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 .
DETAIL ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
As to claims 17-20, applicant’s specification disclosed various memories, optical/magnetic storage as computer storage devices/media and subsequently disclosed “computer-storage memory” as synonymous to “memory devices” that explicitly exclude carrier waves or propagating signaling [paragraphs 60-61 and 66] such that the examiner is interpreting the limitation “computer storage devices” as excluding non-statutory forms.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 9 and 17 are objected to because the claim failed to provide proper indentations to segregate substeps (i.e. identify(ing), return(ing)…) that occur under the step “upon determining”. See MPEP 608.01(i).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. More specifically, as to claim 2, “wherein the denial comprises an indication of the node that has obtained the first lease” failed to further limit the similarly recited limitation of “return a denial, wherein the denial comprises a node ID of the node that has obtained the first lease” in claim 1 since a node ID is nonetheless an indication of the node. Claim 10 is rejected for the same reason as claim 2 above. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 (i.e. limitations of claims 1-2) of US Patent 12,073,260 (hereafter ‘260) the differences being a slight difference in wordings (i.e. a request for a second lease can nonetheless be a different instance of the request for the first lease for task coordination in which the first lease is not available; indication of current lease holder being the identification of a node that holds the current lease being requested by the requesting node) and that claim 2 of Patent ’260 does not explicitly teach the monitoring of a broadcasting of a request. However, Hupfeld disclosed the acceptors received and processed hence monitored the proposals from proposers; proposers initiate the consensus process by sending proposals to acceptors (i.e. broadcast of request for a lease), acceptors arbitrate concurrent proposals and decide on one of the proposals [p. 176, section 3: Paxos, lines 14-23]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify Patent ‘206 with Hupfeld because they are both in the same field of endeavor in coordinating leases by distributed processes [Hupfeld, abstract].
Claim 6 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of Patent ‘260 the differences being the claim limitations are in different claim hierarchy. However, implementation of claimed invention in different claim hierarchy are well known in the art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have implement the claimed limitations in a different claim hierarchy without fundamentally changing the scope of the claim as a matter of design choice.
Claims 9-12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 (i.e. limitations of claims 8-9) of Patent ‘260 the differences being a slight difference in wordings (i.e. a request for a second lease can nonetheless be a different instance of the request for the first lease for task coordination in which the first lease is not available; indication of current lease holder being the identification of a node that holds the current lease being requested by the requesting node) and that claim 9 of Patent ’260 does not explicitly teach the monitoring of a broadcasting of a request. However, Hupfeld disclosed the acceptors received and processed hence monitored the proposals from proposers; proposers initiate the consensus process by sending proposals to acceptors (i.e. broadcast of request for a lease), acceptors arbitrate concurrent proposals and decide on one of the proposals [p. 176, section 3: Paxos, lines 14-23]. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modify Patent ‘206 with Hupfeld because they are both in the same field of endeavor in coordinating leases by distributed processes [Hupfeld, abstract].
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of Patent ‘260 the differences being the claim limitations are in different claim hierarchy. However, implementation of claimed invention in different claim hierarchy are well known in the art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have implement the claimed limitations in a different claim hierarchy without fundamentally changing the scope of the claim as a matter of design choice.
As to claims 17-19, these claims are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 of Patent ‘260 for the same reason as claims 1-4 above. In addition, the difference being that claim limitations are in different statutory category and/or claim hierarchy. However, implementation of claimed invention in different statutory category and claim hierarchy are well known in the art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have implement the claimed limitations in a different statutory category and/or claim hierarchy without fundamentally changing the scope of the claim as a matter of design choice.
US Patent 12,073,260
Instant Application
1. A system for multi-phase distributed task coordination, the system comprising:
a processor; and
a computer-readable medium storing instructions that are operative upon execution by the processor to:
receive a request for a first lease from a requesting node;
determine whether the first lease is available for grant;
upon determining the first lease is available, grant the first lease to the requesting node, wherein the first lease is granted for a lease timeout period;
upon granting the first lease, decrement a number of available lease;
monitor for a lease release message associated with the first lease;
responsive to receiving the lease release message or the lease timeout period ending, revoke the first lease;
receive a request for a second lease from the requesting node;
determine whether the second lease is available for grant; and
upon determining the second lease is not available, return a denial, wherein the denial comprises an indication of a current lease holder.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein determining whether the first lease is available for grant comprises checking grant data to determine whether the first lease is granted to a different node and has not yet been revoked.
