DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA ).
Response and Claim Status
The instant Office action is responsive to the response received August 7, 2026 (the Response).
In response to the Response, the previous (1) objection to the Specification under 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d)(1); (2) rejection of claims 1–16 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting; (3) invoking of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f); (4) rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b); and (5) rejection of claims 1–7, 9–15, and 17–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
are WITHDRAWN.
Claims 1–20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 11, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (see Response 12–15) have been considered but are now moot.
Claim Rejections – 35 U.S.C. § 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 17–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Guo et al. (US 10,237,149 B1; filed Mar. 21, 2016) in view of Cudak et al. (US 2014/0032628 A1; filed July 24, 2012), in further view of Uluderya et al. (US 2014/0173130 A1; filed Aug. 16, 2013), and in further view of Arcangeli (US 2005/0257079 A1; filed Apr. 27, 2004).
Regarding claim 17, while Guo teaches a dynamic resource system (fig. 2, item 200), comprising:
a unified application programming interface (API) (fig. 2, item 216; “The unified data API 216 provides users (e.g., tenants, service provider, third-parties, etc.) a unified data accessing API which allows the users to conveniently access collected data and the service catalog.” at 7:41–44) for aggregating a plurality of interconnected computing clusters (“users (e.g., tenants, service provider, third-parties, etc.)” at 7:41–42 that use item 216) into a cluster network (“users (e.g., tenants, service provider, third-parties, etc.)” at 7:41–42 is a cluster network; intended use in italics);
a virtualization and application deployment layer (fig. 2, item 220) configured to create a plurality of portable containers (fig. 2, items 222; “one or more virtual compute elements 222 (e.g., VMs/containers)” at 6:2–3), each of said plurality of containers configured to run at least one application (fig. 2, item 228; “One or more tenant applications 228 are deployed and execute in this virtualization environment through the operating system(s) that instantiates the VMs/containers.” at 6:4–7), each of said plurality of containers configured for execution (“allows the users to conveniently access collected data and the service catalog.” at 7:43–44; “When the tenants request certain monitoring services, corresponding installation and deployment packages (service modules) are downloaded and deployed into their VMs/containers.” at 6:45–48) via a plurality of selected computing clusters (“users (e.g., tenants, service provider, third-parties, etc.)” at 7:41–42) in the cluster network,
Guo does not teach (A) a user interface providing a user access to the aggregated computing clusters; (B) the virtualization and application deployment layer being a management application executable on a server; and (C) the dynamic resource system being a dynamic supercomputing resource marketplace system.
(A)
Cudak teaches a user interface providing a user access to computing clusters (“The cluster management interface 250 can provide a user interface through which an end user can configure the computing cluster 210, 220, 230” at ¶ 20).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Guo’s dynamic resource system to comprise a user interface providing a user access to the aggregated computing clusters as taught by Cudak so that “the end user can issue commands to different ones of the” aggregated computing clusters and possess greater control over the aggregated computing clusters. Cudak ¶ 20.
(B)
Uluderya teaches a management application executable on a server (“application intelligent request management application may be executed on a management server” at ¶ 70; ¶ 28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Guo’s virtualization and application deployment layer to be a management application executable on a server as taught by Uluderya “for automatic and/or manual optimization.” Uluderya ¶ 28.
(C)
Arcangeli teaches a supercomputing resource marketplace system (“supercomputers market” at ¶ 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for Guo’s dynamic resource system to be a supercomputing resource marketplace system as taught by Arcangeli for “reducing also the latency periods in the communications.” Arcangeli ¶ 14.
Regarding claim 18, Guo does not teach wherein the management application is executed entirely on the server.
Uluderya teaches a management application is executed entirely on the server (“application intelligent request management application may be executed on a management server (e.g., one or more of servers 714)” at ¶ 70 teaches only one server item 714).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for the Guo/Uluderya combination’s management application to be executed entirely on the server as taught by Uluderya “for automatic and/or manual optimization.” Uluderya ¶ 28.
Regarding claim 19, Guo does not teach wherein the management application is executed partly on the server and partly on at least one other server.
Uluderya teaches a management application is executed partly on the server and partly on at least one other server (“application intelligent request management application may be executed on a management server (e.g., one or more of servers 714)” at ¶ 70 teaches one server item 714 and another server item 714).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the invention for the Guo/Uluderya combination’s management application to be executed partly on the server and partly on at least one other server as taught by Uluderya “for automatic and/or manual optimization.” Uluderya ¶ 28.
Regarding claim 20, Guo teaches wherein different subsets of the plurality of interconnected computing clusters (“users (e.g., tenants, service provider, third-parties, etc.)” at 7:41–42 that use item 216) use different resource management software (Guo at least suggests tenants, service provider, third-parties use different resource management software if they need a unified API module that “varies based on different requirements for different users” at 7:44–45; “The API can also support a file transmission protocol which is capable of transferring large amounts of data.” at 7:46–48 also at least suggests some users use the file transmission protocol and others do not).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1–16 allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicants’ disclosure: US-20150019559-A1 and US-10191778-B1.
Applicants’ amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to § 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to DAVID P. ZARKA whose telephone number is (703) 756-5746. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday–Friday from 9:30AM–6PM ET.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Vivek Srivastava, can be reached at (571) 272-7304. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, 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, Applicants are encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
/DAVID P ZARKA/PATENT EXAMINER, Art Unit 2449
