DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the application 18/807,665 filed on August 16, 2024 in which claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are in independent form.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 202311055224, filed on August 17, 2023.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because FIG. 2 element 255 is labeled “LVID Files” which is inconsistent with the specification reciting “LVDI files 255” (Para. 41). 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.
The drawings are further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: FIG. 6 elements 632, 634, and 636, FIG. 2 network locations element 265. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0003] recites “without comprising data quality” which is not understood.
Paragraph [0021] recites “(e.g., a graphical user interface (GUI) with which an end use may interact.” which it appears “(e.g., a graphical user interface (GUI)) which an end user may interact with.” was intended.
Paragraph [0022] recites “makes an in initial call” which it appears “makes an initial call” was intended.
Paragraph [0029] recites “include a connector The cluster” which it appears “include a connector. The cluster” was intended.
Paragraph [0041] recites “LVID port 225” which it appears “LVDI port 225” was intended.
Paragraph [0051] recites “for the logical group of an agent” which it appears “for the logical group of agents” was intended.
Paragraph [0074] recites “with a executed work orders” which it appears “with executed work orders” was intended.
Paragraph [0079] recites “the UUID then following sequence of action happens:” which it appears “the UUID, then the following sequence of actions happens:” was intended.
Paragraph [0079] recites “for the entitled the agent for the movement” which it appears “for the entitlement agent for the movement” was intended.
Paragraph [0079] recites “the request is complete for single then” which is not understood.
Paragraph [0089] appears to be a duplicate paragraph of Paragraph [0085].
Paragraph [0095] recites “the application wants to constraint the resources” which it appears “the application wants to constrain the resources” was intended.
Paragraph [0101] recites “The capability maybe tracked” which it appears “The capability may be tracked” was intended.
Paragraph [0107] recites “to identify an entitlement agent for the preflight request to identify an entitlement agent for the preflight request” which is not understood.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-7 are directed to a method (series of steps) and therefore is a process, which is one of the statutory categories of inventions. Claims 8-14 are directed to a system and therefore is a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of inventions. Claims 15-20 are directed to a computer processing system and therefore is a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of inventions.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the limitation “determin[ing] a leader for the work order based on a priority of which leaders are available, a type of port, a type of role associated with the agent, and the unique identifier, wherein the leader is appointed to a logical group of agents and the leader controls an order of the order table.” As drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this function recites the abstract idea of a mental process. For example, a plant manager can evaluate and judge which supervisor handles a work order, based on a priority sorted by tenure, along with a port type for the work order, a role type associated with a client who submitted the work order, an identifier distinct from other work orders, and appoint the supervisor to a group of clients where the supervisor observes and judges the order of work orders. This limitation encompasses a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claims recite additional elements “a processor of one or more computers” (claim 1), “a system” (claim 8), “one or more storage devices storing instructions” (claim 8), “a computer processing system” (claim 15), “a memory configured to store instructions” (claim 15), “a hardware processor operatively coupled to the memory” (claim 15), which are generic computer or generic computer components recited at a high level of generality, such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element “receiv[ing] a work order for a data transfer at a control plane from an agent” is a limitation which amounts to data gathering and is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“generat[ing] by the control plane, an order table including the work order, a tenancy associated with the agent, and a unique identifier associated with the agent” is a limitation which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception and is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“generat[ing] a preflight request to identify an entitlement agent based on a capability of the entitlement agent, the capability comprising a number of available threads” is a limitation which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception and is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“based on an approval of the preflight request, generat[ing] an execution request for a queue table for execution of the data transfer” is a limitation which amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception and is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The limitations “a processor of one or more computers” (claim 1), “a system” (claim 8), “one or more storage devices storing instructions” (claim 8), “a computer processing system” (claim 15), “a memory configured to store instructions” (claim 15), “a hardware processor operatively coupled to the memory” (claim 15) are merely generic computer or generic computer components to apply the judicial exception, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
The limitation “receiv[ing] a work order for a data transfer at a control plane from an agent”, receiving data over a network is a computer function the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)).
The limitation “generat[ing] by the control plane, an order table including the work order, a tenancy associated with the agent, and a unique identifier associated with the agent” amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception and is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The limitation “generat[ing] a preflight request to identify an entitlement agent based on a capability of the entitlement agent, the capability comprising a number of available threads” amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception and is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The limitation “based on an approval of the preflight request, generat[ing] an execution request for a queue table for execution of the data transfer” amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception and is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (MPEP 2106.05(d)).
Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent Claims:
As per claim 2, the limitation “wherein the unique identifier is generated for the agent based on an internet protocol (IP) address of the agent” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the additional element does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per claim 3, the limitation “wherein the capability of the entitlement agent is based on an adjacency identified in a graph-based mapping of services” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the additional element does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per claim 4, the limitation “wherein the capability of the entitlement agent is based on matching the capability of the entitlement agent with a data upload capability of the agent” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). This limitation also covers a mental process, as matching is a function that can be performed within the human mind. Therefore, the additional element does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per claim 5, the limitation “wherein the data upload capability of the agent comprising one or more of a multi-part size of a datafile of the data transfer and a concurrency” amounts to no more than generally linking the use of the exception to a particular technological environment (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the additional element does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per claim 6, the limitation “further comprising updating an execution table with a logical identifier indicating a state of the data transfer” amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception and is considered insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Therefore, the additional element does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per claim 7, the limitation “further comprising, upon the state reflecting that the execution request did not occur, allocating a new leader to complete the data transfer” is a mental process that can be performed by a human mind through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per claim 9, it recites a similar limitation as claim 2 and, therefore, is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 10, it recites a similar limitation as claim 3 and, therefore, is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 11, it recites a similar limitation as claim 4 and, therefore, is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 12, it recites a similar limitation as claim 5 and, therefore, is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 13, it recites a similar limitation as claim 6 and, therefore, is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 14, it recites a similar limitation as claim 7 and, therefore, is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 16, it recites a similar limitation as claim 2 and, therefore, is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 17, it recites a similar limitation as claim 3 and, therefore, is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 18, it recites a similar limitation as claim 4 and, therefore, is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 19, it recites a similar limitation as claim 5 and, therefore, is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 20, it recites a similar limitation as claim 6 and, therefore, is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorensen et al. US 2015/0095095 (hereinafter Sorensen) in view of Lloyd US 2019/0188034 in further view of Shafiee et al. US 2012/0159494 (hereinafter Shafiee).
As per claim 1, Sorensen teaches a method executed by a processor of one or more computers, the method comprising: receiving a work order for a data transfer at a control plane from an agent (Para. 19 “Movie studios, other content owners, or agents for them, can all interact with the booking server 111 to enter work orders which specify the replication of content onto one or more storage devices (e.g., hard disk drives) for distribution to one or more movie theaters.” Examiner notes that a booking server may correspond to the claimed control plane.);
generating, by the control plane; an order table including the work order (Para. 19 “A work order database 112 stores such work orders entered through the booking system server 111.” Examiner notes that a work order database may correspond to the claimed order table.), a tenancy associated with the agent, and a unique identifier associated with the agent (Para. 19 “Using the booking server 111, the content owner or its representative can to log into a corresponding account and issue work orders for replication of specific pieces of content associated with that account (i.e., content which the account holder has the authorization to control replication).” Examiner notes that a corresponding account teaches and corresponds to the claimed tenancy and unique identifier association under their BRI. Para. 28 “The distribution system 130 comprises a logistics server 131 that can access the physical media information database 122, and a set of barcode scanners 132 and 133 as well as other devices (not shown) to read identifying indicia carried by the hard disk drives. The logistics server 131 also has access to one or more shipping label printers, such as label printer 134, for printing a shipping label 135 to identify the shipping location for a hard disk drive.” Examiner notes that shipping location for a hard disk drive may correspond to claimed tenancy of an agent and identifying indicia carried by hard disk drives may correspond to claimed unique identifier of an agent.);
