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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS filed on 01/15/2026 has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 C.F.R. 1.84(q) as recited here: "Lead lines are those lines between the reference characters and the details referred to. Such lines may be straight or curved and should be as short as possible. They must originate in the immediate proximity of the reference character and extend to the feature indicated. Lead lines must not cross each other. Lead lines are required for each reference character except for those which indicate the surface or cross section on which they are placed. Such a reference character must be underlined to make it clear that a lead line has not been left out by mistake. Lead lines must be executed in the same way as lines in the drawing. See paragraph (1) of this section." Figures 3 to 7 are objected to. 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per claim 1:
Line 2 recites “computing cluster” but lines 3-4 recite “a cluster of computing nodes” and it is unclear what the difference is.
As per claims 1, 10, and 18 (line numbers refer to claim 1):
Lines 20-22 recite “reallocating, by the computing task scheduler, the set of computing nodes from the node health assessment queue based on the state of health data for each computing node of the set of computing nodes” but it is unclear where the set of computing nodes are reallocated to.
As per claims 6, 15, and 20 (line numbers refer to claim 6):
Lines 4-5 recite “wherein the reassignment of the one or more computing nodes having the healthy state to the remediation queue” but lines 2-4 recite “reassigning the one or more computing nodes having the unhealthy state from the node health assessment queue to a remediation queue”.
As per claims 19 and 20 (line numbers refer to claim 19):
Line 1 recites “the computer-program product according to claim 18” but claim 18 is directed to a computer-implemented method.
Claims 2-9, 11-17, and 19-20 are dependent claims of claims 1, 10, and 18, and fail to resolve the deficiencies of claims 1, 10, and 18, so they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6, 8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
As per claim 1, in step 1 of the 101 analysis, the examiner has determined that the claim is directed to a method. Therefore, the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
In step 2A prong 1 of the 101 analysis, the examiner has determined that the claim recites a judicial exception. Specifically, the limitations of “detecting a plurality of idle nodes of a cluster of computing nodes”, “selecting a set of computing nodes of the plurality of idle nodes for a node health assessment”, “assigning the set of computing nodes to a node health assessment queue, wherein when the assignment of the set of computing nodes to the node health assessment queues renders the set of computing nodes unavailable for executing one or more computing tasks assigned by the computing task scheduler to the cluster of computing nodes”, “determining a state of health data for each computing node of the set of computing nodes based on the assessment results”, and “reallocating the set of computing nodes from the node health assessment queue based on the state of health data for each computing node of the set of computing nodes” are mental processes. Detecting a plurality of idle nodes is a mental process since humans can observe metrics and determine if a node is idle. Selecting a set of computing nodes is a mental process since humans can mentally make a judgement regarding which computing nodes to assess. Assigning the set of computing nodes to a node health assessment queue is a mental process because humans can associate the set of computing nodes with the node health assessment queue. Rendering the set of computing nodes as unavailable is a mental process since humans can mentally flag the set of computing nodes as unavailable. Determining the state of health data is a mental process since human are able to look at data and come up with a conclusion regarding the state of health data. Reallocating the set of computing nodes is a mental process since humans can mentally assign the set of computing nodes.
In step 2A prong 2 of the 101 analysis, the examiner has determined that the additional elements, alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application for the following rationale:
The limitations "by a computing task scheduler" and “wherein the plurality of idle nodes includes computing nodes of the cluster of computing nodes that are in an idle state” apply judicial exceptions on a generic computer. "Alappat 's rationale that an otherwise ineligible algorithm or software could be made patent-eligible by merely adding a generic computer to the claim was superseded by the Supreme Court's Bilski and Alice Corp. decisions" so therefore applying judicial exceptions on a computing task scheduler and computing nodes in an idle state which are generic computers does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The limitations "submitting to the set of computing nodes within the node health assessment queue a set of instructions for executing the node health assessment” and “obtaining assessment results based on the execution of the node health assessment by the set of computing nodes" represent insignificant, extra-solution activities. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as "activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim" (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The examiner has determined that the limitations "submitting to the set of computing nodes within the node health assessment queue a set of instructions for executing the node health assessment” and “obtaining assessment results based on the execution of the node health assessment by the set of computing nodes" are directed to mere data gathering activities which is a category of insignificant extra-solution activities (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In step 2B of the 101 analysis, the examiner has determined that the additional elements, alone or in combination do not recite significantly more than the abstract ideas identified above for the following rationale:
The limitations "by a computing task scheduler" and “wherein the plurality of idle nodes includes computing nodes of the cluster of computing nodes that are in an idle state” apply judicial exceptions on a generic computer and therefore do not provide significantly more.