(Currently Amended) A system for multi-phase distributed task coordination, the system comprising:
a processor; and
a computer-readable medium storing instructions that are operative upon execution by the processor to:
monitor for a broadcasting request for a first lease, the first lease associated with a task;
receive the broadcasting request for the first lease from a requesting node;
determine whether the first lease is available for grant based on checking grant data;
upon determining that the first lease is available for grant, grant the first lease to the requesting node;
upon determining that the first lease is not available for grant:
identify a node that has obtained the first lease; and
return a denial, wherein the denial comprises a node ID of the node that has obtained the first lease.
2. (Original) The system of claim 1, wherein the denial comprises an indication of the node that has obtained the first lease.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein determining whether the first lease is available for grant comprises checking grant data to determine whether the first lease is granted to a different node and has not yet been revoked.
3. (Original) The system of claim 1, wherein determining whether the first lease is available for grant comprises determining the first lease has been granted to a different node and determining whether the first lease has not been revoked.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein determining whether the first lease is available for grant comprises checking grant data to determine whether the first lease is granted to a different node and has not yet been revoked.
4. (Original) The system of claim 1, wherein the grant data comprises data necessary to determine whether to grant, deny, or revoke the first lease.
1. A system for multi-phase distributed task coordination, the system comprising:
a processor; and
a computer-readable medium storing instructions that are operative upon execution by the processor to:
receive a request for a first lease from a requesting node;
determine whether the first lease is available for grant;
upon determining the first lease is available, grant the first lease to the requesting node, wherein the first lease is granted for a lease timeout period;
upon granting the first lease, decrement a number of available lease;
monitor for a lease release message associated with the first lease;
responsive to receiving the lease release message or the lease timeout period ending, revoke the first lease;
receive a request for a second lease from the requesting node;
determine whether the second lease is available for grant; and
upon determining the second lease is not available, return a denial, wherein the denial comprises an indication of a current lease holder.
6. (Currently Amended) The system of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further operative to: based on granting the first lease to the requesting node, decrement a number of available first lease.
8. A method of multi-phase distributed task coordination, the method comprising:
receiving a request for a first lease from a requesting node;
determining whether the first lease is available for grant;
upon determining the first lease is available for grant, granting the first lease to the requesting node, wherein the first lease is granted for a lease timeout period;
upon granting the first least, decrementing a number of available leases;
monitoring for a lease release message associated with the first lease;
responsive to the lease timeout period ending or receiving the lease release message, revoking the first lease;
receiving a request for a second lease from the requesting node;
determining whether the second lease is available for grant; and
upon determining the second lease is not available, returning a denial, wherein the denial comprises an indication of a current lease holder.
9. The method of claim 8, wherein determining whether the first lease is available for grant comprises checking grant data to determine whether the first lease is granted to a different node and has not yet been revoked.
9. (Currently Amended) A method of multi-phase distributed task coordination, the method comprising:
monitoring for a broadcasting request for a first lease, the first lease associated with a task;
receiving the broadcasting request for the first lease from a requesting node;
determining whether the first lease is available for grant based on checking grant data;
upon determining that the first lease is available for grant, granting the first lease to the requesting node;
upon determining that the first lease is not available for grant:
identifying a node that has obtained the first lease; and
returning a denial, wherein the denial comprises a node ID of the node that has obtained the first lease.
10. (Original) The method of claim 9, wherein the denial comprises an indication of the node that has obtained the first lease.
9. The method of claim 8, wherein determining whether the first lease is available for grant comprises checking grant data to determine whether the first lease is granted to a different node and has not yet been revoked.
11. (Original) The method of claim 9, wherein determining whether the first lease is available for grant comprises determining the first lease has been granted to a different node and determining whether the first lease has not been revoked.
9. The method of claim 8, wherein determining whether the first lease is available for grant comprises checking grant data to determine whether the first lease is granted to a different node and has not yet been revoked.
12. (Original) The method of claim 9, wherein the grant data comprises data necessary to determine whether to grant, deny, or revoke the first lease.
8. A method of multi-phase distributed task coordination, the method comprising:
receiving a request for a first lease from a requesting node;
determining whether the first lease is available for grant;
upon determining the first lease is available for grant, granting the first lease to the requesting node, wherein the first lease is granted for a lease timeout period;
upon granting the first least, decrementing a number of available leases;
monitoring for a lease release message associated with the first lease;
responsive to the lease timeout period ending or receiving the lease release message, revoking the first lease;
receiving a request for a second lease from the requesting node;
determining whether the second lease is available for grant; and
upon determining the second lease is not available, returning a denial, wherein the denial comprises an indication of a current lease holder.
14. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 9, further comprising:
based on granting the first lease to the requesting node, decrementing a number of available first lease.
1. A system for multi-phase distributed task coordination, the system comprising:
a processor; and
a computer-readable medium storing instructions that are operative upon execution by the processor to:
receive a request for a first lease from a requesting node;
determine whether the first lease is available for grant;
upon determining the first lease is available, grant the first lease to the requesting node, wherein the first lease is granted for a lease timeout period;
upon granting the first lease, decrement a number of available lease;
monitor for a lease release message associated with the first lease;
responsive to receiving the lease release message or the lease timeout period ending, revoke the first lease;
receive a request for a second lease from the requesting node;
determine whether the second lease is available for grant; and
upon determining the second lease is not available, return a denial, wherein the denial comprises an indication of a current lease holder.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein determining whether the first lease is available for grant comprises checking grant data to determine whether the first lease is granted to a different node and has not yet been revoked.
17. (Currently Amended) A computer storage device having computer-executable instructions stored thereon for multi-phase distributed task coordination, which, on execution by a computer, cause the computer to perform operations comprising:
monitoring for a broadcasting request for a first lease, the first lease associated with a task;
receiving the broadcasting request for the first lease from a requesting node;
determining whether the first lease is available for grant based on checking grant data;
upon determining that the first lease is available for grant, granting the first lease to the requesting node;
upon determining that the first lease is not available for grant:
identifying a node that has obtained the first lease; and
returning a denial, wherein the denial comprises a node ID of the node that has obtained the first lease.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein determining whether the first lease is available for grant comprises checking grant data to determine whether the first lease is granted to a different node and has not yet been revoked.
(Original) The computer storage device of claim 17, wherein determining whether the first lease is available for grant comprises determining the first lease has been granted to a different node and determining whether the first lease has not been revoked.
1. A system for multi-phase distributed task coordination, the system comprising:
a processor; and
a computer-readable medium storing instructions that are operative upon execution by the processor to:
receive a request for a first lease from a requesting node;
determine whether the first lease is available for grant;
upon determining the first lease is available, grant the first lease to the requesting node, wherein the first lease is granted for a lease timeout period;
upon granting the first lease, decrement a number of available lease;
monitor for a lease release message associated with the first lease;
responsive to receiving the lease release message or the lease timeout period ending, revoke the first lease;
receive a request for a second lease from the requesting node;
determine whether the second lease is available for grant; and
upon determining the second lease is not available, return a denial, wherein the denial comprises an indication of a current lease holder.
19. (Currently Amended) The computer storage device of claim 17, wherein the operations further comprising:
based on granting the first lease to the requesting node, decrementing a number of available first lease.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-4, 6, 9-12, 14 and 17-19 are allowable by overcoming nonstatutory double patenting rejection and/or the 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph rejection above.
Claims 5, 7-8, 13, 15 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art(s) of record when taken individually or in combination do not expressly teach or render obvious, in the context of the claims taken as a whole, the claim limitation of "return a denial, wherein the denial comprises a node ID of the node that has obtained the first lease" as recited in independent claim 1 and substantially in independent claims 9 and 17. Neither a reference uncovered that would have provided a basis of evidence for asserting a motivation, nor one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention knowing the teaching of the prior arts of record would have combined them to arrive at the present invention as recited in the context of independent claims 1, 9 and 17 as a whole.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/21/26 have been fully considered.
In the remarks, Applicant argued in substance that:
Claims 9, 15 and 17 have been amended herein to correct the minor informalities.
Applicant respectfully requests that the rejection under 35 USC 101 be withdrawn based on the amendment and remark.
Hupfeld does not disclose, expressly or inherently “wherein the denial comprises a node ID of the node that has obtained the first lease”.
Examiner respectfully traversed Applicant's remarks:
As to point (a), objections to claims 9, 15 and 17 with respect to the informalities pointed out in the office action dated 4/24/26 have been withdrawn.
As to point (b), rejection under 35 USC 101 have been withdrawn.
As to point (c), applicant’s argument is persuasive, rejection under 35 USC 102 have been withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendment.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QING YUAN WU whose telephone number is (571)272-3776. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-6PM EST.
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached on 571-272-3759. 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.
/QING YUAN WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights