DETAILED ACTION
This action responds to Application No. 19/191148, filed 04/28/2025.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/16/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 7, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The limitation “prior to performing, by a node of the plurality of nodes a disaggregated workflow relating to a DEFS of the plurality of DEFSs associated with the node, a phase of processing of the disaggregated workflow, obtaining information regarding respective states of one or more other of the plurality of DEFSs by retrieving one or more attributes from one or more DEFS labels corresponding to the one or more other of the plurality of DEFSs” is indefinite, as it contains clauses with ambiguous references. For instance, one could interpret “prior to performing, by a node of the plurality of nodes” as referring to “obtaining information” prior to performing a task; under this interpretation, however, it is ambiguous what the language describing that task means, as the language “a disaggregated workflow relating to a DEFS of the plurality of DEFSs associated with the node, a phase of processing of the disaggregated workflow” appears to both describe both performing an entire disaggregated workflow but separately, and with no relational language, describing a specific phase of that workflow. Alternatively, it could be interpreted as prior to performing a disaggregated workflow, performing 1) a phase of processing of the disaggregated workflow and 2) obtaining information. However, under this interpretation, it is unclear how performing a phase of processing of the disaggregated workflow could occur before processing the disaggregated workflow of which it is a part. Finally, Fig. 10 appears to show yet another possible interpretation, showing step 1010, which discloses making the state information available prior to commencing the disaggregated workflow, and then, in subsequent step 1020, obtaining the information prior to performing a phase of processing of the disaggregated workflow. Similarly to the second interpretation, this limitation does not clearly distinguish between “commencing” the disaggregated workflow, versus “performing a phase of processing” for the disaggregated workflow, making the specified ordering of operations ambiguous. Because Examiner is unable to determine the intended meaning of this limitation, the limitation is indefinite.
Claims 2-6, 8-14, and 16-20 are rejected as being dependent upon one of claims 1, 7, and 15 above, respectively.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Lahr (US 2014/0279764 A1): Discloses tracking states for a plurality of nodes for managing workflows (¶ 41). Lee et al (US 2014/0359283 A1). Discloses dynamically extendable file systems across multiple computing nodes (¶ 65 and 80). Gavali (US 2020/0365086 A1). Discloses distributing workloads across a plurality of nodes in a distributed workload orchestration environment (¶ 2).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CRAIG S GOLDSCHMIDT whose telephone number is (571)270-3489. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Hosain Alam can be reached at 571-272-3978. 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.
/CRAIG S GOLDSCHMIDT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2132
Prosecution Insights