheduling processing jobs to run in a computer system and, more specifically, to scheduling jobs to run when the computer system has a limited number of job slots (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0013], “[…] and code to schedule additional jobs by the scheduling function […] [executing by a job scheduler process on a computer a framework script, […]] (emphasis added).”;
discovering by the framework script one or more sub-task scripts installed on the computer, […] (Abstract, “in a program that includes a defined number of job slots for data updating processing jobs, scheduling a first job in one of the slots, and executing the first job, wherein the first job includes scanning a list of additional jobs and scheduling those additional jobs for execution (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0002], “The present disclosure generally relates scheduling processing jobs to run in a computer system and, more specifically, to scheduling jobs to run when the computer system has a limited number of job slots (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0013], “[…] and code to schedule additional jobs by the scheduling function […] [discovering by the framework script one or more sub-task scripts installed on the computer, […]] (emphasis added).”;
executing, by the framework script, each discovered sub-task script. (Abstract, “in a program that includes a defined number of job slots for data updating processing jobs, scheduling a first job in one of the slots, and executing the first job, wherein the first job includes scanning a list of additional jobs and scheduling those additional jobs for execution (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0013], “[…] and code to schedule additional jobs by the scheduling function […] [executing, by the framework script, each discovered sub-task script] (emphasis added).”.
Riemers does not explicitly disclose:
[executing by a job scheduler process on a computer a framework script,] the framework script written in a scripting language;
[discovering by the framework script one or more sub-task scripts installed on the computer,] each sub-task script written in the scripting language; and
However, chin discloses:
[…] a scripting language (Paragraph [0018], “Computer program code for carrying out operations for aspects of the present invention may be written in any combination of one or more programming languages, including an object-oriented programming language such as Java, Smalltalk, C++ or the like and conventional procedural programming languages, such as the "C" programming language or similar programming languages, and scripting languages, such as Python [[…] a scripting language] (emphasis added).”;
[…] the scripting language (Paragraph [0018], “Computer program code for carrying out operations for aspects of the present invention may be written in any combination of one or more programming languages, including an object-oriented programming language such as Java, Smalltalk, C++ or the like and conventional procedural programming languages, such as the "C" programming language or similar programming languages, and scripting languages, such as Python [[…] a scripting language] (emphasis added).”; and
Riemers is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a method includes, in a program that includes a defined number of job slots for data updating processing jobs. chin is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding task scheduling and management of parent-child and recursive tree computational workloads. Thus, Riemers and chin are analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of chin into the teaching of Riemers to include “[…] a scripting language […] the scripting language; and” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to improve the scalability of job scheduler by using script language (chin, paragraph [0035]).
As per Claim 3, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Riemers discloses “the framework script” but Riemers does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the framework script terminates after a predetermined period of time.
However, chin discloses:
[service] terminates after a predetermined period of time (Paragraph [0042], “The parent task is interrupted during its run with a configurable grace period. If the task cannot complete within that grace period, the service instance process where it is running is terminated, [[service] terminates after a predetermined period of time] (emphasis added).”.
chin is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding task scheduling and management of parent-child and recursive tree computational workloads. Thus, chin is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of chin into the teaching of Riemers to include “wherein the framework script terminates after a predetermined period of time” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to manage the resources by terminate tasks (chin, paragraph [0026]).
As per Claim 7, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Riemers further discloses:
comprising the framework script creating a table of discovered sub-task scripts (Paragraph [0021], “For instance, the functionality described herein in which additional jobs are scheduled from a table with classes may be added via application 112. [comprising the framework script creating a table of discovered sub-task scripts] (emphasis added).”.