The limitations "submitting to the set of computing nodes within the node health assessment queue a set of instructions for executing the node health assessment” and “obtaining assessment results based on the execution of the node health assessment by the set of computing nodes" represent insignificant, extra-solution activities. The limitations "submitting to the set of computing nodes within the node health assessment queue a set of instructions for executing the node health assessment” and “obtaining assessment results based on the execution of the node health assessment by the set of computing nodes" are well-understood, routine, or conventional because they are directed to "receiving or transmitting data" (MPEP 2106.05(d)). These are additional elements that the courts have recognized as well understood, routine, or conventional (MPEP 2106.05(d)). The citation of court cases in the MPEP meets the Berkheimer evidentiary burden since citation of a court case in the MPEP is one of the 4 types of evidentiary support that can be used to prove that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional (see 125 USPQ2d 1649 Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.). Thus, the limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per claim 10, it is a computer-program product claim of claim 1, so it is rejected for similar reasons. Additionally, it recites “a computer-program product comprising a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium storing computer instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, perform operations comprising” which recite generic computing components that neither integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application nor recite significantly more.
As per claim 18, it is a computer-implemented method claim of claim 1, so it is rejected for similar reasons.
As per claim 2 (and similarly for claim 11), it recites a mental process and attributes of the technological environment that neither integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application nor recite significantly more.
As per claim 3 (and similarly for claim 12), it recites mental processes.
As per claim 4 (and similarly for claim 13), it recites attributes of the technological environment that neither integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application nor recite significantly more.
As per claim 5 (and similarly for claim 14), it recites mental processes and attributes of the technological environment that neither integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application nor recite significantly more.
As per claim 6 (and similarly for claim 15), it recites mental processes.
As per claim 8 (and similarly for claim 17), it recites mental processes, generic computers and an attribute of the technological environment that neither integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application nor recites significantly more.
As per claim 19, it recites mental processes and attributes of the technological environment that neither integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application nor recite significantly more.
As per claim 20, it recites mental processes and attributes of the technological environment that neither integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application nor recite significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 1, 2, 3, 5, 10, 11, 12, 14, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hackett (US 20200387834 A1) in view of Muchherla et al. (US 20210118519 A1 hereinafter Muchherla), and further in view of Strenski (US 20220326993 A1).
As per claim 1, Hackett teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a method for automated scheduler-controlled computing node testing in a computing cluster, the method comprising ([0029] The health checker of the ML training and testing system can contact each node of the platform at periodic times to ensure that the nodes are active; [0084] The health check can also ask for performance statistics from the three processing components that contain active nodes: the compute farm, the data manager, and the test center. Statistics are not necessarily gathered at the same interval as a health check ping. The statistics are for use by the scheduler as it optimizes processing.): detecting, by a computing task scheduler, a plurality of idle nodes of a cluster of computing nodes, wherein the plurality of idle nodes includes computing nodes of the cluster of computing nodes that are in an idle state ([0057] Each node is allocated from an initial set of idle platform nodes from the platform; [0045] A set of idle nodes, or their potential, are first established, these are nodes that are available for allocation to the data manager, the test center, and to the compute farm as needed. The health checker component performs a ping to each idle node and informs the primary process of the performance expectation of the network topology of reaching each node. The scheduler component maintains knowledge of compute node status to optimize processing); selecting, by the computing task scheduler, a set of computing nodes of the plurality of idle nodes for a node health assessment ([0045] A set of idle nodes, or their potential, are first established, these are nodes that are available for allocation to the data manager, the test center, and to the compute farm as needed. The health checker component performs a ping to each idle node and informs the primary process of the performance expectation of the network topology of reaching each node. The scheduler component maintains knowledge of compute node status to optimize processing.); obtaining, by the computing task scheduler, assessment results based on the execution of the node health assessment by the set of computing nodes; determining a state of health data for each computing node of the set of computing nodes based on the assessment results ([0029] The health checker of the ML training and testing system can contact each node of the platform at periodic times to ensure that the nodes are active, and it can gather statistics on usage from each node. The information gathered by the health checker is passed on to the scheduler; [0087] In accordance with one or more embodiments of the present invention, the scheduler optimizes the use of the platform to achieve maximum throughput. Over initiating work can lead to thrashing of processes on the compute nodes, and under initiating doesn't exploit the platform fully. Feedback from compute nodes about their performance via the health checker is used to schedule work onto compute nodes).
Hackett fails to teach assigning the set of computing nodes to a node health assessment queue, wherein when the assignment of the set of computing nodes to the node health assessment queues renders the set of computing nodes unavailable for executing one or more computing tasks assigned by the computing task scheduler to the cluster of computing nodes; submitting, by the computing task scheduler, to the set of computing nodes within the node health assessment queue a set of instructions for executing the node health assessment; and reallocating, by the computing task scheduler, the set of computing nodes from the node health assessment queue based on the state of health data for each computing node of the set of computing nodes.
However, Muchherla teaches assigning the set of computing nodes to a node health assessment queue, wherein when the assignment of the set of computing nodes to the node health assessment queues renders the set of computing nodes unavailable for executing one or more computing tasks assigned by the computing task scheduler to the cluster of computing nodes; the set of computing nodes within the node health assessment queue ([0016] A quarantine queue can be maintained by the memory sub-system to perform certain stress tests on quarantined blocks to assess the health of the quarantined blocks. Stress tests of quarantined blocks may include a cross-temperature test, a P/E cycles test, a read disturb test of the block, or a combination thereof. While in the quarantine queue, a block can be designated as unusable by the memory component for storing host data; [0030] A quarantine queue can be maintained by memory sub-system 110 to perform certain stress tests on quarantined blocks to assess the health of the quarantined blocks. Stress tests of quarantined blocks may include a cross-temperature test, a P/E cycles test, a read disturb test of the block, or a combination thereof. In one example, stress tests of quarantined blocks may run during an idle time of memory sub-system 110);
reallocating, by the computing task scheduler, the set of computing nodes from the node health assessment queue based on the state of health data for each computing node of the set of computing nodes ([0016] While in the quarantine queue, a block can be designated as unusable by the memory component for storing host data, for a predetermined time period. Subsequent to designating the block as quarantined, the memory sub-system may perform a stress test of the block, using test data, to assess the health of the block based on the result of the stress test. As will be described in more detail herein, in one implementation, if the stress test result of the block does not meet a testing criterion, the memory sub-system can determine that the block is defective and can retire the block. If, on the other hand, the memory sub-system determines that the first stress test result satisfies the testing criterion, the memory sub-system can designate the block as an un-quarantined block, thus allowing the block to exit the quarantine queue. The block can subsequently be treated as a healthy block by the memory sub-system and can be used for storing host data.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined Hackett with the teachings of Muchherla to improve performance (see [0013] Accordingly, a different technique for managing block retirement may be preferred to improve performance and reduce data loss, while ensuring that healthy blocks are not prematurely retired.).
Hackett and Muchherla fail to teach submitting, by the computing task scheduler, to the set of computing nodes a set of instructions for executing the node health assessment.
However, Strenski teaches submitting, by the computing task scheduler, to the set of computing nodes a set of instructions for executing the node health assessment ([0033] At 310, the scheduler node sends one or more test-computing jobs for execution on each node 451A-451L (collectively, referred to as ‘450’) to measure one or more performance metrics thereof.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined Hackett and Muchherla with the teachings of Strenski to reduce latency in computation (see Strenski [0016] The processing element periodically sends test-computational jobs to measure performance metrics of each node whereby nodes with performance variations (reduction) can be identified. During the selection of the set of nodes, the nodes with reduced performance are avoided to reduce delay in execution of the computational jobs.).
