DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. In response to the Office action mailed on 10/23/2025, the applicants have filed a response: claims 1, 6, 8, 10, 11 and 16 - 19 have been amended and claims 5 and 15 have been canceled. Claims 1 – 4, 6 – 14 and 16 - 23 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 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.
4. Claims 1 – 4, 6 – 14 and 16 - 23 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 recites a method, comprising: predicting for a future time period, by one or more processors using a model trained with historical time interrupt data, a count of a number of delays in occurrences of a timer interrupt scheduled for a virtual processor of a virtual machine executing an application; comparing, by the one or more processors, the predicted count of the number of delays with a threshold established for the time period, wherein the threshold is dynamically determined based on a tolerance level; and executing, by the one or more processors, a process to migrate the application to a second one or more processors based at least on the comparison of the predicted count of the number of delays with the threshold.
The limitations, as drafted, describe a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. The abstract idea limitations are “predicting for a future time period …,” “comparing … the count …“ in Prong I step 2A. Other limitations including “executing … a process …” and “… by one or more processors …” are considered pre/post-activity solutions for receiving a state of performance information and performing an action which is merely an applied application which insignificantly amounts to a judicial exception. Thus, these claims are directing to abstract idea under 35 USC 101.
There is nothing in the claim elements to preclude the steps from practically being performed in the mind. All of the non-abstract limitations are pre/post-activity solutions for getting/obtaining/manipulating/displaying data without significantly more. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the components in the determining step are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of receiving information, executing a function and making a decision) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Additionally, the steps of “executing … a process …” and “… by one or more processors …” are pre/post-activity solutions as gathering/manipulating data that are insignificant under Prong II step 2A and 2B. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network) as noted in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
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 element of using a computer to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible. Independent claims 11 and 19 are rejected on the same basis as independent claim 1. Additionally, dependent claims 2 – 4, 6 - 8, 10 - 14, 16, 17, 18, 20 and 21 - 23 are similarly rejected as being directed to an abstract idea since these claims are either further detailing the abstract idea by analyzing/processing the data or the elements are insignificant. More specifically, the dependent claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per claims 2, 12 and 20, determining, by the one or more processors, the threshold based on a time of a day associated with the time period recites an additional mental process.
As per claims 3 and 13, determining, by the one or more processors, the threshold based on the application executed by the virtual machine recites an additional mental process.
As per claims 4 and 14, determining, by the one or more processors, the threshold based on a model trained using historical performance data associated with one or more virtual processors of one or more virtual machines executed by the one or more processors is an additional element of data gathering which is insignificant extra solution activity as explained above.
As per claim 6 and 16, determining, by the one or more processors, a second count of a number of delays within the time period in occurrences of a second timer interrupt scheduled for a second virtual processor of a second virtual machine recites an additional mental process; and migrating, by the one or more processors based on the comparison of the predicted count of the number of delays with the threshold, the application to the second virtual machine recites generic computer components for applying the abstract idea.
As per claim 7, wherein the second virtual machine is hosted by the one or more processors recites generic computer components for applying the abstract idea.
As per claims 8 and 17, launching, by the one or more processors, a second virtual machine responsive to the predicted count of the number of delays greater than the threshold; and migrating, by the one or more processors, the application to the second virtual machine recite generic computer components for applying the abstract idea.
As per claim 9, migrating, by the one or more processors, the virtual machine to the second one or more processors recites generic computer components for applying the abstract idea.
As per claims 10 and 18, instructing, by the one or more processors responsive to the predicted count of the number of delays greater than or equal to the threshold, a bus adapter for the virtual machine to perform at least one of: prioritizing, by the bus adapter, transmission and reception of protocol control packets, or increasing, by the bus adapter, a queue depth of the bus adapter recites generic computer components for applying the abstract idea.