As per Claim 8, Riemers discloses:
A method for performing tasks on a computer comprising:
executing by a task scheduler process on a computer a first script, […] (Abstract, “in a program that includes a defined number of job slots for data updating processing jobs, scheduling a first job in one of the slots, and executing the first job, wherein the first job includes scanning a list of additional jobs and scheduling those additional jobs for execution (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0002], “The present disclosure generally relates scheduling processing jobs to run in a computer system and, more specifically, to scheduling jobs to run when the computer system has a limited number of job slots (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0013], “[…] and code to schedule additional jobs by the scheduling function […] [executing by a task scheduler process on a computer a first script, […]] (emphasis added).”;
finding by the first script one or more sub-tasks files installed on the computer (Abstract, “in a program that includes a defined number of job slots for data updating processing jobs, scheduling a first job in one of the slots, and executing the first job, wherein the first job includes scanning a list of additional jobs and scheduling those additional jobs for execution (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0002], “The present disclosure generally relates scheduling processing jobs to run in a computer system and, more specifically, to scheduling jobs to run when the computer system has a limited number of job slots (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0013], “[…] and code to schedule additional jobs by the scheduling function […] [finding by the first script one or more sub-tasks files installed on the computer] (emphasis added).”; and
executing, by the first script, code in each discovered sub-task file. (Abstract, “in a program that includes a defined number of job slots for data updating processing jobs, scheduling a first job in one of the slots, and executing the first job, wherein the first job includes scanning a list of additional jobs and scheduling those additional jobs for execution (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0013], “[…] and code to schedule additional jobs by the scheduling function […] [executing, by the framework script, each discovered sub-task script] (emphasis added).”.
Riemers does not explicitly disclose:
[executing by a task scheduler process on a computer a first script,] the first script including scripting language code;
However, chin discloses:
[…] scripting language code (Paragraph [0018], “Computer program code for carrying out operations for aspects of the present invention may be written in any combination of one or more programming languages, including an object-oriented programming language such as Java, Smalltalk, C++ or the like and conventional procedural programming languages, such as the "C" programming language or similar programming languages, and scripting languages, such as Python [[…] scripting language code] (emphasis added).”;
Riemers is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a method includes, in a program that includes a defined number of job slots for data updating processing jobs. chin is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding task scheduling and management of parent-child and recursive tree computational workloads. Thus, Riemers and chin are analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of chin into the teaching of Riemers to include “[…] scripting language code” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to improve the scalability of job scheduler by using script language (chin, paragraph [0035]).
As per Claim 10, the rejection of Claim 8 is incorporated; and Riemers discloses “the first script” but Riemers does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first script terminates after a predetermined period of time.
However, chin discloses:
[service] terminates after a predetermined period of time (Paragraph [0042], “The parent task is interrupted during its run with a configurable grace period. If the task cannot complete within that grace period, the service instance process where it is running is terminated, [[service] terminates after a predetermined period of time] (emphasis added).”.
chin is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding task scheduling and management of parent-child and recursive tree computational workloads. Thus, chin is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of chin into the teaching of Riemers to include “wherein the first script terminates after a predetermined period of time” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to manage the resources by terminate tasks (chin, paragraph [0026]).
Claims 14, 16 and 20 are system claims corresponding to the method claims hereinabove (Claims 1, 3, and 7, respectively). Therefore, Claims 14, 16 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 1, 3 and 7.
Claims 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riemers in view of chin as applied to claims 1, 8 and 14 above, and further in view of US 20080281919 (hereinafter “Shamp”).
As per Claim 2, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Riemers further discloses:
wherein each sub-task script […] in which the sub-task script is to be run (Abstract, “in a program that includes a defined number of job slots for data updating processing jobs, scheduling a first job in one of the slots, and executing the first job, wherein the first job includes scanning a list of additional jobs and scheduling those additional jobs for execution (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0002], “The present disclosure generally relates scheduling processing jobs to run in a computer system and, more specifically, to scheduling jobs to run when the computer system has a limited number of job slots (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0013], “[…] and code to schedule additional jobs by the scheduling function […] [wherein each sub-task script […] in which the sub-task script is to be run] (emphasis added).”.
The combination of Riemers and chin does not explicitly disclose:
[wherein each sub-task script] is stored in a directory corresponding to an account [in which the sub-task script is to be run].
However, Shamp discloses:
[image] is stored in a directory corresponding to an account […] (Paragraph [0025], “In some embodiments, the image management program 212 stores the images in a folder of the user account 218 established for the intended recipient […] [[image] is stored in a directory corresponding to an account […]] (emphasis added).”.
Shamp is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a system and a method for sharing images relate to receiving images transmitted via the Internet and intended for viewing by a particular intended recipient. Thus, Shamp is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Shamp into the combined teachings of Riemers and chin to include “[…] is stored in a directory corresponding to an account […]” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to improve the efficiency of the job scheduler by linking the directory with the account (Shamp, paragraph [0019]).
