DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Appeal Brief filed on 10/27/2025.
The finality of the office action mailed on 5/22/2025 is withdrawn.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
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 .
Prosecution Reopened
In view of the Appeal Brief filed on 10/27/2025, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New ground(s) of rejection are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/APRIL Y BLAIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2196
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 – 3, 6 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of mental activities without significantly more.
Claim 1:
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “inspecting, in response to a request that includes a description of a workload received from a workload initiator, runtime utilization metrics of a plurality of processing resources,” and “generating, by a resource manager and based on the utilization metrics and one or more policies, a workload allocation recommendation,” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. For instance, a person can mentally, through observation, inspect information or data of the utilization of computer resources, and generate recommendations for efficient workload allocation based on the inspection. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element “the plurality of processing resources includes at least a first graphics processing unit (GPU) and a second GPU” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The additional element “provided by the resource manager to the workload initiator” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely transmitting data. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “the plurality of processing resources includes at least a first graphics processing unit (GPU) and a second GPU” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and for the limitation “provided by the resource manager to the workload initiator,” the courts have identified mere data transmission is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The generic recitation of use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and mere data transmission do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 2:
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “the workload allocation recommendation specifies whether to utilize the integrated GPU or the discrete GPU for executing the workload” merely recites the “recommendation” generated in claim 1, thus is also analyzed under prong 1 as a mental process. The additional element “the first GPU is an integrated GPU that is integrated with a central processing unit (CPU); and wherein the second GPU is a discrete GPU” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, similar to claim 1, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Claim 3:
Regarding claim 3, The additional element “the plurality of processing resources further includes at least one of a video encoding/decoding accelerator, an audio encoding/decoding accelerator, a display controller, a bus interface controller, and a memory subsystem controller, and wherein the resource manager and the workload initiator are both included within a system memory” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, similar to claim 1, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Claim 6:
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “identifying the runtime utilization metrics and the one or more policies based at least on the description of the workload” recites a mental process. The limitation encompasses a human mind carrying out the function of “identifying” certain information through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper.
Claim 7:
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “predicting, based on the runtime utilization metrics, a utilization impact on the plurality of processing resources in a particular workload allocation” recites a mental process. The limitation encompasses a human mind carrying out the function of “predicting” the results of the recommendation through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper.
Claim 8:
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “plurality of workload allocations is described in the one or more policies” recites a mental process since this limitation merely describes the format in which the recommendations are generated.
Claim 9:
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “scoring a plurality of workload allocations based on one or more factors specified in the one or more policies” recites a mental process. The limitation encompasses a human mind carrying out the function of “scoring” or ranking the results of the recommendation through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper.
Claim 10:
Regarding claim 10, the additional element “registering the workload initiator for a resource management notification;” and “notifying the workload initiator of resource availability in response to at least one of a change in capabilities and a change in utilization” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely storing and transmitting data, and the courts have identified merely storing and transmitting data are well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 11:
Regarding claim 11, it is the apparatus variant of claim 1 while claiming additional elements of physical components of the apparatus such as processor, computer instructions and memory. Similar to claim 1 analysis above where the “inspect” and “generate” recite mental process, the added computer hardware element in the claims do not amount to additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “computer processor”, “computer instructions” and “computer memory” are merely general-purpose computing instructions and hardware configured to implement the abstract idea of mental activities. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The generic recitation of use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, thus the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 12:
Claim 12 is the apparatus variant of claim 7 and suffers from the same deficiency, see claim 7 analyses above.
Claim 13:
Claim 13 is the apparatus variant of claim 8 and suffers from the same deficiency, see claim 8 analyses above.
Claim 14:
Claim 14 is the apparatus variant of claim 9 and suffers from the same deficiency, see claim 9 analyses above.
Claim 15:
Claim 15 is the apparatus variant of claim 10 and suffers from the same deficiency, see claim 10 analyses above.
