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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-12 are pending.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs and/or columns and lines in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant 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. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06.
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 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.
Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application
Applicant is encouraged to file an Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application form (http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) along with the response to this office action to facilitate and expedite future communication between Applicant and the examiner. If the form is submitted then Applicant is requested to provide a contact email address in the signature block at the conclusion of the official reply.
Title Objection
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 are objected to because of minor informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
As per claim 1, in ll. 2, “the management” should be “a management”.
The remaining dependent claims 2-9 not specifically mentioned above are also objected to by virtue of being dependent upon the above objected to independent claim.
As per claim 10, in ll. 2, “the management” should be “a management”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim is a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter:
Claim 1. An apparatus comprising.
Step 2A Prong One: The claim recites an abstract idea because it includes limitations that can be considered mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind or via pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea:
decompose the task into a plurality of jobs (abstract idea mental process);
determine, from calculation resources available for the nodes obtained in advance from the nodes, respectively, a schedule of the jobs to be allocated to the nodes (abstract idea mental process).
Step 2A Prong Two: The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is recited but for generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. data storage, processor, memory, computer readable medium, etc.) which do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea amounting to simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer using generic computing hardware and/or software (e.g. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the recited generic computer components. 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:
in a distributed processing system that includes a plurality of nodes (generic computing components), and the management server connected to each of the nodes via a network (generic computing components), each of the nodes performing participation in the distributed processing system via the network according to its own setting (generic computing components), comprising:
processing circuitry (generic computing components) configured to:
accept, by the entire distributed processing system, a task that is a request for calculation by the distributed processing system from a client outside the distributed processing system (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of receiving data/information);
transmit, based on the schedule, the jobs to be allocated to the nodes, respectively (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of sending/transmitting data/information);
accept calculation results of the jobs from the nodes, respectively (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of receiving data/information);
generate a calculation result of the task based on the accepted calculation results of the jobs (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of generating data/information); and
transmit the calculation result of the task to the client (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of sending/transmitting data/information).
Step 2B: The claim includes limitations which can be considered extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) insufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional limitations only perform at least one of collecting, gathering, displaying, generating, modifying, updating, storing, retrieving, sending, and receiving data/information data which are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)II. The claim further includes limitations that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they merely recite the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim, and its limitations when considered separately and in combination, is directed to patent ineligible subject matter:
accept, by the entire distributed processing system, a task that is a request for calculation by the distributed processing system from a client outside the distributed processing system (extra-solution activity of receiving data/information);
transmit, based on the schedule, the jobs to be allocated to the nodes, respectively (extra-solution activity of sending/transmitting data/information);
accept calculation results of the jobs from the nodes, respectively (extra-solution activity of receiving data/information);
generate a calculation result of the task based on the accepted calculation results of the jobs (extra-solution activity of generating data/information); and
transmit the calculation result of the task to the client (extra-solution activity of sending/transmitting data/information).
Claim 2. The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein in determining the schedule, calculate a calculation processing man-hours of the task (abstract idea mental process), and when the calculation processing man-hours exceeds a predetermined value (abstract idea mental process), obtain communication speed between the nodes and the management server (extra-solution activity of receiving data/information), and generate the schedule that allocates the jobs to the nodes for which the communication speed exceeds a predefined threshold value (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 3. The apparatus according to claim 1, the processing circuitry further configured to: accept, from each of the nodes, participation indication information on whether or not to participate in the distributed processing system (extra-solution activity of receiving data/information); and register the nodes that are participating at the time, based on the participation indication information (extra-solution activity of saving/storing/recording data/information), and in determining the schedule, determine the schedule of the jobs to be allocated to the nodes that are participating at the time (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 4. The apparatus according to claim 3, wherein, in accepting the participation indication information, accept the participation indication information and calculation resource information on the calculation resource (extra-solution activity of receiving data/information).
Claim 5. The apparatus according to claim 3, the processing circuitry further configured to: determine whether or not each of the nodes is capable of participating in the distributed processing system, based on the participation indication information (abstract idea mental process), and in determining whether or not each of the nodes is capable of participating in the distributed processing system (abstract idea mental process), when the processing circuitry accept, from the nodes to which the jobs are allocated and from which the calculation results are not accepted, the participation indication information that the nodes do not participate in the distributed processing system, determine to cause the nodes to continue participation in the distributed processing system until the calculation results of the jobs are accepted (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 6. The apparatus according to claim 5, wherein, in decomposing the task, decompose the task into a plurality of the jobs so that calculation processing man-hours based on each of the jobs becomes constant (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 7. The apparatus according to claim 1, the processing circuitry further configured to: grant privileges based on the calculation resources to the nodes from which the calculation results of the jobs have been accepted (extra-solution activity of modifying/updating data/information).