Claim 15 is a system claim corresponding to the method claim hereinabove (Claim 2). Therefore, Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claim 2.
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riemers in view of chin as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of US 20230297395 (hereinafter “Hu”).
As per Claim 4, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Riemers discloses “the framework script” and “sub-task script” but the combination of Riemers and chin does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the framework script determines CPU usage on the computer, and executes a sub-task script only if the CPU usage is below a predetermined threshold.
However, Hu discloses:
[service layer] determines CPU usage on the computer, and executes a [task] only if the CPU usage is below a predetermined threshold (Paragraph [0080], “Before and after the state switching, a change amount of hardware resource usage (for example, CPU usage) is greater than a change amount threshold, after the state switching, the hardware resource usage is less than a usage threshold, after the state switching, some processes are in a zombie state, and after the state switching, a task executed by the embedded device is a task whose performance consumption is lower than a consumption threshold. [[service layer] determines CPU usage on the computer, and executes a [task] only if the CPU usage is below a predetermined threshold] (emphasis added).”.
Hu is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a parameter configuration method, an apparatus, and a system. Thus, Hu is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Hu into the combined teachings of Riemers and chin to include “wherein the framework script determines CPU usage on the computer, and executes a sub-task script only if the CPU usage is below a predetermined threshold” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to reduce CUP power consumption (Hu, paragraph [0016]).
Claim 17 is a system claim corresponding to the method claim hereinabove (Claim 4). Therefore, Claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claim 4.
Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riemers in view of chin as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of US 9430330 (hereinafter “Bardhan”), US 5761680 (hereinafter “Cohen”), Hu, and US 20240095352 (hereinafter “SALMAN”).
As per Claim 5, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Riemers discloses “a sub-task script” , but the combination of Riemers and chin does not explicitly discloses:
wherein a sub-task script performs a task selected from the group consisting of: defragmenting a disk drive; determining disk drive parameters and transmitting the disk drive parameters to a remote computer; determining OS parameters and transmitting the OS parameters to a remote computer; determining network adapter parameters and transmitting the network adapter parameters to a remote computer; profile maintenance; and backing up a databased to a remote computer.
However, Bardhan discloses:
[…] transmitting […] to a remote computer (Abstract, “the server system sends a sequence of blocks or files comprising backup data and environment metadata to the storage system (emphasis added).”; col.1 lines 47-52, Each server may execute an application, such as a database application, that "connects" to the storage system over a computer network, such as a point-to-point link, a shared local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN), or a 50 virtual private network (VPN) implemented over a public network such as the Internet [[…] transmitting […] to a remote computer] (emphasis added).”;
determining OS parameters and transmitting the OS parameters to a remote computer (Abstract, “the server system sends a sequence of blocks or files comprising backup data and environment metadata to the storage system (emphasis added).”; col.1 lines 47-52, Each server may execute an application, such as a database application, that "connects" to the storage system over a computer network, such as a point-to-point link, a shared local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN), or a 50 virtual private network (VPN) implemented over a public network such as the Internet. (emphasis added).”; col.3 lines 4-9, “For example, environment metadata describing hardware or software components of the server system may comprise the type of processor, type of each memory device, type of local storage device, type of storage device controller, type of operating system [determining OS parameters and transmitting the OS parameters to a remote computer] (emphasis added).”;
[…] backing up a databased […] (col.3 lines 4-9, “Once installation has completed, the OSSV system can perform initial backups (e.g., including backup of entire files), block-level incremental backups, open file backups, backups of MS-SQL databases, […] [[…] backing up a databased […]] (emphasis added).”;
Bardhan is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a system and method for managing environment metadata of a server system during a backup session between the server system and a storage system. Thus, Bardhan is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Bardhan into the combined teachings of Riemers and chin to include “determining OS parameters and transmitting the OS parameters to a remote computer; […] and backing up a databased to a remote computer” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to monitor and transmit the environment parameters and backup data (Bardhan, col.2 lines 38 - 52).
Bardhan discloses “[…] transmitting […] to a remote computer” but the combination of Riemers, chin and Bardhan does not explicitly discloses:
[…] defragmenting a disk drive; determining disk drive parameters and transmitting the disk drive parameters to a remote computer; […] determining network adapter parameters and transmitting the network adapter parameters to a remote computer; profile maintenance; […].