Claim 16:
Regarding claim 16, it is the CRM variant of claim 1 while claiming additional
element of “computer program product disposed upon a non-transitory computer
readable storage medium”. Similar to claim 1 analysis above where the “inspect”
and “generate” recite mental process, the added CRM element and program instructions in the claims do not amount to additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “computer program product disposed upon a non-transitory computer readable storage medium” and “program instructions” are merely general-purpose computing instructions and hardware configured to implement the abstract idea of mental activities. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The generic recitation of use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, thus the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 17:
Claim 17 is the CRM variant of claim 7 and suffers from the same deficiency, see claim 7 analyses above.
Claim 18:
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “generate, based on the utilization metrics and one or more policies, a workload allocation recommendation is performed atomically for a plurality of streams in a workload” recites a mental process since this limitation merely describes the condition in which the recommendations are generated.
Claim 19:
Claim 19 is the CRM variant of claim 9 and suffers from the same deficiency, see claim 9 analyses above.
Claim 20:
Claim 20 is the apparatus variant of claim 7 and suffers from the same deficiency, see claim 10 analyses above.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergsma et al (US 20210089363, prior art part of IDS dated 2/9/2023, hereinafter Bergsma), in view of McLean et al (US 20140089511, hereinafter McLean).
As per claim 1, Bergsma discloses: A method of providing a service-based pipeline, the method comprising:
inspecting, in response to a request that includes a description of a workload from a workload initiator, runtime utilization metrics of a plurality of processing resources, wherein the plurality of processing resources includes at least a first graphics processing unit (GPU) and a second GPU; (Bergsma [0006]: “The method includes representing availability of the resources or usage of the resources in the distributed computing system using one or more resource tensors and receiving one or more requests for resources, each request for resources specifying resources in the distributed computing system required to satisfy a work request”; [0010]: “each request for resources specifying quantities of specific resources in the distributed computing system required to satisfy a work request”; [0032]: “From the perspective of the resource scheduler, a Cluster is, in a logical aspect, a collection of resources (e.g. resources may be CPU cores, memory, storage, network, Graphics Processing Units (GPUs), port number, software licenses etc.) that the resource scheduler must match with the distributed programs requesting resources for completion of their work (e.g. OS processes, serial/parallel batch jobs, Virtual Machines (VMs), containers, serverless functions, etc.)”; [0044]: “Requests for work may be requests to run processes on an operating system, batch jobs specified by users, or virtual machines (VMs) to run on servers, etc. Resources may include CPU Cores, Memory, Storage, Network Ports, GPUs, etc. Every computer, including all smartphones and laptops, has an OS which comprises a resource scheduler determining which processes should run at any given time”. Examiner notes that resource required specified by each of the work request is mapped to the claimed description of the workload.)
and generating, based on the utilization metrics and one or more policies, a workload allocation recommendation. (Bergsma [0045]: “The term “Scheduling Operations” can be understood as match-making or work placement being performed in scheduling. Scheduling Operations may include (i) seeing which resources have enough capacity to satisfy a request (the subset with ‘adequate’ capacity to fulfil the work request), (ii) determining which resources are the ‘best fit’ for a request, and/or (iii) “placing” a request on resources (e.g. recording in its internal data structures that the resources are now being used and are thus not available for other requests)”. Examiner notes that the match-making part of the scheduling is functional equivalent to the claimed workload allocation recommendation.)
Bergsma did not explicitly disclose:
wherein the recommendation is to be generated and provided by the resource manager to the workload initiator;
McLean teaches:
wherein the recommendation is to be generated and provided by the resource manager to the workload initiator; (McLean [0040]: “The resource manager 181 may generate the recommendation mappings”; [0022]: “In some embodiments, clients 148 may request classification iterations and/or recommendation mappings”; [0024]: “the client 148 may be notified of resource allocation changes even if no client-side changes are needed and no interruptions are expected.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of McLean into that of Bergsma in order to have the recommendation is to be provided to the workload initiator. Bergsma [0006] and [0044] teaches receiving a request from users while [0045] teaches determining work placement of the request, one of ordinary skill in the art can easily see that the recommendation calculated in the best fit for the request can be provided, by a resource manager, to be presented to user for approval first, the claimed limitation is merely the combination of known parts in the field to achieve predictable results and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 3, the combination of Bergsman and McLean further teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of processing resources further includes at least one of a video encoding/decoding accelerator, an audio encoding/decoding accelerator, a display controller, a bus interface controller, and a memory subsystem controller, and wherein the resource manager and the workload initiator are both included within a system memory. (Bergsma [0059] and McLean [0040])
As per claim 6, the combination of Bergsman and McLean further teach:
The method of claim 1 further comprising: identifying the runtime utilization metrics and the one or more policies based at least on the description of the workload. (Bergsma [0077] – [0078])
As per claim 11, it is the apparatus variant of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 16, it is the computer program product variant of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergsma and McLean, in view of Blinzer (US 20110216078).