As per claims 21 – 23, wherein the process to migrate the application to the second one or more processors occurs in real time and further comprises: prioritizing one or more control packer transmissions recites generic computer components for applying the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
7. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
8. Claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 11, 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guchhait et al. (U.S. Publication 2023/0031963) (Guchhait hereinafter) and Waldspurger et al. (U.S. Patent 7,945,908) (Waldspurger hereinafter) in view of Yablokov (U.S. Patent 8,631,492) (Yablokov hereinafter) and Ji et al. (U.S. Patent 8,667,500) (Ji hereinafter).
9. As per claim 1, Guchhait teaches a method, comprising:
predicting for a future time period, by one or more processors using a model trained with historical timer interrupt data, a count of a number of delays in occurrences of a timer interrupt scheduled for a virtual processor of a virtual machine executing an application [“As illustrated in FIG. 6, in accordance with an embodiment, during each run, the system enables an analysis of various available counters and choice of an appropriate set of counters to monitor. By collecting data from such counters and monitoring performance degradation, a predictive model is built using machine learning techniques … The score provides a measure or otherwise determines, for example a percentage drop in performance, each of the virtual machines placed on the hypervisor socket will potentially experience,” ¶ 0078;; percentage drop in performance mapped to count of the number of delays; “the system generates a score value that provides a predicted measure of performance drop which affected virtual machines may experience at a particular point in time, due to activity of neighboring virtual machines on one or more sockets of the hypervisor,” ¶ 0116].
Guchhait does not explicitly disclose but Waldspurger discloses comparing, by the one or more processors, the predicted count of the number of delays with a threshold established for the time period [“the system will implement some existing policy for dealing with backlogged interrupts. This policy may simply be “null.” that is, no policy at all, which means that accumulated interrupts are simply ignored, that is, dropped. In other cases, some software mechanism (such as the body of code 315) is included to implement a delivery policy of shortening the period between timer interrupts. By way of example only, it is assumed here that such an existing catch-up mechanism is included; the invention works just as well where the policy is to drop accumulated interrupts,” col. 8, lines 47 – 56; backlogged interrupts associated with late timer interrupts; “When the number of pending catch-up interrupts exceeds some threshold, they may therefore simply be dropped,” col. 11, lines 46 – 47].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Guchhait and Waldspurger available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of performance estimation of virtual machine execution as disclosed by Guchhait to include the capability of improving the timing of virtual machine execution as taught by Waldspurger, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system efficiency by identifying potential future degradations associated with system resources.
Guchhait and Waldspurger do not explicitly disclose but Yablokov discloses wherein the threshold is dynamically determined based on a tolerance level [“the computing capacity determining tool 244 examines the process list and compares a knowledge base of popular programs (or their processes) against the most resource-intensive programs or processes currently running, and adjusts the threshold dynamically based on a pre-associated level of user sensitivity for each of the primary currently-running programs or processes,” col. 11, lines 29 – 36; sensitivity mapped to tolerance].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Guchhait, Waldspurger and Yablokov available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of performance estimation of virtual machine execution as disclosed by Guchhait and Waldspurger to include the capability of dynamic management of resource utilization as taught by Yablokov, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system efficiency by identifying sensitivities associated with system resources.
Guchhait, Waldspurger and Yablokov do not explicitly disclose but Ji discloses executing, by the one or more processors, a process to migrate the application to a second one or more processors based at least on the comparison of the predicted count of the number of delays with the threshold [“overall imbalance is compared to a threshold to determine if a process should be migrated,” col. 5, lines 42 – 44; “FIG. 6 illustrates a method for balancing processes in a cluster of computer systems, according to one embodiment of the present invention. In one embodiment, the method is executed by a cluster supervisor 702. The method can be executed based on the overall imbalance, in response to the expiration of an event counter (such as a timer), or in response to another event,” col. 11, lines 19 – 25; counter/timer associated with overall imbalance mapped to count of delays].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Guchhait, Waldspurger, Yablokov and Ji available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of performance estimation of virtual machine execution as disclosed by Guchhait, Waldspurger and Yablokov to include the capability of dynamic determination of resource availability as taught by Ji, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system usage and efficiency by identifying migration candidates for degraded virtual machines.