However, Cohen discloses:
[…] disk drive parameters […] (col.6 lines 20-24, “The disk defragmentor generates a call to the disk alias driver wherein the call specifies the translate mode and includes parameters that specify the sectors and delta values that contain the old and the new swap file clusters [[…] disk drive parameters […]] (emphasis added).”.
Cohen is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a file defragmentation utility for a computer system is disclosed that enables multithreaded preemptive multi-tasking during file defragmentation. Thus, Cohen is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Cohen into the combined teachings of Riemers, chin and Bardhan to include “[…] defragmenting a disk drive; determining disk drive parameters and transmitting the disk drive parameters to a remote computer; […]” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to enable defragmentation of disk drive (Cohen, col.2 lines 8 -17).
Bardhan discloses “[…] transmitting […] to a remote computer” but the combination of Riemers, chin, Bardhan and Cohen does not explicitly discloses:
[…] determining network adapter parameters and transmitting the network adapter parameters to a remote computer; profile maintenance; […].
However, Hu discloses:
[…] network adapter parameters […] (Paragraph [0020], “The system parameter may include a network parameter, for example, may include a related parameters of a network adapter [[…] network adapter parameters […]] (emphasis added).”.
Hu is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a parameter configuration method, an apparatus, and a system. Thus, Hu is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Hu into the combined teachings of Riemers, chin, Bardhan and Cohen to include “[…] determining network adapter parameters and transmitting the network adapter parameters to a remote computer; […].” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to reduce the probability of incorrect parameter configuration (Hu, paragraph [0008]).
The combination of Riemers, chin, Bardhan, Cohen and Hu does not explicitly discloses:
profile maintenance;
However, SALMAN discloses:
profile maintenance (Paragraph [0024], “For example, each file may be associated with a particular container object (such as a folder, or a container similar to a folder), and each container object may in turn be associated with a particular cloud account (e.g. an individual user account, organization account etc.). The extent of hierarchical organization may vary between different cloud computing platforms. For example, files under a given user account may be stored in a flat (non-hierarchical) organization of containers (or ‘buckets’; flat in the sense that buckets do not contain other buckets) [profile maintenance] (emphasis added).”;
SALMAN is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding methods, systems and computer programs for detecting malicious files uploaded to cloud storage. Thus, SALMAN is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of SALMAN into the combined teachings of Riemers, chin, Bardhan and Cohen to include “profile maintenance” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to add user profile management.
Claim 18 is a system claim corresponding to the method claim hereinabove (Claim 5). Therefore, Claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claim 5.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riemers in view of chin as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Bardhan, Cohen, Hu, and SALMAN.
As per Claim 12, the rejection of Claim 8 is incorporated; and Riemers discloses “a sub-task file” , but the combination of Riemers and chin does not explicitly discloses:
wherein a sub-task script performs a task selected from the group consisting of: defragmenting a disk drive; determining disk drive parameters and transmitting the disk drive parameters to a remote computer; determining OS parameters and transmitting the OS parameters to a remote computer; determining network adapter parameters and transmitting the network adapter parameters to a remote computer; profile maintenance; and backing up a databased to a remote computer.
However, Bardhan discloses:
[…] transmitting […] to a remote computer (Abstract, “the server system sends a sequence of blocks or files comprising backup data and environment metadata to the storage system (emphasis added).”; col.1 lines 47-52, Each server may execute an application, such as a database application, that "connects" to the storage system over a computer network, such as a point-to-point link, a shared local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN), or a 50 virtual private network (VPN) implemented over a public network such as the Internet [[…] transmitting […] to a remote computer] (emphasis added).”;
determining OS parameters and transmitting the OS parameters to a remote computer (Abstract, “the server system sends a sequence of blocks or files comprising backup data and environment metadata to the storage system (emphasis added).”; col.1 lines 47-52, Each server may execute an application, such as a database application, that "connects" to the storage system over a computer network, such as a point-to-point link, a shared local area network (LAN), a wide area network (WAN), or a 50 virtual private network (VPN) implemented over a public network such as the Internet. (emphasis added).”; col.3 lines 4-9, “For example, environment metadata describing hardware or software components of the server system may comprise the type of processor, type of each memory device, type of local storage device, type of storage device controller, type of operating system [determining OS parameters and transmitting the OS parameters to a remote computer] (emphasis added).”;
[…] backing up a databased […] (col.3 lines 4-9, “Once installation has completed, the OSSV system can perform initial backups (e.g., including backup of entire files), block-level incremental backups, open file backups, backups of MS-SQL databases, […] [[…] backing up a databased […]] (emphasis added).”;
Bardhan is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a system and method for managing environment metadata of a server system during a backup session between the server system and a storage system. Thus, Bardhan is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Bardhan into the combined teachings of Riemers and chin to include “determining OS parameters and transmitting the OS parameters to a remote computer; […] and backing up a databased to a remote computer” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to monitor and transmit the environment parameters and backup data (Bardhan, col.2 lines 38 - 52).