As per claim 2, the combination of Bergsma and McLean did not teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first GPU is an integrated GPU that is integrated with a central processing unit (CPU); and wherein the second GPU is a discrete GPU, wherein the workload allocation recommendation specified whether to utilize the integrated GPU or the discrete GPU for executing the workload.
However, Blinzer teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first GPU is an integrated GPU that is integrated with a central processing unit (CPU); and wherein the second GPU is a discrete GPU, wherein the workload allocation recommendation specified whether to utilize the integrated GPU or the discrete GPU for executing the workload. (Blinzer [0007] and [0036])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Blinzer into that of Bergsma and Mukherjee in order to have the first GPU is an integrated GPU that is integrated with a central processing unit (CPU); and wherein the second GPU is a discrete GPU. Bergsma [0044] teaches the resources maybe GPUs, one of ordinary skill in the art can easily see that the claimed limitation is merely the combination of known parts in the field to achieve predictable results and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergsma and McLean, in view of Adolga et al (US 20140237472, hereinafter Adolga).
As per claim 4, the combination of Bergsma and McLean did not teach:
The method of claim 1 further comprising: exposing, to the workload initiator, an application programming interface (API) for submitting the request via an API call to the resource manager to request a recommendation allocation, wherein the description of the workload is included as one or more arguments to the API call; and providing the workload allocation recommendation to the workload initiator as a response to the API call.
However, Adolga teaches:
The method of claim 1 further comprising: exposing, to the workload initiator, an application programming interface (API) for submitting the request via an API call to the resource manager to request a recommendation allocation, wherein the description of the workload is included as one or more arguments to the API call; and providing the workload allocation recommendation to the workload initiator as a response to the API call. (Adolga figure 4 and [0034] – [0035])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Adolga into that of Bergsma and McLean in order to expose to the workload initiator, an application programming interface (API) for submitting the request via an API call to the resource manager to request a recommendation allocation, wherein the description of the workload is included as one or more arguments to the API call; and providing the workload allocation recommendation to the workload initiator as a response to the API call. McLean [0019] teaches the client may be provided with access to API to make request. Adolga has shown that the claimed limitations are merely commonly known steps to provide an API to user to initiate work requests, applicants have thus merely claimed the combination of known parts in the field to achieve predictable results and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergsma and McLean, in view of Tamura et al (US 20060174246, hereinafter Tamura).
As per claim 5, the combination of Bergsma and McLean further teach:
The method of claim 1 further comprising: providing, to the workload initiator in response to the request, the workload allocation recommendation wherein the workload initiator comprises an application, (McLean [0019] and [0040])
The combination of Bergsma and McLean did not teach:
wherein the workload is generated by the application, and wherein the application is to allocate the workload to one or more of the processing resources for execution by making a call to an operating system.
Tamura teaches:
wherein the workload is generated by the application, and wherein the application is to allocate the workload to one or more of the processing resources for execution by making a call to an operating system. (Tamura [0061] – [0062])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Tamura into that of Bergsma and McLean in order to expose to the workload initiator, an application programming interface (API) for submitting the request via an API call to the resource manager to request a recommendation allocation, wherein the description of the workload is included as one or more arguments to the API call; and providing the workload allocation recommendation to the workload initiator as a response to the API call. McLean [0019] teaches the client may be provided with access to API to make request. Adolga has shown that the claimed limitations are merely commonly known steps to provide an API to user to initiate work requests, applicants have thus merely claimed the combination of known parts in the field to achieve predictable results and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
Claim(s) 7 – 9, 12 – 14, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergsma and McLean, in view of Ahuja et al (US 20170109205, hereinafter Ahuja).
As per claim 7, the combination of Bergsma and McLean did not teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein determining, based on the utilization metrics and one or more policies, a workload allocation recommendation includes: predicting, based on the runtime utilization metrics, a utilization impact on the plurality of processing resources in a particular workload allocation.
However, Ahuja teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein determining, based on the utilization metrics and one or more policies, a workload allocation recommendation includes: predicting, based on the runtime utilization metrics, a utilization impact on the plurality of processing resources in a particular workload allocation. (Ahuja [0021])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Ahuja into that of Bergsma and McLean in order to determine based on the utilization metrics and one or more policies, a workload allocation recommendation includes: predicting, based on the runtime utilization metrics, a utilization impact on the plurality of processing resources in a particular workload allocation. Ahuja [0015] provided a motivation in support for such combination by stating “Applying this framework may result in more effective or optimal operation of a data center by predicting an impact of scheduling a new or different type of workload and using that information to optimally place the workload in the appropriate resource”. Such combination would enhance the overall appeals of all references and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 8, the combination of Bergsma, McLean and Ahuja further teach:
The method of claim 7, wherein a plurality of workload allocations is described in the one or more policies. (Ahuja [0021] – [0023])
As per claim 9, the combination of Bergsma, McLean and Ahuja further teach:
The method of claim 7, wherein generating, based on the utilization metrics and one or more policies, a workload allocation recommendation also includes: scoring a plurality of workload allocations based on one or more factors specified in the one or more policies. (Ahuja [0021])
As per claim 12, it is the apparatus variant of claim 7 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 13, it is the apparatus variant of claim 8 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 14, it is the apparatus variant of claim 9 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 17, it is the computer program product variant of claim 7 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 19, it is the computer program product variant of claim 9 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 10, 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergsma and McLean, in view of Polleri et al (US 20210081842, hereinafter Polleri).
As per claim 10, Bergsma and McLean did not teach:
The method of claim 1 further comprising: registering the workload initiator for a resource management notification; and notifying the workload initiator of resource availability in response to at least one of a change in capabilities and a change in utilization.
However, Polleri teaches:
The method of claim 1 further comprising: registering the workload initiator for a resource management notification; and notifying the workload initiator of resource availability in response to at least one of a change in capabilities and a change in utilization. (Polleri [0012])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Polleri into that of Bergsma and McLean a in order to register the workload initiator for a resource management notification; and notifying the workload initiator of resource availability in response to at least one of a change in capabilities and a change in utilization. Polleri [0012] has shown that the claimed limitation is merely commonly known and used in distributed job environment to maintain QoS and thus applicant have merely claimed limitation is merely the combination of known parts in the field to achieve predictable results and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 15, it is the apparatus variant of claim 10 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 20, it is the computer program product variant of claim 10 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bergsma and McLean, in view of Singh et al (US 20200026560, hereinafter Singh).
As per claim 18, Bergsma and McLean did not teach:
The computer program product of claim 17, wherein generate, based on the utilization metrics and one or more policies, a workload allocation recommendation is performed atomically for a plurality of streams in a workload.
However, Singh teaches:
The computer program product of claim 17, wherein generate, based on the utilization metrics and one or more policies, a workload allocation recommendation is performed atomically for a plurality of streams in a workload. (Singh [0031] – [0032], [0094] and [0025])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Singh into that of Bergsma and McLean a in order to generate, based on the utilization metrics and one or more policies, a workload allocation recommendation is performed atomically for a plurality of streams in a workload. Singh has shown that the claimed limitation is merely commonly known and used in distributed job scheduling and optimization, thus the applicants have merely claimed limitation is merely the combination of known parts in the field to achieve predictable results and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim 1:
Applicant argued on page 7, last paragraph – page 8 that that McLean does not teach the claimed limitation “generating,… a workload allocation recommendation be provided by the resource manager to the workload initiator”. More specifically, applicant argued that cited McLean [0040] only “discusses recommendation mappings, but fails to teach or suggest that these mappings are to be provided to a workload initiator that requested an allocation… McLean at para. 0020 indicates that the resource manager 181 is responsible for resource allocation and resource decision, and McLean at para. 0024 indicates that allocation changes are performed automatically, and in some cases, the client 148 is not even informed of the changes that are made… Thus, the resource manager itself uses the recommendation mappings, and the cited portions of McLean fail to teach or suggest that the resource manager provides the recommendation mappings to any other entity, let alone a workload initiator that requested an allocation recommendation.”