10. As per claim 6, Waldspurger, Yablokov and Ji teach the method of claim 1. Waldspurger further teaches wherein the process comprises: determining, by the one or more processors, a second count of a number of delays within the time period in occurrences of a second timer interrupt scheduled for a second virtual processor of a second virtual machine [“If there is at least one late timer interrupt, then the next scheduled timer interrupt is delivered before the next guest instruction executes,” col. 9, lines 20 – 22; “The driver 810-0 periodically polls for the presence of backlogged interrupts using the Query command,” col. 9, lines 50 – 51; “the system will implement some existing policy for dealing with backlogged interrupts … (Note that there is typically a separate timer interrupt for each VCPU),” col. 8, lines 47 - 62; periodic polling for backlogged interrupts suggests determination of the number of delays within a time period].
Ji further teaches executing, by the one or more processors, a process to migrate the application to a second one or more processors based at least on the comparison of the predicted count of the number of delays with the threshold [“overall imbalance is compared to a threshold to determine if a process should be migrated,” col. 5, lines 42 – 44; “FIG. 6 illustrates a method for balancing processes in a cluster of computer systems, according to one embodiment of the present invention. In one embodiment, the method is executed by a cluster supervisor 702. The method can be executed based on the overall imbalance, in response to the expiration of an event counter (such as a timer), or in response to another event,” col. 11, lines 19 – 25; counter/timer associated with overall imbalance mapped to count of delays].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Guchhait, Waldspurger and Ji available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of performance estimation of virtual machine execution as disclosed by Guchhait and Waldspurger to include the capability of dynamic determination of resource availability as taught by Ji, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system usage and efficiency by identifying migration candidates for degraded virtual machines.
11. As per claim 7, Guchhait, Waldspurger, Yablokov and Ji teach the method of claim 6. Ji further teaches wherein the second virtual machine is hosted by the one or more processors [“As shown in FIG. 2, server 210a, server 210b and server 210c each have applications executing on them: application 230a, application 230b, and application 230c, respectively (collectively, “applications 230”). For example, each of applications 230 can be a set of virtual machines, each running an instance of an operating system and executing various application software,” col. 6, lines 44 – 50].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Guchhait, Waldspurger, Yablokov and Ji available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of performance estimation of virtual machine execution as disclosed by Guchhait, Waldspurger and Yablokov to include the capability of dynamic determination of resource availability as taught by Ji, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system usage and efficiency by identifying migration candidates for degraded virtual machines.
12. As per claim 9, Guchhait, Waldspurger, Yablokov and Ji teach the method of claim 1. Ji further teaches migrating, by the one or more processors, the virtual machine to the second one or more processors [“the cluster Supervisor 702 can initiate a migration of a process from a first computer system to a second computer system,” col. 7, lines 19 – 21].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Guchhait, Waldspurger, Yablokov and Ji available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of performance estimation of virtual machine execution as disclosed by Guchhait, Waldspurger and Yablokov to include the capability of dynamic determination of resource availability as taught by Ji, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system usage and efficiency by identifying migration candidates for degraded virtual machines.
13. As per claim 11, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 11 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
14. As per claim 16, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 6. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6 above.
15. As per claim 19, it is a media claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
16. Claims 2, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guchhait, Waldspurger, Yablokov and Ji in further view of Araujo et al. (U.S. Patent 8,806,480) (Araujo hereinafter).
17. As per claim 2, Guchhait, Waldspurger, Yablokov and Ji teach the method of claim 1. Guchhait, Waldspurger, Yablokov and Ji do not explicitly disclose but Araujo discloses determining, by the one or more processors, the threshold based on a time of a day associated with the time period [“set the threshold amount of time based on a determined time of day,” cl. 4].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Guchhait, Waldspurger, Yablokov, Ji and Araujo available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of performance estimation of virtual machine execution as disclosed by Guchhait, Waldspurger, Yablokov and Ji to include the capability of smart virtual machine migration as taught by Araujo, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system usage and efficiency by identifying threshold targets for virtual machine performance determination.