Bardhan discloses “[…] transmitting […] to a remote computer” but the combination of Riemers, chin and Bardhan does not explicitly discloses:
[…] defragmenting a disk drive; determining disk drive parameters and transmitting the disk drive parameters to a remote computer; […] determining network adapter parameters and transmitting the network adapter parameters to a remote computer; profile maintenance; […].
However, Cohen discloses:
[…] disk drive parameters […] (col.6 lines 20-24, “The disk defragmentor generates a call to the disk alias driver wherein the call specifies the translate mode and includes parameters that specify the sectors and delta values that contain the old and the new swap file clusters [[…] disk drive parameters […]] (emphasis added).”.
Cohen is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a file defragmentation utility for a computer system is disclosed that enables multithreaded preemptive multi-tasking during file defragmentation. Thus, Cohen is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Cohen into the combined teachings of Riemers, chin and Bardhan to include “[…] defragmenting a disk drive; determining disk drive parameters and transmitting the disk drive parameters to a remote computer; […]” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to enable defragmentation of disk drive (Cohen, col.2 lines 8 -17).
Bardhan discloses “[…] transmitting […] to a remote computer” but the combination of Riemers, chin, Bardhan and Cohen does not explicitly discloses:
[…] determining network adapter parameters and transmitting the network adapter parameters to a remote computer; profile maintenance; […].
However, Hu discloses:
[…] network adapter parameters […] (Paragraph [0020], “The system parameter may include a network parameter, for example, may include a related parameters of a network adapter [[…] network adapter parameters […]] (emphasis added).”.
Hu is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a parameter configuration method, an apparatus, and a system. Thus, Hu is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Hu into the combined teachings of Riemers, chin, Bardhan and Cohen to include “[…] determining network adapter parameters and transmitting the network adapter parameters to a remote computer; […].” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to reduce the probability of incorrect parameter configuration (Hu, paragraph [0008]).
The combination of Riemers, chin, Bardhan, Cohen and Hu does not explicitly discloses:
profile maintenance;
However, SALMAN discloses:
profile maintenance (Paragraph [0024], “For example, each file may be associated with a particular container object (such as a folder, or a container similar to a folder), and each container object may in turn be associated with a particular cloud account (e.g. an individual user account, organization account etc.). The extent of hierarchical organization may vary between different cloud computing platforms. For example, files under a given user account may be stored in a flat (non-hierarchical) organization of containers (or ‘buckets’; flat in the sense that buckets do not contain other buckets) [profile maintenance] (emphasis added).”;
SALMAN is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding methods, systems and computer programs for detecting malicious files uploaded to cloud storage. Thus, SALMAN is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of SALMAN into the combined teachings of Riemers, chin, Bardhan and Cohen to include “profile maintenance” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to add user profile management.
Claims 6, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riemers in view of chin as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of US 7676840 (hereinafter “Morais”).
As per Claim 6, the rejection of Claim 1 is incorporated; and Riemers discloses “the framework script” and “a sub-task script” but the combination of Riemers and chin does not explicitly disclose:
[wherein the framework script] executes [a sub-task script] only if a signature in [the sub-task script] matches [the sub-task script].
However, Morais discloses:
[…] executes […] only if a signature in [code] matches the [code] (col.3 lines 10-16, “A digital signature is included in a different part of the code than the predefined portion of the code. The second hash value is then verified against the digital signature, to ensure the authenticity of the signature. If the digital signature is verified to be authentic, execution of the code is enabled, and if not, the boot-up of the electronic device is terminated [[…] executes […] only if a signature in [code] matches the [code]] (emphasis added).”.