The examiner disagrees, McLean [0040] teaches “The resource manager 181 may generate the recommendation mappings”; while [0022] teaches “In some embodiments, clients 148 may request classification iterations and/or recommendation mappings”; and [0024] teaches “the client 148 may be notified of resource allocation changes even if no client-side changes are needed and no interruptions are expected.”, It can be clearly seen that McLean teaches embodiments where the client may request the configuration mappings, which would be generated by the resource manager 181, and notify the client of allocation changes.”. Furthermore, applicant’s argument regarding that the resource manager is the using the recommendation mapping itself, and in some cases, not alert the client of changes merely argues one embodiment of the prior art not utilized by the examiner. The applicant is reminded that McLean at [0022] and [0024] clearly shows alternative embodiments where the client may request the recommendation mapping and be alerted with changes. McLean thus teach the limitation in question. The fact that McLean’s resource manager itself uses the recommendation to automatically perfor4m allocations does not take away from the fact that McLean at [0022] – [0024] also teaches the resources manager providing a client with a requested allocation recommendation.
Claim 3:
Applicant did not provide distinct arguments other than reciting the points made for claim 1, therefore the same counter arguments for claim 1 is applied here.
Claim 2:
Applicant argued on page 10 that the combination of Bergsma, McLean and Blinzer failed to teach the claimed limitation “wherein the workload allocation recommendation specified whether to utilize the integrated GPU or the discrete GPU for executing the workload” by arguing that Blinzer “fails to describe a recommendation that specifies which GPU (a discrete GPU or an integrated GPU should be used for”.
The examiner disagrees as claim 2 is rejected by the combination of Bergsma, McLean and Blinzer. Blinzer figure 2, [0007] and [0036] teaches the setup of the first resource being an integrated GPU and the second resource being the discreet GPU, and the GPU(s) selected based on power consumption target and performances goal. Bergsma and McLean already teach creating a recommendation, thus when combined with the teaching of Blinzer, would result in the recommendation generated specifying which of the discreet and integrated GPU to be utilized, thus the combination of prior art teach the claimed limitations of claim 2 in full.
Claim 4:
Applicant did not provide distinct arguments other than reciting the points made for claim 1, therefore the same counter arguments for claim 1 is applied here.
Claim 5:
Applicant did not provide distinct arguments other than reciting the points made for claim 1, therefore the same counter arguments for claim 1 is applied here.
Claim 18:
Applicant argued on pages 13 - 14 that the combination of Bergsma. McLean and Singh failed to teach claimed limitations of claim 18, more specifically, none of the prior art cited teaches the “a workload allocation recommendation is performed atomically for a plurality of streams in a workload”.
The examiner disagrees. Singh [0025] teaches “The workload detection and classification model is trained by the foregoing information to facilitate dynamic classification of workloads running on virtualized entities in the distributed virtualization system based at least in part on the then-current I/O activity trace data”. [0031] – [0032] teaches workload comprises activity streams that affinity can be determined in order to aid in resource allocation decision. It can be seen that Singh teaches performing detection and classification and recommendation dynamically on streams of workload, which is functional equivalent to the claimed performing workload allocation recommendation “atomically” for the streams of a workload.
Rest of the claims:
No distinct arguments are made.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES M SWIFT whose telephone number is (571)270-7756. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 7PM.
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, April Blair can be reached at 5712701014. 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.
/CHARLES M SWIFT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2196