Claim 8. The apparatus according to claim 1, wherein, in determining the schedule, obtain a network distance between each of the nodes and the management server, determine the nodes to which the jobs are to be allocated in an order of shortest network distance, and determine the schedule for allocating the jobs to the determined nodes (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 9. The apparatus according to claim 8, wherein, in determining the schedule, obtain a routing cost between each of the nodes and the management server, determine the nodes to which the jobs are to be allocated in the order of shortest network distance or in an order of lowest routing cost, and determine the schedule for allocating the jobs to the determined nodes (abstract idea mental process).
As per claim 10, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 11, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 12, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
As per claim 1, it is indefinite because ll. 12 recites “in advance” and it is not clear as to what “in advance” refers. For the purposes of examination “in advance” is interpreted to read on the prior art references below. Appropriate correction is required.
The remaining dependent claims 2-9 not specifically mentioned above are also rejected by virtue of being dependent upon the above rejected independent claim.
As per claim 10, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 11, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 12, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slattery et al. (US 8,108,258) (hereinafter Slattery) in view of Carey et al. (US 2023/0305870) (hereinafter Carey).
As per claim 1, Slattery primarily teaches the invention as claimed including an apparatus in a distributed processing system that includes a plurality of nodes (fig. 3, blocks 234A-C calculation nodes), and the management server connected to each of the nodes via a network (fig. 3, block 232 job scheduler), comprising:
processing circuitry (fig. 7) configured to:
accept, by the entire distributed processing system, a task that is a request for calculation by the distributed processing system from a client outside the distributed processing system (col. 8, ll. 41-48 tax program may be a network-based or web-based tax return preparation program which preparers may access e.g., via a web browser or other application on the preparers' local computer systems, via client systems in a corporate network or intranet, or via some other mechanism to prepare or submit various tax forms, tax documents, or other tax-related data and information via a network connection to a remote computer system e.g., a server);
decompose the task into a plurality of jobs (abstract decompose a return into two or more calculation jobs);
determine, from calculation resources available for the nodes obtained in advance from the nodes, respectively, a schedule of the jobs to be allocated to the nodes (col. 2, ll. 63-66 the job scheduler may allocate and/or prioritize return calculation jobs based on the complexity of the calculations and the resources available on available tax preparation nodes to perform the calculations);
transmit, based on the schedule, the jobs to be allocated to the nodes, respectively (col. 6, ll. 11-17 job scheduler may determine how many return calculation nodes are available for processing return calculation jobs. For example, five return calculation nodes may be available. The job scheduler may allocate the calculations for each of the five corporate entities to a different one of the five return calculation nodes as separate return calculation jobs. The job scheduler may then wait for results of the return calculation jobs to be returned from the return calculation nodes);
accept calculation results of the jobs from the nodes, respectively (col. 6, ll. 11-17 job scheduler may determine how many return calculation nodes are available for processing return calculation jobs. For example, five return calculation nodes may be available. The job scheduler may allocate the calculations for each of the five corporate entities to a different one of the five return calculation nodes as separate return calculation jobs. The job scheduler may then wait for results of the return calculation jobs to be returned from the return calculation nodes);
generate a calculation result of the task based on the accepted calculation results of the jobs (col. 19, ll. 3-11 the plurality of return calculation nodes may execute the plurality of return calculation jobs on to generate calculation results for the return calculation jobs. A plurality of calculated tax returns may be generated from the calculation results. In some cases, for example to complete a tax return that was decomposed into two or more units of work, two or more calculation results may be returned to one of the return calculation nodes for consolidation); and
transmit the calculation result of the task to the client (col. 13, ll. 6-10 calculated tax returns may be returned to tax program for any necessary completion or verification and for dispersal to the appropriate tax preparers or taxable entities and possibly for forwarding to the appropriate tax authorities.).
Slattery does not explicitly teach:
each of the nodes performing participation in the distributed processing system via the network according to its own setting.
However, Carey teaches:
each of the nodes performing participation in the distributed processing system via the network according to its own setting ([0016] determine whether each managed node will participate in a resource-consuming blockchain event, and dynamically allocating computing resources to the node based on current and/or anticipated node participation in the blockchain event e.g., by setting the process priority for the node; [0019] determining which managed nodes of the set are participating in the blockchain event; dynamically allocating more of the shared computing resources to the participating nodes e.g., by increasing the node's process priority; by setting the node's process priority; [0096] setting the participating managed node's resource allocation to participating resource values. Setting the resource allocation can include: setting the resource allocation to a predetermined value, increasing the resource allocation above a threshold allocation, and/or otherwise setting the resource allocation).