As per claim 2, Hackett, Muchherla, and Strenski teach the method according to claim 1. Hackett teaches wherein: determining the state of health data includes identifying one or more computing nodes of the set of computing nodes as having a healthy state, wherein the healthy state relates to a likely operational status of a subject computing node satisfying the node health assessment ([0080] In accordance with one or more embodiments of the present invention, independent of other processes, the health check contacts each of the nodes that are operating on the platform. The time between queries can be dependent on node locality. Nodes that don't respond within a threshold time are considered failed and are removed from the system component they are part of. The scheduler is notified of node status.).
As per claim 3, Hackett, Muchherla, and Strenski teach the method according to claim 2. Muchherla teaches wherein: reallocating the set of computing nodes includes reassigning the one or more computing nodes having the healthy state from the node health assessment queue to available computing resources of the cluster of computing resources, wherein the reassignment of the one or more computing nodes having the healthy state to the available computing resources renders the one or more computing nodes available for executing the one or more computing tasks assigned by the computing task scheduler to the cluster of computing nodes ([0016] While in the quarantine queue, a block can be designated as unusable by the memory component for storing host data, for a predetermined time period. Subsequent to designating the block as quarantined, the memory sub-system may perform a stress test of the block, using test data, to assess the health of the block based on the result of the stress test. As will be described in more detail herein, in one implementation, if the stress test result of the block does not meet a testing criterion, the memory sub-system can determine that the block is defective and can retire the block. If, on the other hand, the memory sub-system determines that the first stress test result satisfies the testing criterion, the memory sub-system can designate the block as an un-quarantined block, thus allowing the block to exit the quarantine queue. The block can subsequently be treated as a healthy block by the memory sub-system and can be used for storing host data.)
As per claim 5, Hackett, Muchherla, and Strenski teach the method according to claim 1. Hackett teaches wherein: determining the state of health data includes identifying one or more computing nodes of the set of computing nodes as having an unhealthy state, wherein the unhealthy state relates to a likely operational status of a subject computing node that does not satisfy the node health assessment ([0080] In accordance with one or more embodiments of the present invention, independent of other processes, the health check contacts each of the nodes that are operating on the platform. The time between queries can be dependent on node locality. Nodes that don't respond within a threshold time are considered failed and are removed from the system component they are part of. The scheduler is notified of node status.).
As per claim 10, it is a computer-program product of claim 1, so it is rejected for similar reasons. Hackett teaches a computer-program product comprising a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium storing computer instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, perform operations comprising ([0133] The computer readable storage medium can be a tangible device that can retain and store instructions for use by an instruction execution device; [0134] Computer readable program instructions described herein can be downloaded to respective computing/processing devices from a computer readable storage medium).
As per claims 11, 12, and 14, they are computer-program product claims of claims 2, 3, and 5, so they are rejected for similar reasons.
As per claim 18, it is a computer-implemented method claim of claim 1, so it is rejected for similar reasons.
As per claim 19, it is a computer-program product claim of claims 2 and 3, so it is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hackett, Muchherla, and Strenski, as applied to claims 2 and 11 above, in view of Nice et al. (US 20100125904 A1 hereinafter Nice).
As per claim 4, Hackett, Muchherla, and Strenski teach the method according to claim 2.
Hackett, Muchherla, and Strenski fail to teach wherein the one or more computing nodes of the set of computing nodes having the healthy state are restricted from executing another instance of the node health assessment for a predetermined period.
However, Nice teaches wherein the one or more computing nodes of the set of computing nodes having the healthy state are restricted from executing another instance of the node health assessment for a predetermined period ([0024] In some cases, the mobile device 105 can be configured to restrict or limit utilization of the integrity checking feature if the device has not been checked and verified as being healthy within some given time interval; [0033] The monitoring 710 may comprise the integrity checking as described in the text accompanying FIG. 5 that is performed to verify the integrity of the PC 110. In addition, the PC 110 may be continuously or periodically monitored after it is verified as trustworthy).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined Hackett, Muchherla, and Strenski with the teachings of Nice to assess if a node has been compromised (see Nice [0023] in some applications, the integrity of the trusted core itself may be periodically checked to ensure that is has not been compromised).