determining a leader for the work order based on a priority of which leaders are available (Para. 24 “The replication server 121 has the ability to derive and prioritize replication jobs from the work orders in database 112. Prioritization typically depends on many factors and can take account of due dates, delivery schedules, availability of content (e.g., the content existing in the content store 113), explicitly supplied work order priorities (e.g., a "rush" order), and/or work order priority policies (e.g., all things being equal, long-time customers take priority over new customers; large orders take priority over small orders).” Examiner notes that a replication job may correspond to the claimed leader. Para. 30 “As needed, an operator (not shown) can pull an arbitrary hard disk drive 143 from the inbound inventory 140 and insert that hard disk drive into the replication array 123 as "in bay" drive 144 during step 161. (An "in bay" drive connotes a hard disk drive that now resides in the replication array 123 for receiving content).” Examiner notes that an operator may correspond to the claimed leader.), a type of port (Para. 35 “If needed, the replication server 121 can maintain a configuration database 221 that records the association between an individual docking bay (e.g., docking bay 210), an individual indicator (e.g., 206), and as needed, the corresponding controller 203 for that indicator, the media controller 201, and power controller 204, and the appropriate port or other hierarchical designation for each device.”), and the unique identifier (Para. 19 “As mentioned, each work order identifies specific content for replication onto one or more hard disk drives for distribution to specific site(s), typically motion picture theaters.” Para. 37 “Each drive indicia such as indicia 413 encodes a unique identifier 423 in machine-readable form.”), wherein the leader is appointed to a logical group of agents and the leader controls an order of the order table (Para. 27 “The work order can provide additional information, such as the show date and the length of run. From the show date, the replication server 121 can determine possible shipping dates, using rules based on the available shippers, classes of shipping (e.g., courier, next-day-first, next-day, second-day, etc.), and the corresponding costs. The possible shipping dates and costs constitute factors taken into account when optimizing the priority of individual replication jobs.” Examiner notes that optimizing the priority of replication jobs corresponds to claimed order control of order table. Para. 72 “Another strategy calls for delaying the leaders of a group of hard disk drives slightly between individual file copies. For example, if a 100 GB job comprises 10 individual files, then as the leaders complete each file, their onset for copying the next file is delayed to allow the trailing group to at least partially catch up.” Examiner notes leaders of group of hard disk drives correspond to claimed leader appointment to logical group of agents.);
generating a preflight request to identify an entitlement agent (Para. 22 “The term "booking a movie" refers to the process of entering a work order to request replication of one or more pieces of content (e.g., digital cinema presentations) onto one or more hard disk drives for shipment to one or more movie theaters.”) based on a capability of the entitlement agent (Para. 26 “Some work orders, or portions of them, can be fulfilled by electronic distribution (e.g., broadband or satellite transmission), depending upon the capability of the recipient movie theater to respond to the instructions of the booking entity.”); and
based on an approval of the preflight request, generating an execution request (Para. 69 “The copy to the lead hard disk drive (the one currently furthest ahead in copy progress) will always request portions of the file not yet been cached”) for a queue table for execution of the data transfer.
Sorensen teaches the limitations as detailed above but does not teach clearly determining a type of role associated with the agent;
generating a preflight request to identify an entitlement agent based on a capability of the entitlement agent, the capability comprising a number of available threads.
Lloyd teaches generating a preflight request to identify an entitlement agent based on a capability of the entitlement agent, the capability comprising a number of available threads (Para. 17 “For example, if a thread is available, the scheduler may schedule the work order to the most recently available thread thereby increasing the likelihood that other idle threads expire to reduce the size of the thread pool.” Para. 30 “For example, the scheduler may identify each available thread 131 in the thread pool 150. If there is only one thread available, a work order may be scheduled to the available thread (block 214). For example, if a single thread (e.g., thread 131C) is available in thread pool 150, then the scheduler 190 may schedule the work order to thread 131C.” Para. 49 “In the illustrated example, thread_C requests to dispatch a work order to the thread pool (blocks 452 and 454). Then, the scheduler 190 receives the work order (e.g., work order_3) (block 455). After receiving the work order, the scheduler 190 checks the thread pool 150 for an available thread (block 456).” Examiner notes that the claimed function of identifying an entitlement agent based on a number of available threads encompasses the referenced identifying available threads for work orders.).
Sorensen and Lloyd are reasonably pertinent to the problem disclosed by the claimed invention, and both are concerned with work order resource management and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the capability of the entitlement agent as taught by Sorensen to include the capability comprising a number of available threads as taught by Lloyd in order to verify compute resources are available for transferring data.
The motivation would reduce latency in the data transfer process by scheduling work to available threads instead of creating new threads for each work order as taught by Lloyd (Para. 30).
However, Sorensen in view of Lloyd does not teach clearly determining a type of role associated with the agent.
Shafiee teaches determining a type of role associated with the agent (Para. 23 “When the user submits a work order, the DDC may schedule for execution a set of tasks that are associated with the work units included in the work flow.” Examiner notes that a user who submits work orders may correspond to the claimed agent. Para. 35 “Data and security system 230 may include one or more devices (e.g., a server device, a computing device, etc.) to provide for authentication and authorization of users having roles in DDC 150 and/or for taking actions that are associated with the authorized roles (e.g., create user accounts, remove user accounts, generate an initial password, etc.).”).
Sorensen, Lloyd, and Shafiee are reasonably pertinent to the problem disclosed by the claimed invention, and all are concerned with work order resource management and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the work order data transfer method as taught by Sorensen to include the agent role determination as taught by Shafiee in order to provide access control and avoid unauthorized transfers.