Morais is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding securely booting up an electronic device that includes a processor. Thus, Morais is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Morais into the combined teachings of Riemers and chin to include “[…] executes […] only if a signature in […] matches the […]” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to verify the signature of the script before the execution before the execution (Morais, col.2 lines 21-24).
Claim 13 is a method claim corresponding to the method claim hereinabove (Claim 6). Therefore, Claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claim 6.
Claim 19 is a system claim corresponding to the method claim hereinabove (Claim 6). Therefore, Claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claim 6.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riemers in view of chin as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Shamp.
As per Claim 9, the rejection of Claim 8 is incorporated; and Riemers further discloses:
wherein each sub-task file […] in which the sub-task script is to be run (Abstract, “in a program that includes a defined number of job slots for data updating processing jobs, scheduling a first job in one of the slots, and executing the first job, wherein the first job includes scanning a list of additional jobs and scheduling those additional jobs for execution (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0002], “The present disclosure generally relates scheduling processing jobs to run in a computer system and, more specifically, to scheduling jobs to run when the computer system has a limited number of job slots (emphasis added).”; Paragraph [0013], “[…] and code to schedule additional jobs by the scheduling function […] [wherein each sub-task script […] in which the sub-task script is to be run] (emphasis added).”.
The combination of Riemers and chin does not explicitly disclose:
[wherein each sub-task file] is stored in a directory corresponding to an account [in which the sub-task script is to be run].
However, Shamp discloses:
[image] is stored in a directory corresponding to an account […] (Paragraph [0025], “In some embodiments, the image management program 212 stores the images in a folder of the user account 218 established for the intended recipient. […] [image] a directory corresponding to an account […]] (emphasis added).”.
Shamp is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a system and a method for sharing images relate to receiving images transmitted via the Internet and intended for viewing by a particular intended recipient. Thus, Shamp is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Shamp into the combined teachings of Riemers and chin to include “[…] is stored in a directory corresponding to an account […]” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to improve the efficiency of the job scheduler by linking the directory with the account (Shamp, paragraph [0019]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riemers in view of chin as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Hu.
As per Claim 11, the rejection of Claim 8 is incorporated; and Riemers discloses “the first script” and “a sub-task file” but the combination of Riemers and chin does not explicitly disclose:
[wherein the first script] determines CPU usage on the computer, and executes a [sub-task file] only if the CPU usage is below a predetermined threshold.
However, Hu discloses:
[service layer] determines CPU usage on the computer, and executes a [task] only if the CPU usage is below a predetermined threshold (Paragraph [0080], “Before and after the state switching, a change amount of hardware resource usage (for example, CPU usage) is greater than a change amount threshold, after the state switching, the hardware resource usage is less than a usage threshold, after the state switching, some processes are in a zombie state, and after the state switching, a task executed by the embedded device is a task whose performance consumption is lower than a consumption threshold. [[service layer] determines CPU usage on the computer, and executes a [task] only if the CPU usage is below a predetermined threshold] (emphasis added).”.
Hu is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention regarding a parameter configuration method, an apparatus, and a system. Thus, Hu is an analogous art to the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Hu into the combined teachings of Riemers and chin to include “[…] determines CPU usage on the computer, and executes a […] only if the CPU usage is below a predetermined threshold.” The modification would be obvious because one of the ordinary skills in the art would be motivated to reduce CUP power consumption (Hu, paragraph [0016]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant’s disclosure. They are as follows:
US 2016/0103677 (hereinafter “Melski”) discloses a method for executing program builds comprising: analyzing file dependency information and job duration information associated with jobs of the program build.
US 2022/0270014 (hereinafter “Nag”) discloses an alternative control interface, based on graph and metric databases and providing process-automation for automating control tasks, provided to Infrastructure-as-a-Service (“IaaS”) clients.
US 2003/0028790 (hereinafter “Bleumer”) discloses a security module for a host device of an account management system.
US 2023/0273801 (hereinafter “WANG”) discloses a method for configuring a compute mode.
US 2019/0163540 (hereinafter “Lee”) discloses a method, computer program product, and system for scheduling an application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Yanbin Li whose telephone number is 571-272-0906. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 8:30 AM to 4:30 PM ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, the Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Wei Mui, can be reached at 571-272-3708. 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 more 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.
/Y.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2191
/WEI Y MUI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2191
Prosecution Insights