As per claim 13, it is a computer program product claim of claim 4, so it is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hackett, Muchherla, and Strenski, as applied to claims 5 and 14 above, in view of Jeong (KR20190071573A), and further in view of Hasija et al. (US 20180218295 A1 hereinafter Hasija).
As per claim 6, Hackett, Muchherla, and Strenski teach the method according to claim 5.
Hackett, Muchherla, and Strenski fail to teach wherein: reallocating the set of computing nodes includes reassigning the one or more computing nodes having the unhealthy state from the node health assessment queue to a remediation queue, wherein the reassignment of the one or more computing nodes having the healthy state to the remediation queue renders the one or more computing nodes unavailable for executing the one or more computing tasks assigned by the computing task scheduler to the cluster of computing nodes.
However, Jeong teaches wherein: reallocating the set of computing nodes includes reassigning the one or more computing nodes having the unhealthy state from the node health assessment queue to a remediation queue ([0065] If decoding of the third data (DT3) fails, the memory controller (210) can move the third information (INF_CR1) stored in the cache queue (212) to the response queue (213); [0025] Additionally, if the status information includes information indicating a failure of command processing, the memory controller (210) may move the corresponding description information stored in the command queue (211) to the response queue (213); [0025] Since the description information stored in the response queue (213) is description information for a failed operation, the processor (220) can retransmit the description information for a failed operation to the memory controller (210) based on the description information stored in the response queue (213), and the memory controller (210) can retransmit a command corresponding to the retransmitted description information to the non-volatile memory device (300).).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined Hackett, Muchherla, and Strenski with the teachings of Jeong to improve reliability (see Jeong [0054] the reliability of the memory system (100) can be improved).
Hackett, Muchherla, Strenski, and Jeong fail to teach wherein the reassignment of the one or more computing nodes having the healthy state to the remediation queue renders the one or more computing nodes unavailable for executing the one or more computing tasks assigned by the computing task scheduler to the cluster of computing nodes.
However, Hasija teaches wherein the reassignment of the one or more computing nodes having the healthy state to the remediation queue renders the one or more computing nodes unavailable for executing the one or more computing tasks assigned by the computing task scheduler to the cluster of computing nodes ([0292] At block 2608, in one or more of the various embodiments, the identified broken flow model partitions may be isolated and assigned to an error task queue. Accordingly, in some embodiments, flow tasks associated with the broken flow model partitions may be suspended and assigned to one or more error task queues).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined Hackett, Muchherla, Strenski, and Jeong with the teachings of Hasija to improve reliability (see Hasija [0249] Accordingly, in one or more of the various embodiments, reliability may be improved).
As per claim 15, it is a computer-program product claim of claim 6, so it is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hackett, Muchherla, and Strenski, as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, in view of Li et al. (CN108234154A hereinafter Li).
The portions of Li were pulled from a translation of CN108234154A.
As per claim 7, Hackett, Muchherla, and Strenski teach the method according to claim 1.
Hackett, Muchherla, and Strenski fail to teach wherein the execution of the node health assessment by the set of computing nodes includes: executing bi-directional testing between distinct pairs of computing nodes of the set of computing nodes by executing one or more operational health tests of the node health assessment.
However, Li teaches wherein the execution of the node health assessment by the set of computing nodes includes: executing bi-directional testing between distinct pairs of computing nodes of the set of computing nodes by executing one or more operational health tests of the node health assessment ([0055] Terminal internal status monitoring achieves bidirectional health monitoring by having the HOST and NIC mutually obtain each other's vital information ).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined Hackett, Muchherla, and Strenski with the teachings of Li to provide an effective fault monitoring method (see Li [0033] Provide an effective network fault monitoring method).
As per claim 16, it is a computer-program product claim of claim 7, so it is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hackett, Muchherla, and Strenski, as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, in view of Lui et al. (US 10691570 B1 hereinafter Lui) and further in view of Loh et al. (US 20070013362 A1 hereinafter Loh).