The motivation would prevent data transfers from being initiated by unauthenticated agents by verifying if an agent has sufficient permissions to initiate a transfer from their assigned roles.
As per claim 2, Sorensen, Lloyd, and Shafiee disclose the claimed invention as described above for claim 1.
Sorensen further teaches wherein the unique identifier is generated for the agent based on an internet protocol (IP) address of the agent (Para. 47 “In yet another alternative embodiment, each controller 510 could obtain an IP address dynamically, and respond to a broadcast query or poll from the replication server 121, or otherwise announce itself.” Examiner notes that an IP address of a controller may correspond to IP address of an agent. Para. 48 “the replication server 121 accesses the configuration file to recall an address corresponding to each of the controllers 510 that controls the indicators. (In event that separate indicator controllers exist, the replication server 121 would address such controllers during step 602.)”).
As per claim 4, Sorensen further teaches wherein the capability of the entitlement agent is based on matching the capability of the entitlement agent with a data upload capability of the agent (Para. 26 “Some work orders, or portions of them, can be fulfilled by electronic distribution (e.g., broadband or satellite transmission), depending upon the capability of the recipient movie theater to respond to the instructions of the booking entity.” Examiner notes capability of the recipient movie theater corresponds to claimed capability of the entitlement agent. Para. 27 “The work order can provide additional information, such as the show date and the length of run. From the show date, the replication server 121 can determine possible shipping dates, using rules based on the available shippers, classes of shipping (e.g., courier, next-day-first, next-day, second-day, etc.), and the corresponding costs.” Examiner notes that shippers and their corresponding costs corresponds to claimed data upload capability of an agent. Para. 5 “The King-Hit replicator then clips all the clone target hard disk drives to match the master hard disk drive and thereafter commences bulk replication.” Examiner notes the King-Hit replicator method referenced shows a prior art teaching of the claimed capability matching. Para. 61 “In practice, many hard disk drives possess Self-Monitoring, Analysis and Reporting Technology` (SMART) thus allowing the hard disk drive itself to determine when maintenance becomes necessary. Alternatively, records kept by the physical media information database 122 tracking hard disk drive failures or aging can also serve to indicate the necessity of hard disk drive maintenance.” Examiner notes that a hard drive which encompasses part of the claimed functions of an agent able to determine need for maintenance may correspond to claimed data upload capability of an agent.).
As per claim 5, Sorensen further teaches wherein the data upload capability of the agent comprising one or more of a multi-part size of a datafile of the data transfer (Para. 69 “The copy to the lead hard disk drive (the one currently furthest ahead in copy progress) will always request portions of the file not yet been cached, whereas other drives that are almost as far in copying gain a slight advantage insofar as their requests for the same portions will be satisfied with less delay, because the portion of the file needed for copying had already been requested by the leading hard disk drive, and will typically already reside in cache.” Examiner notes that portions of a file correspond to the claimed multi-part size of a datafile of a data transfer.) and a concurrency (Para. 40 “FIG. 5 shows the details of an exemplary embodiment of the rack-mounted set of docking bays 300 and its interconnection to the replication server 121.” Examiner notes that the BRI of a concurrency encompasses any data transfer connection which corresponds to the referenced interconnection between docking bays and replication server.).
As per claim 6, Sorensen further teaches further comprising updating an execution table with a logical identifier indicating a state of the data transfer (Para. 57 “Upon entry or acceptance of a work order from the booking system 110 of FIG. 1 into the work order database 112, a new replication job is created having the NEW state 810. The job becomes committed during the transition 821 and thereafter, the replication job obtains QUEUED status during state 820” Para. 57 “When these criteria are met, the transition 832 occurs and the replication job obtains IN PROGRESS status in the state 830 and one-by-one, the hard disk drives allocated to the replication job receive the appropriate content for copying” Para. 57 “Once the total number of drive(s) required for the replication job have undergone successful copying, the transition 843 occurs and the status of the replication job reaches the COMPLETE state 840.” Para. 62 “The replication server 121 needs to track the status of the hard disk drives in such states to enable management of the drives”).
As per claim 7, Sorensen further teaches further comprising, upon the state reflecting that the execution request did not occur, allocating a new leader to complete the data transfer (Para. 58 “If, however, while the replication job remains in progress during the state 830, a failure of the source content occurs resulting in transition 851 (e.g., the content checksums appear invalid), or a copy problem arises to produce transition 852, (e.g., the content database 113 becomes unavailable), or a manual abort has occurred initiating transition 853 (e.g., an operator cancels the work order), then the job transitions to the FAILED state 850. Once a job has entered the FAILED state 850, operator intervention (not shown) becomes necessary to return the replication job to the QUEUED state 820.” Para. 59 “In some embodiments, the combination of a first replication job in the IN PROGRESS state 830 and a sufficiently urgent second job entering the QUEUED state 820 could result in the second replication job commandeering the hard disk drive(s) allocated to the first replication job. Under such circumstances, the first replication job will surrender via the transition 823 before returning to the QUEUED state 820, thus freeing the resources that had been allocated to the first replication job to be used by the second, more urgent replication job.”).
As per claim 8, it contains similar limitations as claim 1 and, therefore, are rejected under the same rationale.
Furthermore, Lloyd teaches a system comprising a processor and one or more storage devices storing instructions (Para. 4 “In an example, a system includes a memory, at least one processor in communication with the memory, a counter, and a scheduler.” Para. 58 “These components may be provided as a series of computer instructions on any conventional computer readable medium or machine readable medium, including volatile or non-volatile memory, such as RAM, ROM, flash memory, magnetic or optical disks, optical memory, or other storage media.”).
As per claim 15, it contains similar limitations as claim 1 and 8 and, therefore, is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claims 9 and 16, they contain similar limitations as claim 2 and, therefore, are rejected under the same rationale.
As per claims 11 and 18, they contain similar limitations as claim 4 and, therefore, are rejected under the same rationale.
As per claims 12 and 19, they contain similar limitations as claim 5 and, therefore, are rejected under the same rationale.
As per claims 13 and 20, they contain similar limitations as claim 6 and, therefore, are rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 14, it contains similar limitations as claim 7 and, therefore, is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sorensen in view of Lloyd in further view of Shafiee in further view of Biswas et al. US 2023/0232195 (hereinafter Biswas).
As per claim 3, Sorensen in view of Lloyd in further view of Shafiee disclose the claimed invention as described above for claim 1.
However, they do not explicitly teach wherein the capability of the entitlement agent is based on an adjacency identified in a graph-based mapping of services.
Biswas teaches wherein the capability of the entitlement agent (Para. 5 “Each Pod is allocated a particular amount of resources (e.g., memory and processing capability) that enable the Pod to perform its respective service on a particular number of requests in a given time period (e.g., requests/second).” Examiner notes that a Pod corresponds to an entitlement agent.) is based on an adjacency identified in a graph-based mapping of services (Para. 62 “As mentioned, some embodiments use slightly different processes to compute the scaling factors based on the directed acyclic graph for the service chain. Specifically, for the following algorithm, the inputs are a DAG represented with an adjacency list (DG), a coefficient for each directed edge in the graph, and a starting point in the graph (S).”).
Sorensen, Lloyd, Shafiee, and Biswas are reasonably pertinent to the problem disclosed by the claimed invention, and all are concerned with processor resource allocation and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the teachings of Sorensen, Lloyd, and Shafiee to include the capability based on an adjacency identified in a graph-based mapping of services as taught by Biswas to the capability of the entitlement agent as taught by Sorensen in order to verify that an entitlement agent is able to receive a dataset based on nearby services.
The motivation would ensure the entitlement agent meets the required demand to perform the data transfer by checking adjacent services as taught by Biswas (Para. 8, 9).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 2024/0020656 to Snyder et al. (filed July 17, 2023) an agent with appropriate permissions to access data related to the status of any work order and/or assign or retract assignment of each order (Para. 65) which is pertinent to the claimed function of receiving a work order from an agent.
US 8,775,500 to Watanabe discloses computing devices acting as leaders and agents, where the leader transmits data to agents for acquisition and functions to send data acquisition completion signals, execution signals for instructing execution of tasks to agents (Col. 2, lines 20-36.) which is pertinent to the claimed function of determining leaders and generating execution requests.
US 2015/0319144 to Barton et al. discloses an elected leader application using a bully election algorithm or ring election algorithm (Para. 100) which is pertinent to the claimed function of determining a leader.
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraphs/sections and line numbers in the references applied and not relied upon to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
When responding to the Office action, applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the reference(s) cited or the objections made. A showing of how the amendments avoid such references or objections must also be present. See 37 C.F.R. 1.111(c).
When responding to this Office action, applicant is advised to provide the line and page numbers in the application and/or reference(s) cited to assist in locating the appropriate paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY DUC HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-0732. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET..
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, Pierre Vital can be reached at (571) 272-4215. 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.
/A.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2198
/PIERRE VITAL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Prosecution Insights