Detailed Action
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 Applicant’s amendment filed on August 24, 2026.
Claims 1-10, 12-21 are pending in the application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on July 22, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, and accordingly, the IDS have been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Double Patenting
Claims 1-20 were rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8, 10-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,184,559 in view of Sakata et al. US Patent Publication No. 2021/0344611.
Applicant submitted that the claims have been amended such that the rejection of the claims is no longer applicable and therefore moot. The prior rejection has been withdrawn. However, new grounds of rejection are made in this Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-2, 7, 12-14, 19-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amaral et al. US Patent Publication No. 2016/0283270 in view of Abedini et al. US Patent Publication No. 2021/0051711 and Sakata et al. US Patent Publication No. 2021/0344611.
The amendments to claims 1, 13, and 20 have overcome the rejection. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
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 1-10, 12-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8, 10-17, 19-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,184,559 (“Patent ‘559”) in view of Sakata et al. US Patent Publication No. 2021/0344611 (“Sakata”) and Suhai et al. US Patent Publication No. 2022/0286463 (“Suhai”).
As shown below, claims of Patent ‘559 substantially disclose claims of the application with the differences being obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Instant Application
US Patent No. 12,184,559
1. A method, comprising:
maintaining a record of allocated computing resources on a plurality of computing nodes of a computing zone, the computing zone including a plurality of agent allocators configured to concurrently allocate resources in response to incoming placement requests in accordance with a first placement policy, the first placement policy being associated with allocating a first type of resource on computing nodes within the computing zone,
1. A method, comprising:
maintaining a placement store including a record of allocated computing resources on a plurality of computing nodes of a computing zone, the computing zone including a plurality of agent allocators configured to concurrently allocated resources in response to incoming placement requests in accordance with a placement policy applicable to each agent allocator of the plurality of agent allocators;
the first placement policy including a set of rules executable by each agent of the plurality of agents to identify candidate nodes for resource allocation from the plurality of nodes;
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the placement policy includes a set of rules executable by each agent allocator of the plurality of agent allocators to: identify candidate nodes for resource allocation by identifying a subset of computing nodes from the plurality of computing nodes of the computing zone.
determining, based on information from the record of allocated computing resources, that a number of placement conflicts between the plurality of agent allocators with respect to allocating resources of the first type is greater than or equal to a threshold number of placement conflicts;
determining, based on information from the record of allocated computing resources, that a number of placement conflicts between the plurality of agent allocators with respect to incoming placement requests is greater than or equal to a threshold number of placement conflicts for a predetermined period of time;
based on determining that the number of placement conflicts is greater than or equal to the threshold number, modifying the first placement policy by removing at least one rule from the set of rules to expand candidate nodes eligible for resource allocation,
thereby decreasing one or more restrictions of the first placement policy associated with allocating resources of the first type within the computing zone; and
based on determining that the number of placement conflicts is greater than or equal to the threshold number of placement conflicts, modifying the placement policy applicable to each agent allocator of the plurality of agent allocators by decreasing one or more restrictions from the placement policy associated with allocating resources on the plurality of computing nodes of the computing zone; and
7. The method of claim 6, wherein modifying the set of rules comprises discounting one or more rules from the set of rules to expand the candidate nodes eligible for resource allocation
causing the plurality of agent allocators to concurrently allocate resources of the first type on the plurality of computing nodes in accordance with the modified first placement policy.
causing the plurality of agent allocators to allocate resources on the plurality of computing nodes in accordance with the modified placement policy applicable to each agent allocator of the plurality of agent allocators.
Claim 1 of Patent ‘559 does not disclose the first placement policy being associated with allocating a first type of resource on computing nodes within the computing zone and allocating resource of the first type of resource. Sakata discloses a first placement policy being associated with allocating a first type of resource on computing nodes within a computing zone and allocating resource of the first type of resource (para. [0039] requirements such as processing capability and capacity. para. [0040] resources… may be provided from a plurality of apparatuses or a plurality of sites. para. [0050] examples of the relaxed resource requirements include performance of the CPU, a memory size, a size of a storage, and a band of a network. para. [0061] resource requirements, constraint conditions include conditions related to a location at which the virtual network functions operate.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented Sakata’s disclosure in order to have enabled allocation of different types of resources, such as CPU, memory, and/or storage, to handle requests, and enabled a service or workload to be executed while shortening a lead time for providing a service (para. [0051]).
Claim 1 of Patent ‘559 does not recite “removing” one or more rules from the set of rules. Suhai discloses removing one or more rules for access to resources (para. [0066] “external resource” refers to a software program, application, platform, or service.. for providing an external service. para. [0079] determine if the external resource access request satisfies any external resource request rule, and can be automatically approved or rejected. para. [0145] delete existing rules from the external resource request rule set. administrator has performed one or more actions for editing, adding, and/or deleting external resource request rules). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented Suhai’s disclosure because claim 1 of Patent ‘559 discloses “discounting” one or more rules, which includes definitions of “a reduction” and “to make a deduction,” and the action of removing a rule would satisfy a discounting of a rule. Furthermore, it would have been beneficial to provide the capability to alter rules to modify access to resources.
Claim 2-3, 5-11 are unpatentable over claims 1-8, 10-11 of Patent ‘559.
Claim 4 is substantially disclosed by claim 8 of Patent ‘559. Claim 8 does not specify that the second number of placement conflicts is less than second threshold number of placement conflicts. However, the claims disclose decreasing one or more restrictions when the number of placement conflicts exceeds a threshold number, and separately, not decreasing one or more restrictions from the placement policy for the second set of placement requests. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have recognized that since the restrictions associated with the second set of placement requests are not decreased, “without decreasing one or more restrictions from the placement policy for the second set of placement requests,” the second number of placement conflicts is less than second threshold number of placement conflicts. In other words, there is an insufficient number of placement conflicts to cause the decreasing of one or more restrictions.
Claim 13 is unpatentable over claims 12-14 of Patent ‘559. The differences between the claims are obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the same reasons as applied to claim 1 above.
Claims 14-19 are unpatentable over claims 4, 12-16 of Patent ‘559.
Claims 20-21 are unpatentable over claims 17, 19-20 of Patent ‘559. The differences between the claims are obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art for the same reasons as applied to claim 1 above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 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 Joshua Joo whose telephone number is 571 272-3966. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7am-3pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, 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, Oscar Louie can be reached on 571 270-1684. 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.
/JOSHUA JOO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