As per claim 8, Hackett, Muchherla, and Strenski teach the method according to claim 1.
Hackett, Muchherla, and Strenski fail to teach wherein: selecting, by the computing task scheduler, the set of computing nodes of the plurality of idle nodes includes bypassing one or more computing nodes of the plurality of idle nodes that do not satisfy idleness criteria, and the idleness criteria requiring a given idle computing node to be (1) in an idle operational state and (2) without computing tasks scheduled for an impending period.
However, Lui teaches wherein: selecting, by the computing task scheduler, the set of computing nodes of the plurality of idle nodes includes bypassing one or more computing nodes of the plurality of idle nodes that do not satisfy idleness criteria, and the idleness criteria requiring a given idle computing node to be (1) in an idle operational state (Col. 5 line 63-Col. 6 line 1 Further, the software assistant may be configured to progressively perform a BIST (e.g., loopback tests) on individual ports of switches of the hardware component when the individual ports are idle (and skipping non-idle, active ports); Col. 9 lines 62-64 The device may perform a loopback test on the first port when the first port is detected as idle during the first startup of the vehicle.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined Hackett, Muchherla, and Strenski with the teachings of Lui to remediate issues (see Lui Col. 8 lines 14-18 If data traffic on the port violates the ACL and/or ARL, the IVN self-test 308 may perform various mitigation (remediation) actions, such as remediating against those issues, alarms, reports, displays (e.g., on a GUI), etc.).
Hackett, Muchherla, Strenski, and Lui fail to teach a given idle computing node to be (1) in an idle operational state and (2) without computing tasks scheduled for an impending period.
However, Loh teaches a given idle computing node to be (1) in an idle operational state and (2) without computing tasks scheduled for an impending period ([0006] The automatic debug module may automatically generate tests for execution by the testhead that are executed when the testhead is idle, for example when no higher priority manual tests are scheduled; [0050] Preferably, a priority scheme is implemented to ensure that manually submitted tests are executed with higher priority than automatically generated tests. For example, a test submitted with a manual identity "M" will have higher execution priority over tests submitted with an automated test identity "A"; [0053] At time labeled T2, a manual test r102 is submitted to the Testhead Execution Supervisor 120. The Testhead Execution Supervisor 120 interrupts sending of the automated tests to the execution queue 180 to send the higher priority manual test r102 to the queue, identified as a manual test by the identifier "M".).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined Hackett, Muchherla, Strenski, and Lui with the teachings of Loh to optimize resource utilization (see Loh [0063] idle test head time is consumed with meaningful work which assists and reduces the workload of the test engineer. More tests are therefore conducted within the same timeframe, and test head resources are fully utilized during the debugging phase.)
As per claim 17, it is a computer-program product claim of claim 8, so it is rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hackett, Muchherla, and Strenski, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Loh.
As per claim 9, Hackett, Muchherla, and Strenski teach the method according to claim 1.
Hackett, Muchherla, and Strenski fail to teach further comprising: configuring the computing task scheduler with one or more node health assessment criteria including non-interference automated node testing instructions, wherein the non-interference automated node testing instructions, when executed by the computing task scheduler, prioritizes for the node health assessment computing nodes of the plurality of idle nodes without a scheduled computing task while bypassing computing nodes of the plurality of idle nodes with scheduled computing tasks.
However, Loh teaches further comprising: configuring the computing task scheduler with one or more node health assessment criteria including non-interference automated node testing instructions, wherein the non-interference automated node testing instructions, when executed by the computing task scheduler, prioritizes for the node health assessment computing nodes of the plurality of idle nodes without a scheduled computing task while bypassing computing nodes of the plurality of idle nodes with scheduled computing tasks (Abstract The automatic debug module may automatically generate tests for execution by the testhead that are executed when the testhead is idle, for example when no higher priority manual tests are scheduled; [0048] When the test head 10 becomes idle due to completion of a test, if there are pending tests waiting for dispatch to the test head 10 present in the dispatch queue 180, removes the next highest priority pending test from the queue 180 and allocates the test head 10 resource to execution of the next test.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined Hackett, Muchherla, and Strenski with the teachings of Loh to optimize resource utilization (see Loh [0063] idle test head time is consumed with meaningful work which assists and reduces the workload of the test engineer. More tests are therefore conducted within the same timeframe, and test head resources are fully utilized during the debugging phase.).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hackett, Muchherla, and Strenski, as applied to claim 18 above, in view of Nice, in view of Jeong, and further in view of Hasija.
