DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
1. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vick et al. (US 2009/0089537), “Vick”.
2. As per claim 1, Vick discloses obtaining, by a first node, a first resource sandbox corresponding to a first service, wherein the first resource sandbox comprises resource information on a second node [obtaining global system address information, step 409, figure 4]; determining, by the first node, that the first service is to be executed over a first resource corresponding to first resource information in the first resource sandbox [a memory access service to be executed over a remote node, figure 4]; determining that the first resource is on the second node [Physical Memory B on remote Node B, figure 1]; and calling, by the first node, the second node to execute the first service over the first resource on the second node [load/store service executed over a physical memory on a remote node, paragraph 16].
3. As per claim 2, Vick discloses wherein the step of determining that the first service is to be executed over the first resource comprises: determining, by the first node, that a first process of the first service is to be executed over the first resource, wherein the step of calling the second node to execute the first service over the first resource on the second node comprises: sending, by the first node, a first request to the second node, wherein the first request requests the second node to execute the first service over the first resource on the second node [sending a load request to the remote node, figure 4]; and receiving, by the first node, an execution result sent by the second node regarding executing the first service over the first resource [receiving data from the remote node, figure 4].
4. As per claim 3, Vick discloses determining, by the first node, that a second process of the first service is to be executed over a second resource corresponding to second resource information in the first resource sandbox [a store process, figure 5]; sending, by the first node, a second request to the second node, wherein the second request requests the second node to run the second process, and the second request comprises running data of the second process [storing data, figure 5]; and stopping, by the first node, running the second process [“End”, figure 5].
5. As per claim 5, Vick discloses wherein before calling the second node to execute the first service over the first resource on the second node, the method further comprises: synchronizing, by the first node, resource information in the first resource sandbox to the second node [resources mapping/synchronizing, figure 2A].
6. As per claim 7, Vick discloses wherein the first resource sandbox further comprises resource information on the first node, and wherein the method further comprises: determining that the first resource is a resource on the first node; and locally accessing, by the first node, the first resource over a first process [local access, figure 4].
7. As per claim 8, Vick discloses wherein the resource type of the first resource is any one of the following: a file system resource, a device resource, a network resource, an inter-process communication resource, and a memory resource [memory devices, figure 1].
8. As per claim 9, Vick discloses wherein before calling the second node to execute the first service over the first resource on the second node, the method further comprises: sending, by the first node, a third request to the second node, wherein the third request requests the second node to create a first virtual process for use by the second node to execute, based on the first virtual process, the first service over the first resource on the second node [virtual-physical addressing processes, figure 6].
9. As per claims 10-12, 14-16, 18, and 20, the examiner directs the applicant’s attention to claim rejection above.
Conclusion
A. Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6, 13, 17, and 19 are objected to.
The closest prior art of record, “Vick” discloses remote resource access in paragraph 16.
The primary reasons for allowance of claims 4, 13, and 17 in the instant application is the combination with the inclusion in these claims that “wherein after determining that the first process of the first service is to be executed over the first resource, the method further comprises: obtaining, by the first node, a first instruction to run a second process of the first service; and sending, by the first node, a second request to the second node in response to the first instruction, wherein the second request requests the second node to run the second process, and the second request comprises a startup parameter of the second process”. The prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the above recited combination.
The primary reasons for allowance of claims 6 and 19 in the instant application is the combination with the inclusion in these claims that “wherein the first resource sandbox comprises third resource information, and a resource type of a third resource corresponding to the third resource information is same as a resource type of the first resource, wherein before the step of obtaining the first resource sandbox corresponding to a first service, the method further comprises: determining that performance of the first resource is higher than performance of the third
resource, and wherein the step of obtaining the first resource sandbox comprises: generating, by the first node, the first resource sandbox based on the first resource information”. The prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the above recited combination.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's response must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.111(b) and § 707.07(a) of the MPEP.
B. Claims Rejected
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14-16, 18, and 20 are rejected.
C. Direction for Future Remarks
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAE UN YU whose telephone number is (571)272-1133. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Tim Vo can be reached on (571)272-3642. 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.
/JAE U YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2138
Prosecution Insights