Carey and Slattery are both concerned with computing node management and are therefore combinable/modifiable. 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 Slattery in view of Carey because it would provide a way to resolve resource allocation issues by continuously running multiple nodes on shared computing resources e.g., a single machine, a computing resource pool, etc., by introspecting a blockchain to determine whether each managed node will participate in a resource-consuming blockchain event, and dynamically allocating computing resources to the node based on current and/or anticipated node participation in the blockchain event e.g., by setting the process priority for the node. Because each node is not running at maximum output, the nodes can share computing resources from the same machine, thereby allowing more nodes to be hosted by a single machine, while still enabling the nodes to run at maximum performance when necessary. This allows for the same number of nodes to be hosted by less machines, which leads to lower overall resource, energy, and cost consumption. This can reduce the load average for a managed blockchain node.
As per claim 10, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 11, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 12, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slattery in view of Carey in view of Yoshii et al. (US 2023/0085797) (hereinafter Yoshii) in view of He et al. (US 2017/0286180) (hereinafter He).
As per claim 2, Slattery in view of Carey do not explicitly teach wherein in determining the schedule, calculate a calculation processing man-hours of the task, and when the calculation processing man-hours exceeds a predetermined value, obtain communication speed between the nodes and the management server, and generate the schedule that allocates the jobs to the nodes for which the communication speed exceeds a predefined threshold value.
However, Yoshii teaches wherein in determining the schedule, calculate a calculation processing man-hours of the task, and when the calculation processing man-hours exceeds a predetermined value ([0066] compare the calculated man-hours to the standard task man-hours of the task data. When the calculated man-hours are greater than the standard task man-hours, the analysis device may cause the output device to output information of the calculated man-hours).
Yoshii and Slattery are both concerned with task management and are therefore combinable/modifiable. 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 Slattery in view of Carey in view of Yoshii because it would provide a way of performing a simulation before a manufacturing process so that a worker can experience a task beforehand and therefore the quality of the task in the actual manufacturing process can be improved thereby. Also, the man-hours and the cost can be estimated beforehand with higher accuracy. By performing the simulation before the manufacturing process, the worker can practice tasks that were slower than the standard task man-hours, etc. Data such as the standard task man-hours set based on the simulation before the manufacturing process, etc., may be corrected according to the simulation results after the manufacturing process.
Slattery in view of Carey in view of Yoshii do not explicitly teach obtain communication speed between the nodes and the management server, and generate the schedule that allocates the jobs to the nodes for which the communication speed exceeds a predefined threshold value.
However, He teaches obtain communication speed between the nodes and the management server, and generate the schedule that allocates the jobs to the nodes for which the communication speed exceeds a predefined threshold value ([0027] regarding fig. 3, scheduling of the second pair of tasks i.e., M2, R2 using a network state-aware task scheduler takes into account the network state e.g., topology, available bandwidth, etc.). Since the link C-D currently has 0 available bandwidth, the highest available bandwidth is 2 Mbps between servers A and B. Accordingly, tasks M2, R2 would be assigned to servers A and B).
He and Slattery are both concerned with computing node management and are therefore combinable/modifiable. 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 Slattery in view of Carey in view of Yoshii in view of He because it would provide a way for performance gains to be realized by taking into account not only the network state, but also the network scheduling policy e.g., priority. Namely, as noted above, the second pair of tasks M2, R2 has a higher priority than the first pair of tasks M1, R1. Thus, it is recognized that a lower priority pair of tasks M1, R1 is using a higher bandwidth connection. The higher bandwidth connection is leveraged for the higher priority tasks M2, R2, while the flow of lower priority tasks M1, R1 is either preempted, limited or rerouted to other servers. By addressing network traffic, the algorithm attempts to minimize the effect of network congestion in data transfers.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slattery in view of Carey in view of Barsness et al. (US 2012/0221886) (hereinafter Barsness).
As per claim 3, Carey teaches the processing circuitry further configured to: accept, from each of the nodes, participation indication information on whether or not to participate in the distributed processing system ([0071] determining the state of each node, which can be used to determine whether the node is participating in a blockchain event, determine the probability of node election for participation in the blockchain event, and/or otherwise used); and register the nodes that are participating at the time, based on the participation indication information ([0070] registering the nodes to a control plane).
Slattery in view of Carey do not explicitly teach determine the schedule of the jobs to be allocated to the nodes that are participating at the time.
However, Barsness teaches determine the schedule of the jobs to be allocated to the nodes that are participating at the time ([0068] global information includes a list of preferred nodes that a particular node often joins when performing multi-nodal jobs. For example, when making a reservation to participate in a job, the job scheduler may write a nodal ID in the job requirements. In this manner, each job scheduler can parse the job requirements and identify the nodes participating in the job).
Barsness and Slattery are both concerned with computing node management and are therefore combinable/modifiable. 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 Slattery in view of Carey in view of Barsness because it would provide a way for determining that a preferred node has already joined the job, then the node may join without having to continue to evaluate the specific job characteristics, thereby decreasing the time required for a node to accept a job. The opposite is also true. After performing a plurality of jobs, a job scheduler might use the preferred list to determine when not to accept a job. In that case, a job scheduler could quickly scan the nodal IDs, and if the scheduler does not recognize a certain percentage of the IDs, then the scheduler may reject the job without evaluating further the job's characteristics.
As per claim 4, Barsness teaches wherein, in accepting the participation indication information, accept the participation indication information and calculation resource information on the calculation resource ([0068] global information includes a list of preferred nodes that a particular node often joins when performing multi-nodal jobs. For example, when making a reservation to participate in a job, the job scheduler may write a nodal ID in the job requirements. In this manner, each job scheduler can parse the job requirements and identify the nodes participating in the job i.e., participation information and resource information).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slattery in view of Carey in view of Barsness in view of Beers et al. (US 2010/0225733) (hereinafter Beers).
As per claim 5, Slattery in view of Carey do not explicitly teach the processing circuitry further configured to: determine whether or not each of the nodes is capable of participating in the distributed processing system, based on the participation indication information, and in determining whether or not each of the nodes is capable of participating in the distributed processing system, when the processing circuitry accept, from the nodes to which the jobs are allocated and from which the calculation results are not accepted, the participation indication information that the nodes do not participate in the distributed processing system, determine to cause the nodes to continue participation in the distributed processing system until the calculation results of the jobs are accepted.
However, Beers teaches the processing circuitry further configured to: determine whether or not each of the nodes is capable of participating in the distributed processing system, based on the participation indication information ([0040] configuration of the media devices and/or the level of participation may be varied by the capabilities of the node), and in determining whether or not each of the nodes is capable of participating in the distributed processing system, when the processing circuitry accept, from the nodes to which the jobs are allocated and from which the calculation results are not accepted, the participation indication information that the nodes do not participate in the distributed processing system, determine to cause the nodes to continue participation in the distributed processing system until the calculation results of the jobs are accepted ([0105] with the media streams established, the exchange of data may begin, and may continue until additional directives change the mode of participation of one or more of the nodes and/or the hoster).
Beers and Slattery are both concerned with computing node management and are therefore combinable/modifiable. 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 Slattery in view of Carey in view of Barsness in view of Beers because it would provide a way to configure a node's environment devices to optimize participation using virtual relationship data which may allow the event manager to minimize disruption to the event as the topology changes, and node and/or hoster capability data may prevent the event manager from assigning media streams not supported by an identified node or the hoster by managing the configuration of virtual collaboration systems, such as virtual collaboration systems that involve nodes that have different capabilities and/or that are connected to different networks. Specifically, the system may intrinsically consider the relationships among related media streams, manage and maintain the virtual relationships among nodes to optimize the directives to the nodes to support a new topology, support a variety of proprietary and industry-standard communications mechanisms while managing one or more of the nodes equivalently in the event itself, and/or subdivide resources within one or more of the participating nodes.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slattery in view of Carey in view of Barsness in view of Beers in view of Nomoto et al. (US 2005/0228521) (hereinafter Nomoto).
As per claim 6, Slattery in view of Carey in view of Barsness in view of Beers do not explicitly teach wherein, in decomposing the task, decompose the task into a plurality of the jobs so that calculation processing man-hours based on each of the jobs becomes constant.
However, Nomoto teaches wherein, in decomposing the task, decompose the task into a plurality of the jobs so that calculation processing man-hours based on each of the jobs becomes constant ([0011] task can be performed at a constant number of man-hours as far as requirements are met).
Nomoto and Slattery are both concerned with task management and are therefore combinable/modifiable. 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 Slattery in view of Carey in view of Barsness in view of Beers in view of Nomoto because it would provide for a scheduling calculation which may be applied to a step having an order constraint for a product production plan having a manufacturing step with a throughput depending on the order of start so that quick available to promise based on the accurate production plan can be achieved.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slattery in view of Carey in view of Lindell et al. (US 2020/0084048) (hereinafter Lindell).
As per claim 7, Slattery in view of Carey do not explicitly teach the processing circuitry further configured to: grant privileges based on the calculation resources to the nodes from which the calculation results of the jobs have been accepted.
However, Lindell teaches the processing circuitry further configured to: grant privileges based on the calculation resources to the nodes from which the calculation results of the jobs have been accepted ([0044] a transaction may be approved or disapproved as part of the end-user node digital encryption process. For example, the privilege to approve a deposit of digital currency in a digital vault may be granted to a portion of end-user nodes. In such cases, an approval may be required to execute a transaction from at least a predefined number of end-user nodes which are granted with the privileges to approve such a transaction).
Lindell and Slattery are both concerned with computing node management and are therefore combinable/modifiable. 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 Slattery in view of Carey in view of Lindell because it would provide for an authorized subset of nodes that can be configured to execute a secure multiparty computation for carrying out a computation which utilizes a secret, without ever revealing the secret.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slattery in view of Carey in view of Arrakoski (US 7,769,041) (hereinafter Arrakoski).
As per claim 8, Slattery in view of Carey do not explicitly teach wherein, in determining the schedule, obtain a network distance between each of the nodes and the management server, determine the nodes to which the jobs are to be allocated in an order of shortest network distance, and determine the schedule for allocating the jobs to the determined nodes.
However, Arrakoski teaches wherein, in determining the schedule, obtain a network distance between each of the nodes and the management server, determine the nodes to which the jobs are to be allocated in an order of shortest network distance, and determine the schedule for allocating the jobs to the determined nodes (col. 7, ll. 20-30 scheduling data transfers in a multi-hop packet network including a plurality of interconnected nodes configured to schedule their transmissions through said one or more hops, the method comprising: associating each node of a plurality of nodes in a multi-hop packet network with a level of a plurality of levels, wherein the level associated with each node reflects a number of hops from a first node to said each node, the number of hops measured along a shortest path between the first node and said each node in the network).
Arrakoski and Slattery are both concerned with computing node management and are therefore combinable/modifiable. 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 Slattery in view of Carey in view of Arrakoski because it would provide a way to accomplish a simple and controlled way for minimizing delay and delay variation, by classifying a network into several levels with respect to a certain node, each level comprising the nodes located at the same distance from said certain node, measured in number of hops along the shortest path in the network. This enables a simple and controlled way for minimizing delay and delay variation in multi-hop packet networks by utilizing a scheduling method which enables effective delay control and minimization in synchronized multi-hop packet networks.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Slattery in view of Carey in view of Arrakoski in view of Udupi et al. (US 2016/0350146) (hereinafter Udupi).
As per claim 9, Slattery in view of Carey in view of Arrakoski do not explicitly teach wherein, in determining the schedule, obtain a routing cost between each of the nodes and the management server, determine the nodes to which the jobs are to be allocated in the order of shortest network distance or in an order of lowest routing cost, and determine the schedule for allocating the jobs to the determined nodes.
However, Udupi teaches wherein, in determining the schedule, obtain a routing cost between each of the nodes and the management server, determine the nodes to which the jobs are to be allocated in the order of shortest network distance or in an order of lowest routing cost, and determine the schedule for allocating the jobs to the determined nodes ([0021] provide task allocations for each scheduling action aiming to meet a most optimal node for the current task i.e., the node which provides the least cost for data transfer of the required data split to the selected node is selected in terms based on the network costs due to factors such as bandwidth, latency, etc.).
Udupi and Slattery are both concerned with computing node management and are therefore combinable/modifiable. 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 Slattery in view of Carey in view of Arrakoski in view of Udupi because it would provide a mechanism that improves overall system performance by minimizing job completion time using the network topology and network cost factors such as bandwidth and latency information between the physical nodes of a cluster, ensuring optimal cluster nodes e.g., optimally placed VMs are selected for the task execution, and also the best physical nodes used for creating the VMs that form the virtualized cluster.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Kulkarni et al. (US 8,0006,175) disclose assigning tasks among computing nodes within a computing cluster for concurrent calculation.
Kizhakkiniyil et al. (US 2015/0222506) disclose controlling a process on a computing node based on the participation status of the computing node.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam Lee whose telephone number is (571) 270-3369. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 8AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the above noted Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Vital, can be reached at the following telephone number: (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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/Adam Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198 July 16, 2026
Prosecution Insights