As per claim 20, Hackett, Muchherla, and Strenski teach the computer-program product according to claim 18.
Hackett, Muchherla, and Strenski fail to teach wherein the one or more computing nodes of the set of computing nodes having the healthy state are restricted from executing another instance of the node health assessment for a predetermined period; and reallocating the set of computing nodes includes reassigning the one or more computing nodes having the unhealthy state from the node health assessment queue to a remediation queue, wherein the reassignment of the one or more computing nodes having the healthy state to the remediation queue renders the one or more computing nodes unavailable for executing the one or more computing tasks assigned by the task scheduler to the cluster of computing nodes.
However, Nice teaches wherein the one or more computing nodes of the set of computing nodes having the healthy state are restricted from executing another instance of the node health assessment for a predetermined period ([0024] In some cases, the mobile device 105 can be configured to restrict or limit utilization of the integrity checking feature if the device has not been checked and verified as being healthy within some given time interval; [0033] The monitoring 710 may comprise the integrity checking as described in the text accompanying FIG. 5 that is performed to verify the integrity of the PC 110. In addition, the PC 110 may be continuously or periodically monitored after it is verified as trustworthy).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined Hackett, Muchherla, and Strenski with the teachings of Nice to assess if a node has been compromised (see Nice [0023] in some applications, the integrity of the trusted core itself may be periodically checked to ensure that is has not been compromised).
Hackett, Muchherla, Strenski, and Nice fail to teach reallocating the set of computing nodes includes reassigning the one or more computing nodes having the unhealthy state from the node health assessment queue to a remediation queue, wherein the reassignment of the one or more computing nodes having the healthy state to the remediation queue renders the one or more computing nodes unavailable for executing the one or more computing tasks assigned by the task scheduler to the cluster of computing nodes.
However, Jeong teaches reallocating the set of computing nodes includes reassigning the one or more computing nodes having the unhealthy state from the node health assessment queue to a remediation queue ([0065] If decoding of the third data (DT3) fails, the memory controller (210) can move the third information (INF_CR1) stored in the cache queue (212) to the response queue (213); [0025] Additionally, if the status information includes information indicating a failure of command processing, the memory controller (210) may move the corresponding description information stored in the command queue (211) to the response queue (213)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined Hackett, Muchherla, Strenski, and Nice with the teachings of Jeong to improve reliability (see Jeong [0054] the reliability of the memory system (100) can be improved).
Hackett, Muchherla, Strenski, Nice, and Jeong fail to teach wherein the reassignment of the one or more computing nodes having the healthy state to the remediation queue renders the one or more computing nodes unavailable for executing the one or more computing tasks assigned by the computing task scheduler to the cluster of computing nodes.
However, Hasija teaches wherein the reassignment of the one or more computing nodes having the healthy state to the remediation queue renders the one or more computing nodes unavailable for executing the one or more computing tasks assigned by the computing task scheduler to the cluster of computing nodes ([0292] At block 2608, in one or more of the various embodiments, the identified broken flow model partitions may be isolated and assigned to an error task queue. Accordingly, in some embodiments, flow tasks associated with the broken flow model partitions may be suspended and assigned to one or more error task queues).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined Hackett, Muchherla, Strenski, Nice, and Jeong with the teachings of Hasija to improve reliability (see Hasija [0249] Accordingly, in one or more of the various embodiments, reliability may be improved).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HSING CHUN LIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8522. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9AM-5PM.
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, Aimee Li can be reached at (571) 272-4169. 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.
/H.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2195
/Aimee Li/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2195
Prosecution Insights