The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office action is in response to communications filed on 8/22/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
DETAILED ACTION
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sathyanarayana (US 2015/0331715 A1) in view of Kim (US 20150150016 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sathyanarayana discloses a computer-implemented method executed by data processing hardware that causes the data processing hardware to perform operations (¶[0016], computing system for executing recited functions) comprising:
receiving a request initiated by a user to execute a workload on a pool of computing resources in a computing environment (¶[0016], "datacenter manager 104 may direct a source compute node 102 to migrate a virtual machine"; ¶[0043], "the source compute node 102a determines whether sufficient platform resources are currently available to perform the virtual machine 306 migration within the requested service level requirements" (i.e., pool of resources));
determining an amount of downtime associated with the request (¶[0016], "datacenter manager 104 may direct a source compute node 102 to migrate a virtual machine to a destination compute node 102, specifying a particular required service level (e.g., maximum downtime, total migration time, or network bandwidth usage)"; ¶[0043], "the source compute node 102a determines whether sufficient platform resources are currently available to perform the virtual machine 306 migration within the requested service level requirements");
determining that the amount of time downtime satisfies a downtime threshold (¶[0016], "datacenter manager 104 may direct a source compute node 102 to migrate a virtual machine to a destination compute node 102, specifying a particular required service level (e.g., maximum downtime, total migration time, or network bandwidth usage)"; ¶[0029], "request also may specify a service level requirement for the migration such as a maximum downtime"); and
based on determining that the amount of time downtime satisfies the downtime threshold, accepting the workload (¶[0043], "If sufficient platform resources are currently available, the method 400 branches ahead to block 430, described below. If sufficient platform resources are not currently available, the method 400 advances to block 428").
Sathyanarayana does not disclose that accepting the workload is queuing the workload in a work queue; and ordering the work queue based on the user associated with the request.
Kim discloses that accepting a workload may be queuing the workload in a work queue (Fig. 5, 506, "receiving a new job request having a priority selected by a user"; Fig. 5, 520, "submit the new job request to the online job queue"); and
ordering the work queue based on the user associated with the request (Fig. 5, 506, "receiving a new job request having a priority selected by a user"; Fig. 5, 522, "schedule the jobs in the online queue based upon the respective priorities of each one of the jobs"; ¶[0074], "If the user does not want a reservation, the method 500 may return to step 506. The user may then input a new priority (e.g., lowering the priority to reduce costs) to try and obtain an expected completion time and expected cost that is acceptable. For example, the user may repeat steps 506, 508, 510 and 512 using different priorities by trial and error until an expected completion time and expected cost is acceptable"; ¶[0086], "In one embodiment, the user may change the priority of his or her respect job in the online job queue in the middle of processing. If the user changes a desired priority, the pricing may be adjusted accordingly and the new or updated priority may be taken into consideration when the method 500 returns to step 522 to repeat the scheduling for the remaining jobs left in the online job queue").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Sathyanarayana in view of Kim so that accepting the workload is queuing the workload in a work queue; and ordering the work queue based on the user associated with the request.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because, in situation where resources are backlogged, it would empower users to determine a desired service level in relation to how much they are willing to spend (Kim, ¶[0069]).
Regarding claim 11, Sathyanarayana discloses a system comprising: data processing hardware; and memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware, the memory hardware storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware cause the data processing hardware to perform operations (¶[0016], computing system for executing recited functions).
The remaining limitations of claim 11 are similar in scope to those of claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sathyanarayana (US 2015/0331715 A1) in view of Kim (US 20150150016 A1), as respectively applied to claims 1 and 11, above, and further in view of Shih et al. (US 9430280 B1, hereinafter Shih).
Regarding claim 2, the combined system of Sathyanarayana and Kim discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above.
The combined system of Sathyanarayana and Kim does not disclose that the workload comprises a list of tasks and a specification that indicates dependencies for one or more tasks in the list of tasks.
Shih discloses a workload may comprise a list of tasks and a specification that indicates dependencies for one or more tasks in the list of tasks (col. 5, lines 35-39, "clients may specify various task and subtask properties in different embodiments, such as for example the interruptibility characteristics of the task or of individual subtasks, whether any or all of the subtasks can be run in parallel"; col. 6, lines 15-20, "even if the client does not explicitly indicate that subtasks can be performed in parallel, the resource manager may be able to analyze the task specification provided by a client (or the client's resource usage history) and determine whether any subtasks can in fact be executed in parallel").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Chen in view of Shih so that the dependencies define a concurrent run process for two or more tasks of the list of tasks.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would allow a processing time to be decreased.
Regarding claim 3, the combined system of Sathyanarayana, Kim, and Shih discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 2, above, wherein the dependencies define a concurrent run process for two or more of the tasks in the list of tasks (Shih, col. 5, lines 35-39, "clients may specify various task and subtask properties in different embodiments, such as for example the interruptibility characteristics of the task or of individual subtasks, whether any or all of the subtasks can be run in parallel").
Regarding claim 4, the combined system of Sathyanarayana, Kim, and Shih discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 2, above, wherein the dependencies define a consecutive run process for two or more of the tasks in the list of tasks (Shih, col. 5, lines 35-39, "clients may specify various task and subtask properties in different embodiments, such as for example the interruptibility characteristics of the task or of individual subtasks, whether any or all of the subtasks can be run in parallel" (i.e., specifying that tasks cannot be run in parallel is simply specifying that the tasks should be performed one after the other (consecutive run process)).
Regarding claims 12-14, the combined system of Sathyanarayana and Kim discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 11, above.
The remaining limitations of claims 12-14 are similar in scope to those of claims 2-4. Therefore, claims 12-14 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claims 2-4, above.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sathyanarayana (US 2015/0331715 A1) in view of Kim (US 20150150016 A1) and further in view of Shih (US 9430280 B1), as respectively applied to claims 2 and 12, above, and further in view of Durkop et al. (WO 2016/165969 A1, hereinafter Durkop).
Regarding claim 5, the combined system of Sathyanarayana, Kim, and Shih discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 2, above.
The combined system of Sathyanarayana, Kim, and Shih does not disclose that the dependencies define a disablement priority for at least one task in the list of tasks.
Durkop discloses dependencies define a disablement priority for at least one task of the list of tasks (¶[0021], sorting subtasks based on a priority defined by a user; ¶[0037], priorities are used to determine if a subtask should be cancelled in order to process a higher priority subtask).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined system of Sathyanarayana, Kim, and Shih in view of Durkop so that the dependencies define a disablement priority for at least one task of the list of tasks.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would optimize processing by reducing resource usage waste (Durkop, ¶[0002]-[0003]).
Regarding claim 15, the combined system of Sathyanarayana, Kim, and Shih discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 12, above.
The remaining limitations of claim 15 are similar in scope to those of claim 5. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 5, above.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sathyanarayana (US 2015/0331715 A1) in view of Kim (US 20150150016 A1) and further in view of Shih (US 9430280 B1), as respectively applied to claims 2 and 12, above, and further in view of Ramaswamy et al. (US 20170060641 A1, hereinafter Ramaswamy).
Regarding claim 6, the combined system of Sathyanarayana, Kim, and Shih discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 2, above.
The combined system of Sathyanarayana, Kim, and Shih does not explicitly disclose determining that the list of tasks is in a first position of an order of the work queue; and based on determining that the list of tasks is in the first position of the order of the work queue, releasing the list of tasks from the work queue.
Ramaswamy discloses determining that the list of tasks is in a first position of an order of the work queue (¶[0052], "the tasks on each queue are already sorted by placing the next task to execute at the top of the queue. Once there is a need to execute the next task from an application queue […]" - that the next task is a list of tasks is the result of the combination with Shih which discloses a job might be a list of tasks (col. 5, lines 35-39)); and
based on determining that the list of tasks is in the first position of the order of the work queue, releasing the list of tasks from the work queue (¶[0052], "the tasks on each queue are already sorted by placing the next task to execute at the top of the queue. Once there is a need to execute the next task from an application queue the task from the top of the queue is released for execution").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined system of Sathyanarayana, Kim, and Shih in view of Ramaswamy for determining that the list of tasks is in a first position of an order of the work queue; and based on determining that the list of tasks is in the first position of the order of the work queue, releasing the list of tasks from the work queue.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would enable "scheduling workloads efficiently and fairly" (Ramaswamy, ¶[0022]).
Regarding claim 7, the combined system of Sathyanarayana, Kim, Shih, and Ramaswamy discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 6, above, wherein the operations further comprise, based on releasing the list of tasks from the work queue, transitioning the request from a submitted state to an admitted state, the admitted state indicating that the list of tasks are ready to execute on the pool of computing resources (Ramaswamy, ¶[0060], "the process sends the release( ) signal 740 (shown in FIG. 7) to the application manager to inform the application manager of availability of a thread to cause the application manager use inter application scheduling policies to determine an application queue to release the next task for execution. The process then receives (at 920) the identification of the task to be executed from the application manager").
Regarding claims 16-17, the combined system of Sathyanarayana, Kim, and Shih discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 12, above, wherein the operations further comprise: determining that the list of tasks is in a first position of an order of the work queue (); and based on determining that the list of tasks is in the first position of the order of the work queue, releasing the list of tasks from the work queue ().
The remaining limitations of claims 16-17 are similar in scope to those of claims 6-7. Therefore, claims 16-17 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claims 6-7, above.
Claim(s) 8-10 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sathyanarayana (US 2015/0331715 A1) in view of Kim (US 20150150016 A1), as respectively applied to claims 1 and 11, above, and further in view of Kinney, Jr. et al. (US 10877796 B1, hereinafter Kinney, Jr.).
Regarding claim 8, the combined system of Sathyanarayana and Kim discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above.
The combined system of Sathyanarayana and Kim does not disclose that the user is uniquely associated with a resource allocation budget representing a maximum amount of computing resources the user can consume from the computing environment.
Kinney, Jr. discloses that the user is uniquely associated with a resource allocation budget representing a maximum amount of computing resources the user can consume from the computing environment (col. 7, lines 15-23, "an operator of the provider network 190 may implement a flexible set of resource reservation, control, and access interfaces for their clients. For example, the resource manager 180 may implement a programmatic resource reservation interface (e.g., via a web site or a set of web pages) that allows clients and/or other components such as the system 190 to learn about, select, purchase access to, and/or reserve compute instances offered by the provider network 190"; col. 10, line 65 to col. 11, line 2, "jobs may be assigned to the other “overflow” compute environment only when the first compute environment lacks sufficient capacity to execute the jobs, e.g., due to a maximum number of instances or a maximum aggregate budget being met"; col. 13, lines 15-19, "If the managed compute environment 195A has a constraint for the maximum number of virtual CPUs or compute instances, then no more than that number of virtual CPUs or compute instances may be running in the environment at any given time. Similarly, if the managed compute environment 195A has a constraint for the maximum aggregate budget for computing resources (e.g., over a particular time period such as per hour, per day, or per month), then no more resources may be provisioned or further used (if the resource has a continuing cost) once the budget is reached").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined system of Sathyanarayana and Kim in view of Kinney, Jr. so that the user is uniquely associated with a resource allocation budget representing a maximum amount of computing resources the user can consume from the computing environment.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would enable a compute environment to be "provisioned according to user-defined constraints and then used efficiently" (Kinney Jr., col. 3, lines 31-38).
Regarding claim 9, the combined system of Sathyanarayana, Kim, and Kinney Jr. discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 8, above, wherein the operations further comprise determining an amount of time to execute the workload based on the amount of the computing resources available to the user (Sathyanarayana, ¶[0045], "predicted migration time may correspond to the maximum total migration time of the applicable service level requirements, or may be calculated by the source compute node 102a based on available platform resources").
Regarding claim 10, the combined system of Sathyanarayana, Kim, and Kinney Jr. discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 8, above, wherein the resource allocation budget comprises a maximum amount of central processing units (CPUs) (Kinney Jr., col. 13, lines 15-19, "If the managed compute environment 195A has a constraint for the maximum number of virtual CPUs or compute instances, then no more than that number of virtual CPUs or compute instances may be running in the environment at any given time. Similarly, if the managed compute environment 195A has a constraint for the maximum aggregate budget for computing resources (e.g., over a particular time period such as per hour, per day, or per month), then no more resources may be provisioned or further used (if the resource has a continuing cost) once the budget is reached").
Regarding claim 18, the combined system of Sathyanarayana and Kim discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 11, above.
The remaining limitations of claims 18-20 are similar in scope to those of claims 8-10. Therefore, claims 8-10 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claims 8-10, above.
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 conflicting claims 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims a and 4 of US Patent No. 10,541,939 in view of Kim (US 20150150016 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Claim 4 of US Patent No. 10,541,939 discloses a computer-implemented method executed by data processing hardware that causes the data processing hardware to perform operations (Note claim 4 invokes, by reference, all of the limitations of claim 1, and claim 1 recites "A computer-implemented method for managing a pool of resources, the method comprising") comprising:
receiving a request initiated by a user to execute a workload on a pool of computing resources in a computing environment (Claim 1, "receiving, at data processing hardware in communication with the pool of resources via a network, a job request […]");
determining an amount of downtime associated with the request (Claim 4, "determining the downtime of the resource allocation based on determining one or more units of time in the resource allocation being indicative of non-allocation");
determining that the amount of time downtime satisfies a downtime threshold (Claim 4, "for the downtime not exceeding the maximum downtime"); and
based on determining that the amount of time downtime satisfies the downtime threshold, queuing the workload in a work queue (Claim 4, "determining that the job request is capable of being executed; and for the downtime exceeding the maximum downtime, determining that the job request is not capable of being executed."); and
Claim 4 of US Patent No. 10,541,939 does not disclose ordering the work queue based on the user associated with the request.
Kim discloses ordering the work queue based on the user associated with the request (Fig. 5, 506, "receiving a new job request having a priority selected by a user"; Fig. 5, 522, "schedule the jobs in the online queue based upon the respective priorities of each one of the jobs"; ¶[0074], "If the user does not want a reservation, the method 500 may return to step 506. The user may then input a new priority (e.g., lowering the priority to reduce costs) to try and obtain an expected completion time and expected cost that is acceptable. For example, the user may repeat steps 506, 508, 510 and 512 using different priorities by trial and error until an expected completion time and expected cost is acceptable").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify US Patent No. 10,541,939 in view of Kim for ordering the work queue based on the user associated with the request.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because, in situation where resources are backlogged, it would empower users to determine a desired service level in relation to how much they are willing to spend (Kim, ¶[0069]).
Regarding claim 11, Claim, 4 of US Patent No. 10,541,939 discloses a system comprising: data processing hardware; and memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware, the memory hardware storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware cause the data processing hardware to perform operations (Claim 1, "A computer-implemented method for managing a pool of resources").
The remaining limitations of claim 11 are similar in scope to those of claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Claims 2-4 and 12-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 10,541,939 in view of Kim (US 20150150016 A1), as respectively applied to claims 1 and 11, above, and further in view of Shih et al. (US 9430280 B1, hereinafter Shih).
Regarding claim 2, the combined system of US Patent No. 10,541,939 and Kim discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above.
The combined system of US Patent No. 10,541,939 and Kim does not disclose that the workload comprises a list of tasks and a specification that indicates dependencies for one or more tasks in the list of tasks.
Shih discloses a workload may comprise a list of tasks and a specification that indicates dependencies for one or more tasks in the list of tasks (col. 5, lines 35-39, "clients may specify various task and subtask properties in different embodiments, such as for example the interruptibility characteristics of the task or of individual subtasks, whether any or all of the subtasks can be run in parallel"; col. 6, lines 15-20, "even if the client does not explicitly indicate that subtasks can be performed in parallel, the resource manager may be able to analyze the task specification provided by a client (or the client's resource usage history) and determine whether any subtasks can in fact be executed in parallel").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Chen in view of Shih so that the dependencies define a concurrent run process for two or more tasks of the list of tasks.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would allow a processing time to be decreased.
Regarding claim 3, the combined system of US Patent No. 10,541,939, Kim, and Shih discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 2, above, wherein the dependencies define a concurrent run process for two or more of the tasks in the list of tasks (Shih, col. 5, lines 35-39, "clients may specify various task and subtask properties in different embodiments, such as for example the interruptibility characteristics of the task or of individual subtasks, whether any or all of the subtasks can be run in parallel").
Regarding claim 4, the combined system of US Patent No. 10,541,939, Kim, and Shih discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 2, above, wherein the dependencies define a consecutive run process for two or more of the tasks in the list of tasks (Shih, col. 5, lines 35-39, "clients may specify various task and subtask properties in different embodiments, such as for example the interruptibility characteristics of the task or of individual subtasks, whether any or all of the subtasks can be run in parallel" (i.e., specifying that tasks cannot be run in parallel is simply specifying that the tasks should be performed one after the other (consecutive run process)).
Regarding claims 12-14, the combined system of US Patent No. 10,541,939 and Kim discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 11, above.
The remaining limitations of claims 12-14 are similar in scope to those of claims 2-4. Therefore, claims 12-14 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claims 2-4, above.
Claims 5 and 15 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 10,541,939 in view of Kim (US 20150150016 A1) and further in view of Shih (US 9430280 B1), as respectively applied to claims 2 and 12, above, and further in view of Durkop et al. (WO 2016/165969 A1, hereinafter Durkop).
Regarding claim 5, the combined system of US Patent No. 10,541,939, Kim, and Shih discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 2, above.
The combined system of US Patent No. 10,541,939, Kim, and Shih does not disclose that the dependencies define a disablement priority for at least one task in the list of tasks.
Durkop discloses dependencies define a disablement priority for at least one task of the list of tasks (¶[0021], sorting subtasks based on a priority defined by a user; ¶[0037], priorities are used to determine if a subtask should be cancelled in order to process a higher priority subtask).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined system of US Patent No. 10,541,939, Kim, and Shih in view of Durkop so that the dependencies define a disablement priority for at least one task of the list of tasks.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would optimize processing by reducing resource usage waste (Durkop, ¶[0002]-[0003]).
Regarding claim 15, the combined system of US Patent No. 10,541,939, Kim, and Shih discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 12, above.
The remaining limitations of claim 15 are similar in scope to those of claim 5. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 5, above.
Claims 6-7 and 16-17 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 10,541,939 in view of Kim (US 20150150016 A1) and further in view of Shih (US 9430280 B1), as respectively applied to claims 2 and 12, above, and further in view of Ramaswamy et al. (US 20170060641 A1, hereinafter Ramaswamy).
Regarding claim 6, the combined system of US Patent No. 10,541,939, Kim, and Shih discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 2, above.
The combined system of US Patent No. 10,541,939, Kim, and Shih does not explicitly disclose determining that the list of tasks is in a first position of an order of the work queue; and based on determining that the list of tasks is in the first position of the order of the work queue, releasing the list of tasks from the work queue.
Ramaswamy discloses determining that the list of tasks is in a first position of an order of the work queue (¶[0052], "the tasks on each queue are already sorted by placing the next task to execute at the top of the queue. Once there is a need to execute the next task from an application queue […]" - that the next task is a list of tasks is the result of the combination with Shih which discloses a job might be a list of tasks (col. 5, lines 35-39)); and
based on determining that the list of tasks is in the first position of the order of the work queue, releasing the list of tasks from the work queue (¶[0052], "the tasks on each queue are already sorted by placing the next task to execute at the top of the queue. Once there is a need to execute the next task from an application queue the task from the top of the queue is released for execution").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined system of US Patent No. 10,541,939, Kim, and Shih in view of Ramaswamy for determining that the list of tasks is in a first position of an order of the work queue; and based on determining that the list of tasks is in the first position of the order of the work queue, releasing the list of tasks from the work queue.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would enable "scheduling workloads efficiently and fairly" (Ramaswamy, ¶[0022]).
Regarding claim 7, the combined system of US Patent No. 10,541,939, Kim, Shih, and Ramaswamy discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 6, above, wherein the operations further comprise, based on releasing the list of tasks from the work queue, transitioning the request from a submitted state to an admitted state, the admitted state indicating that the list of tasks are ready to execute on the pool of computing resources (Ramaswamy, ¶[0060], "the process sends the release( ) signal 740 (shown in FIG. 7) to the application manager to inform the application manager of availability of a thread to cause the application manager use inter application scheduling policies to determine an application queue to release the next task for execution. The process then receives (at 920) the identification of the task to be executed from the application manager").
Regarding claims 16-17, the combined system of US Patent No. 10,541,939, Kim, and Shih discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 12, above.
The remaining limitations of claims 16-17 are similar in scope to those of claims 6-7. Therefore, claims 16-17 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claims 6-7, above.
Claims 8-10 and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4 of U.S. Patent No. 10,541,939 in view of Kim (US 20150150016 A1), as respectively applied to claims 1 and 11, above, and further in view of Kinney, Jr. et al. (US 10877796 B1, hereinafter Kinney, Jr.).
Regarding claim 8, the combined system of US Patent No. 10,541,939 and Kim discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above.
The combined system of US Patent No. 10,541,939 and Kim does not disclose that the user is uniquely associated with a resource allocation budget representing a maximum amount of computing resources the user can consume from the computing environment.
Kinney, Jr. discloses that the user is uniquely associated with a resource allocation budget representing a maximum amount of computing resources the user can consume from the computing environment (col. 7, lines 15-23, "an operator of the provider network 190 may implement a flexible set of resource reservation, control, and access interfaces for their clients. For example, the resource manager 180 may implement a programmatic resource reservation interface (e.g., via a web site or a set of web pages) that allows clients and/or other components such as the system 190 to learn about, select, purchase access to, and/or reserve compute instances offered by the provider network 190"; col. 10, line 65 to col. 11, line 2, "jobs may be assigned to the other “overflow” compute environment only when the first compute environment lacks sufficient capacity to execute the jobs, e.g., due to a maximum number of instances or a maximum aggregate budget being met"; col. 13, lines 15-19, "If the managed compute environment 195A has a constraint for the maximum number of virtual CPUs or compute instances, then no more than that number of virtual CPUs or compute instances may be running in the environment at any given time. Similarly, if the managed compute environment 195A has a constraint for the maximum aggregate budget for computing resources (e.g., over a particular time period such as per hour, per day, or per month), then no more resources may be provisioned or further used (if the resource has a continuing cost) once the budget is reached").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined system of US Patent No. 10,541,939 and Kim in view of Kinney, Jr. so that the user is uniquely associated with a resource allocation budget representing a maximum amount of computing resources the user can consume from the computing environment.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would enable a compute environment to be "provisioned according to user-defined constraints and then used efficiently" (Kinney Jr., col. 3, lines 31-38).
Regarding claim 9, the combined system of US Patent No. 10,541,939, Kim, and Kinney Jr. discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 8, above, wherein the operations further comprise determining an amount of time to execute the workload based on the amount of the computing resources available to the user (US Patent No. 10,541,939, claim 1, "determining available resources for the job request from the pool of resources based on the available units of resource time; and determining a period of time that is capable of being allocated for the job request based on a budget of resources allocated for the job request and the available units of resource time").
Regarding claim 10, the combined system of US Patent No. 10,541,939, Kim, and Kinney Jr. discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 8, above, wherein the resource allocation budget comprises a maximum amount of central processing units (CPUs) (Kinney Jr., col. 13, lines 15-19, "If the managed compute environment 195A has a constraint for the maximum number of virtual CPUs or compute instances, then no more than that number of virtual CPUs or compute instances may be running in the environment at any given time. Similarly, if the managed compute environment 195A has a constraint for the maximum aggregate budget for computing resources (e.g., over a particular time period such as per hour, per day, or per month), then no more resources may be provisioned or further used (if the resource has a continuing cost) once the budget is reached").
Regarding claims 18-20, the combined system of US Patent No. 10,541,939 and Kim discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 11, above.
The remaining limitations of claims 18-20 are similar in scope to those of claims 8-10. Therefore, claims 8-10 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claims 8-10, above.
Claims 1, 8, 11, and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,032,212 B2 in view of Kim (US 20150150016 A1).
Regarding claim 1, US Patent No. 11,032,212 B2 discloses a computer-implemented method executed by data processing hardware that causes the data processing hardware to perform operations (Note claim 17 invokes, by reference, all of the limitations of claim 11, and claim 11 recites "A system comprising: data processing hardware; and memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware, the memory hardware storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware cause the data processing hardware to perform operations") comprising:
receiving a request initiated by a user to execute a workload on a pool of computing resources in a computing environment (Claim 11, "receiving a request corresponding to a batch workload for execution on computing resources of a computing environment");
determining an amount of downtime associated with the request (Claim 17, "determining a downtime associated with the request");
determining that the amount of time downtime satisfies a downtime threshold (Claim 17, "determining that the downtime does not exceed a maximum downtime for the request; and"); and
based on determining that the amount of time downtime satisfies the downtime threshold, queuing the workload in a work queue (Claim 17, "when the downtime does exceed the maximum downtime for the request, determining that the request is not capable of being executed").
US Patent No. 11,032,212 B2 does not disclose ordering the work queue based on the user associated with the request.
Kim discloses ordering the work queue based on the user associated with the request (Fig. 5, 506, "receiving a new job request having a priority selected by a user"; Fig. 5, 522, "schedule the jobs in the online queue based upon the respective priorities of each one of the jobs"; ¶[0074], "If the user does not want a reservation, the method 500 may return to step 506. The user may then input a new priority (e.g., lowering the priority to reduce costs) to try and obtain an expected completion time and expected cost that is acceptable. For example, the user may repeat steps 506, 508, 510 and 512 using different priorities by trial and error until an expected completion time and expected cost is acceptable").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify US Patent No. 11,032,212 B2 in view of Kim for ordering the work queue based on the user associated with the request.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because, in situation where resources are backlogged, it would empower users to determine a desired service level in relation to how much they are willing to spend (Kim, ¶[0069]).
Regarding claim 8, the combined system of US Patent No. 11,032,212 B2 and Kim discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the user is uniquely associated with a resource allocation budget representing a maximum amount of computing resources the user can consume from the computing environment (US Patent No. 11,032,212 B2, Claim 11, "determining a resource allocation budget uniquely associated with a user that initiates the request, the resource allocation budget representing a maximum amount of computing resources the user can consume from the computing environment that is less than a total amount of computing resources of the computing environment").
Regarding claim 11, US Patent No. 11,032,212 B2 discloses a system comprising: data processing hardware; and memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware, the memory hardware storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware cause the data processing hardware to perform operations (Note claim 17 invokes, by reference, all of the limitations of claim 11, and claim 11 recites "A system comprising: data processing hardware; and memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware, the memory hardware storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware cause the data processing hardware to perform operations").
The remaining limitations of claim 11 are similar in scope to those of claim 11. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 18, the combined system of US Patent No. 11,032,212 B2 and Kim discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 11.
The remaining limitations of claim 18 are similar in scope to those of claim 8. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 8, above.
Claims 2-4 and 12-14 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,032,212 B2 in view of Kim (US 20150150016 A1), as respectively applied to claims 1 and 11, above, and further in view of Shih et al. (US 9430280 B1, hereinafter Shih).
Regarding claim 2, the combined system of US Patent No. 11,032,212 B2 and Kim discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above.
The combined system of US Patent No. 11,032,212 B2 and Kim does not disclose that the workload comprises a list of tasks and a specification that indicates dependencies for one or more tasks in the list of tasks.
Shih discloses a workload may comprise a list of tasks and a specification that indicates dependencies for one or more tasks in the list of tasks (col. 5, lines 35-39, "clients may specify various task and subtask properties in different embodiments, such as for example the interruptibility characteristics of the task or of individual subtasks, whether any or all of the subtasks can be run in parallel"; col. 6, lines 15-20, "even if the client does not explicitly indicate that subtasks can be performed in parallel, the resource manager may be able to analyze the task specification provided by a client (or the client's resource usage history) and determine whether any subtasks can in fact be executed in parallel").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Chen in view of Shih so that the dependencies define a concurrent run process for two or more tasks of the list of tasks.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would allow a processing time to be decreased.
Regarding claim 3, the combined system of US Patent No. 11,032,212 B2, Kim, and Shih discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 2, above, wherein the dependencies define a concurrent run process for two or more of the tasks in the list of tasks (Shih, col. 5, lines 35-39, "clients may specify various task and subtask properties in different embodiments, such as for example the interruptibility characteristics of the task or of individual subtasks, whether any or all of the subtasks can be run in parallel").
Regarding claim 4, the combined system of US Patent No. 11,032,212 B2, Kim, and Shih discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 2, above, wherein the dependencies define a consecutive run process for two or more of the tasks in the list of tasks (Shih, col. 5, lines 35-39, "clients may specify various task and subtask properties in different embodiments, such as for example the interruptibility characteristics of the task or of individual subtasks, whether any or all of the subtasks can be run in parallel" (i.e., specifying that tasks cannot be run in parallel is simply specifying that the tasks should be performed one after the other (consecutive run process)).
Regarding claims 12-14, the combined system of US Patent No. 11,032,212 B2 and Kim discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 11.
The remaining limitations of claims 12-14 are similar in scope to those of claims 2-4. Therefore, claims 12-14 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claims 2-4, above.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,032,212 B2 in view of Kim (US 20150150016 A1) and further in view of Shih (US 9430280 B1), as respectively applied to claims 2 and 12, above, and further in view of Durkop et al. (WO 2016/165969 A1, hereinafter Durkop).
Regarding claim 5, the combined system of US Patent No. 11,032,212 B2, Kim, and Shih discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 2, above.
The combined system of US Patent No. 11,032,212 B2, Kim, and Shih does not disclose that the dependencies define a disablement priority for at least one task in the list of tasks ().
Durkop discloses dependencies define a disablement priority for at least one task of the list of tasks (¶[0021], sorting subtasks based on a priority defined by a user; ¶[0037], priorities are used to determine if a subtask should be cancelled in order to process a higher priority subtask).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined system of US Patent No. 11,032,212 B2, Kim, and Shih in view of Durkop so that the dependencies define a disablement priority for at least one task of the list of tasks.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would optimize processing by reducing resource usage waste (Durkop, ¶[0002]-[0003]).
Regarding claim 15, the combined system of US Patent No. 11,032,212 B2, Kim, and Shih discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 12, above.
The remaining limitations of claim 15 are similar in scope to those of claim 5. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 5, above.
Claims 6-7 and 16-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,032,212 B2 in view of Kim (US 20150150016 A1) and further in view of Shih (US 9430280 B1), as respectively applied to claims 2 and 12, above, and further in view of Ramaswamy et al. (US 20170060641 A1, hereinafter Ramaswamy).
Regarding claim 6, the combined system of US Patent No. 11,032,212 B2, Kim, and Shih discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 2, above.
The combined system of US Patent No. 11,032,212 B2, Kim, and Shih does not explicitly disclose determining that the list of tasks is in a first position of an order of the work queue; and based on determining that the list of tasks is in the first position of the order of the work queue, releasing the list of tasks from the work queue.
Ramaswamy discloses determining that the list of tasks is in a first position of an order of the work queue (¶[0052], "the tasks on each queue are already sorted by placing the next task to execute at the top of the queue. Once there is a need to execute the next task from an application queue […]" - that the next task is a list of tasks is the result of the combination with Shih which discloses a job might be a list of tasks (col. 5, lines 35-39)); and
based on determining that the list of tasks is in the first position of the order of the work queue, releasing the list of tasks from the work queue (¶[0052], "the tasks on each queue are already sorted by placing the next task to execute at the top of the queue. Once there is a need to execute the next task from an application queue the task from the top of the queue is released for execution").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined system of US Patent No. 11,032,212 B2, Kim, and Shih in view of Ramaswamy for determining that the list of tasks is in a first position of an order of the work queue; and based on determining that the list of tasks is in the first position of the order of the work queue, releasing the list of tasks from the work queue.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would enable "scheduling workloads efficiently and fairly" (Ramaswamy, ¶[0022]).
Regarding claim 7, the combined system of US Patent No. 11,032,212 B2, Kim, Shih, and Ramaswamy discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 6, above, wherein the operations further comprise, based on releasing the list of tasks from the work queue, transitioning the request from a submitted state to an admitted state, the admitted state indicating that the list of tasks are ready to execute on the pool of computing resources (Ramaswamy, ¶[0060], "the process sends the release( ) signal 740 (shown in FIG. 7) to the application manager to inform the application manager of availability of a thread to cause the application manager use inter application scheduling policies to determine an application queue to release the next task for execution. The process then receives (at 920) the identification of the task to be executed from the application manager").
Regarding claims 16-17, the combined system of US Patent No. 11,032,212 B2, Kim, and Shih discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 12, above.
The remaining limitations of claims 16-17 are similar in scope to those of claims 6-7. Therefore, claims 16-17 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claims 6-7, above.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,032,212 B2 in view of Kim (US 20150150016 A1), as respectively applied to claims 8 and 18, above, and further in view of Sathyanarayana (US 2015/0331715 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the combined system of US Patent No. 11,032,212 B2 and Kim discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 8, above.
The combined system of US Patent No. 11,032,212 B2 and Kim does not disclose determining an amount of time to execute the workload based on the amount of the computing resources available to the user.
Sathyanarayana discloses determining an amount of time to execute the workload based on the amount of the computing resources available to the user (Sathyanarayana, ¶[0045], "predicted migration time may correspond to the maximum total migration time of the applicable service level requirements, or may be calculated by the source compute node 102a based on available platform resources").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined system of US Patent No. 11,032,212 B2 and Kim in view of Sathyanarayana for determining an amount of time to execute the workload based on the amount of the computing resources available to the user.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would enable the system and users to know if the tasks can be accomplished in an acceptable time.
Regarding claim 19, the combined system of US Patent No. 11,032,212 B2, Kim, and Kinney Jr. discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 18, above.
The remaining limitations of claim 19 are similar in scope to those of claim 9. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 9, above.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 11 and 17 of U.S. Patent No. 11,032,212 B2 in view of Kim (US 20150150016 A1), as respectively applied to claims 8 and 18, above, and further in view of Kinney, Jr. (US 10877796 B1).
Regarding claim 10, the combined system of US Patent No. 11,032,212 B2 and Kim discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 8, above.
The combined system of US Patent No. 11,032,212 B2 and Kim does not disclose that the resource allocation budget comprises a maximum amount of central processing units (CPUs).
Kinney Jr. discloses that a resource allocation budget may comprise a maximum amount of central processing units (CPUs) (Kinney Jr., col. 13, lines 15-19, "If the managed compute environment 195A has a constraint for the maximum number of virtual CPUs or compute instances, then no more than that number of virtual CPUs or compute instances may be running in the environment at any given time. Similarly, if the managed compute environment 195A has a constraint for the maximum aggregate budget for computing resources (e.g., over a particular time period such as per hour, per day, or per month), then no more resources may be provisioned or further used (if the resource has a continuing cost) once the budget is reached").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined system of US Patent No. 11,032,212 B2 and Kim in view of Kinney Jr. so that the resource allocation budget comprises a maximum amount of central processing units (CPUs).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would enable a compute environment to be "provisioned according to user-defined constraints and then used efficiently" (Kinney Jr., col. 3, lines 31-38).
Regarding claim 20, the combined system of US Patent No. 11,032,212 B2, Kim, and Kinney Jr. discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 18, above.
The remaining limitations of claim 20 are similar in scope to those of claim 10. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 10, above.
Claims 1, 8, 10-11, 18 and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11,582,166 B2 in view of Kim (US 20150150016 A1).
Regarding claim 1, US Patent No. 11,582,166 B2 discloses a computer-implemented method executed by data processing hardware that causes the data processing hardware to perform operations (Claim 1, "A computer-implemented method when executed on data processing hardware causes the data processing hardware to perform operations, the operations") comprising:
receiving a request initiated by a user to execute a workload on a pool of computing resources in a computing environment (Claim 1, "receiving a request initiated by a user to execute a list of tasks");
determining an amount of downtime associated with the request (Claim 1, "determining a downtime associated with the request;");
determining that the amount of time downtime satisfies a downtime threshold (Claim 1, "determining whether the downtime exceeds a maximum downtime for the request; and"); and
based on determining that the amount of time downtime satisfies the downtime threshold, queuing the workload in a work queue (Claim 1, "when the downtime does exceed the maximum downtime for the request, determining that the request is not capable of being executed").
Claim 1 of US Patent No. 11,582,166 B2 does not disclose ordering the work queue based on the user associated with the request.
Kim discloses ordering the work queue based on the user associated with the request (Fig. 5, 506, "receiving a new job request having a priority selected by a user"; Fig. 5, 522, "schedule the jobs in the online queue based upon the respective priorities of each one of the jobs"; ¶[0074], "If the user does not want a reservation, the method 500 may return to step 506. The user may then input a new priority (e.g., lowering the priority to reduce costs) to try and obtain an expected completion time and expected cost that is acceptable. For example, the user may repeat steps 506, 508, 510 and 512 using different priorities by trial and error until an expected completion time and expected cost is acceptable").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify US Patent No. 11,582,166 B2 in view of Kim for ordering the work queue based on the user associated with the request.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because, in situation where resources are backlogged, it would empower users to determine a desired service level in relation to how much they are willing to spend (Kim, ¶[0069]).
Regarding claim 8, the combined system of US Patent No. 11,582,166 B2 and Kim discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above, wherein the user is uniquely associated with a resource allocation budget representing a maximum amount of computing resources the user can consume from the computing environment (US Patent No. 11,582,166 B2, Claim 1, "determining a resource allocation budget uniquely associated with the user, the resource allocation budget representing a maximum amount of computing resources the user can consume from the computing environment").
Regarding claim 10, the combined system of US Patent No. 11,582,166 B2 and Kim discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 8, above, wherein the resource allocation budget comprises a maximum amount of central processing units (CPUs) (US Patent No. 11,582,166 B2, Claim 2, "wherein the resource allocation budget comprises a maximum amount of central processing units (CPUs)").
Regarding claim 11, US Patent No. 11,582,166 B2 discloses a system comprising: data processing hardware; and memory hardware in communication with the data processing hardware, the memory hardware storing instructions that when executed on the data processing hardware cause the data processing hardware to perform operations (Claim 1, "A computer-implemented method when executed on data processing hardware causes the data processing hardware to perform operations, the operations").
The remaining limitations of claim 11 are similar in scope to those of claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, above.
Regarding claim 18, the combined system of US Patent No. 11,582,166 B2 and Kim discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 11, above.
The remaining limitations of claim 18 are similar in scope to those of claim 8. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 8, above.
Regarding claim 20, the combined system of US Patent No. 11,582,166 B2, Kim, and Kinney Jr. discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 18, above.
The remaining limitations of claim 20 are similar in scope to those of claim 10. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 10, above.
Claims 2-4 and 12-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,582,166 B2 in view of Kim (US 20150150016 A1), as respectively applied to claims 1 and 11, above, and further in view of Shih et al. (US 9430280 B1, hereinafter Shih).
Regarding claim 2, the combined system of US Patent No. 11,582,166 B2 and Kim discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 1, above.
The combined system of US Patent No. 11,582,166 B2 and Kim does not disclose that the workload comprises a list of tasks and a specification that indicates dependencies for one or more tasks in the list of tasks.
Shih discloses a workload may comprise a list of tasks and a specification that indicates dependencies for one or more tasks in the list of tasks (col. 5, lines 35-39, "clients may specify various task and subtask properties in different embodiments, such as for example the interruptibility characteristics of the task or of individual subtasks, whether any or all of the subtasks can be run in parallel"; col. 6, lines 15-20, "even if the client does not explicitly indicate that subtasks can be performed in parallel, the resource manager may be able to analyze the task specification provided by a client (or the client's resource usage history) and determine whether any subtasks can in fact be executed in parallel").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Chen in view of Shih so that the dependencies define a concurrent run process for two or more tasks of the list of tasks.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would allow a processing time to be decreased.
Regarding claim 3, the combined system of US Patent No. 11,582,166 B2, Kim, and Shih discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 2, above, wherein the dependencies define a concurrent run process for two or more of the tasks in the list of tasks (Shih, col. 5, lines 35-39, "clients may specify various task and subtask properties in different embodiments, such as for example the interruptibility characteristics of the task or of individual subtasks, whether any or all of the subtasks can be run in parallel").
Regarding claim 4, the combined system of US Patent No. 11,582,166 B2, Kim, and Shih discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 2, above, wherein the dependencies define a consecutive run process for two or more of the tasks in the list of tasks (Shih, col. 5, lines 35-39, "clients may specify various task and subtask properties in different embodiments, such as for example the interruptibility characteristics of the task or of individual subtasks, whether any or all of the subtasks can be run in parallel" (i.e., specifying that tasks cannot be run in parallel is simply specifying that the tasks should be performed one after the other (consecutive run process)).
Regarding claims 12-14, the combined system of US Patent No. 11,582,166 B2 and Kim discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 11, above.
The remaining limitations of claims 12-14 are similar in scope to those of claims 2-4. Therefore, claims 12-14 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claims 2-4, above.
Claims 5 and 15 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,582,166 B2 in view of Kim (US 20150150016 A1) and further in view of Shih (US 9430280 B1), as respectively applied to claims 2 and 12, above, and further in view of Durkop et al. (WO 2016/165969 A1, hereinafter Durkop).
Regarding claim 5, the combined system of US Patent No. 11,582,166 B2, Kim, and Shih discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 2, above.
The combined system of US Patent No. 11,582,166 B2, Kim, and Shih does not disclose that the dependencies define a disablement priority for at least one task in the list of tasks ().
Durkop discloses dependencies define a disablement priority for at least one task of the list of tasks (¶[0021], sorting subtasks based on a priority defined by a user; ¶[0037], priorities are used to determine if a subtask should be cancelled in order to process a higher priority subtask).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined system of US Patent No. 11,582,166 B2, Kim, and Shih in view of Durkop so that the dependencies define a disablement priority for at least one task of the list of tasks.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would optimize processing by reducing resource usage waste (Durkop, ¶[0002]-[0003]).
Regarding claim 15, the combined system of US Patent No. 11,582,166 B2, Kim, and Shih discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 12, above.
The remaining limitations of claim 15 are similar in scope to those of claim 5. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 5, above.
Claims 6-7 and 16-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,582,166 B2 in view of Kim (US 20150150016 A1) and further in view of Shih (US 9430280 B1), as respectively applied to claims 2 and 12, above, and further in view of Ramaswamy et al. (US 20170060641 A1, hereinafter Ramaswamy).
Regarding claim 6, the combined system of US Patent No. 11,582,166 B2, Kim, and Shih discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 2, above.
The combined system of US Patent No. 11,582,166 B2, Kim, and Shih does not explicitly disclose determining that the list of tasks is in a first position of an order of the work queue; and based on determining that the list of tasks is in the first position of the order of the work queue, releasing the list of tasks from the work queue.
Ramaswamy discloses determining that the list of tasks is in a first position of an order of the work queue (¶[0052], "the tasks on each queue are already sorted by placing the next task to execute at the top of the queue. Once there is a need to execute the next task from an application queue […]" - that the next task is a list of tasks is the result of the combination with Shih which discloses a job might be a list of tasks (col. 5, lines 35-39)); and
based on determining that the list of tasks is in the first position of the order of the work queue, releasing the list of tasks from the work queue (¶[0052], "the tasks on each queue are already sorted by placing the next task to execute at the top of the queue. Once there is a need to execute the next task from an application queue the task from the top of the queue is released for execution").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined system of US Patent No. 11,582,166 B2, Kim, and Shih in view of Ramaswamy for determining that the list of tasks is in a first position of an order of the work queue; and based on determining that the list of tasks is in the first position of the order of the work queue, releasing the list of tasks from the work queue.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would enable "scheduling workloads efficiently and fairly" (Ramaswamy, ¶[0022]).
Regarding claim 7, the combined system of US Patent No. 11,582,166 B2, Kim, Shih, and Ramaswamy discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 6, above, wherein the operations further comprise, based on releasing the list of tasks from the work queue, transitioning the request from a submitted state to an admitted state, the admitted state indicating that the list of tasks are ready to execute on the pool of computing resources (Ramaswamy, ¶[0060], "the process sends the release( ) signal 740 (shown in FIG. 7) to the application manager to inform the application manager of availability of a thread to cause the application manager use inter application scheduling policies to determine an application queue to release the next task for execution. The process then receives (at 920) the identification of the task to be executed from the application manager").
Regarding claims 16-17, the combined system of US Patent No. 11,582,166 B2, Kim, and Shih discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 12, above.
The remaining limitations of claims 16-17 are similar in scope to those of claims 6-7. Therefore, claims 16-17 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claims 6-7, above.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,582,166 B2 in view of Kim (US 20150150016 A1), as respectively applied to claims 8 and 18, above, and further in view of Sathyanarayana (US 2015/0331715 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the combined system of US Patent No. 11,582,166 B2 and Kim discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 8, above.
The combined system of US Patent No. 11,582,166 B2 and Kim does not disclose determining an amount of time to execute the workload based on the amount of the computing resources available to the user.
Sathyanarayana discloses determining an amount of time to execute the workload based on the amount of the computing resources available to the user (Sathyanarayana, ¶[0045], "predicted migration time may correspond to the maximum total migration time of the applicable service level requirements, or may be calculated by the source compute node 102a based on available platform resources").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combined system of US Patent No. 11,582,166 B2 and Kim in view of Sathyanarayana for determining an amount of time to execute the workload based on the amount of the computing resources available to the user.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated because it would enable the system and users to know if the tasks can be accomplished in an acceptable time.
Regarding claim 19, the combined system of US Patent No. 11,582,166 B2, Kim, and Kinney Jr. discloses the invention substantially as applied to claim 18, above.
The remaining limitations of claim 19 are similar in scope to those of claim 9. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 9, above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20160299787 A1, which discloses "A system comprising: a calculating device configured to execute a job; and a management device configured to schedule an execution start time of the job executed by the calculating device, the management device comprising a memory and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to: obtain a first time that is a scheduled time of when the job will start to be executed by the calculating device, calculate a delay time for the job by performing multiple regression analysis based on past execution performance of the calculation device, predict the execution start time of the job based on the first time and the delay time, and output the predicted execution start time to an output device" (Claim 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BORIS D GRIJALVA LOBOS whose telephone number is (571)272-0767. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:30AM to 6:30PM 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, Brian Gillis can be reached at 571-272-7952. 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.
/BORIS D GRIJALVA LOBOS/ Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2446