18. As per claim 12, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
19. As per claim 20, it is a media claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2 above.
20. Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guchhait, Waldspurger, Yablokov and Ji in further view of Peng et al. (U.S. Publication 2022/0357464) (Peng hereinafter).
21. As per claim 3, Guchhait, Waldspurger, Yablokov and Ji teach the method of claim 1. Guchhait, Waldspurger, Yablokov and Ji do not explicitly disclose but Peng discloses determining, by the one or more processors, the threshold based on the application executed by the virtual machine [“the threshold may be determined based on application type,” ¶ 0029].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Guchhait, Waldspurger, Yablokov, Ji and Peng available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of performance estimation of virtual machine execution as disclosed by Guchhait, Waldspurger, Yablokov and Ji to include the capability of smart virtual machine migration as taught by Peng, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system usage and efficiency by identifying threshold for performance determination.
22. As per claim 13, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 3. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
23. Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guchhait, Waldspurger, Yablokov and Ji in further view of Kondaveeti et al. (U.S. Patent 9,244,711) (Kondaveeti hereinafter).
24. As per claim 4, Guchhait, Waldspurger, Yablokov and Ji teach the method of claim 1. Guchhait, Waldspurger, Yablokov and Ji do not explicitly disclose but Kondaveeti discloses determining, by the one or more processors, the threshold based on a model trained using historical performance data associated with one or more virtual processors of one or more virtual machines executed by the one or more processors [“Using statistical modeling techniques to predict virtual machine capacity needs is disclosed. In various embodiments, the respective values of various metrics indicative of virtual machine health, utilization, etc. are reported and used to build multivariate time series that describe the state of the virtual machine for corresponding time periods, for example hourly (t=1 to 24) over a number of days (d) in a “training” or other observation period. The multivariate time series are used to build a forecasting model for each of the respective time periods (e.g., t=1 based on metrics as observed for t=1 over days d=1, 2, 3, etc.) Virtual machine metrics observed in the training period are used to determine alert thresholds,” col. 2, lines 7 – 18; observed virtual machine metrics mapped to historical performance data].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Guchhait, Waldspurger, Yablokov, Ji and Kondaveeti available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of performance estimation of virtual machine execution as disclosed by Guchhait, Waldspurger, Yablokov and Ji to include the capability of virtual machine capacity planning as taught by Kondaveeti, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system usage and efficiency by identifying thresholds for performance determination based on historical data.
25. As per claim 14, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 4. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4 above.
29. Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guchhait, Waldspurger, Yablokov and Ji in further view of Cropper et al. (U.S. Publication 2017/0063722) (Cropper hereinafter).
30. As per claim 8, Guchhait, Waldspurger, Yablokov and Ji teach the method of claim 1. Guchhait, Waldspurger, Yablokov and Ji do not explicitly disclose but Cropper discloses launching, by the one or more processors, a second virtual machine responsive to the predicted count of the number of delays greater than the threshold; and migrating, by the one or more processors, the application to the second virtual machine [“If resource usage of a container on one virtual machine is exceeding some defined threshold, the cloud management software may initiate a container live migration of the container to another virtual machine in the container cluster or create a new virtual machine in one of the hosts in the container cluster host group and use the container live migration to move the container into the newly created container host,” ¶ 0017].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Guchhait, Waldspurger, Yablokov, Ji and Cropper available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of performance estimation of virtual machine execution as disclosed by Guchhait, Waldspurger, Yablokov and Ji to include the capability of virtual machine migration facilitation as taught by Cropper, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system usage and efficiency by streamlining the creation of migration targets.
31. As per claim 17, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 8. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 8 above.
32. Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guchhait, Waldspurger, Yablokov and Ji in further view of Bharadwaj et al. (U.S. Publication 2019/0042110) (Bharadwaj hereinafter).
33. As per claim 10, Guchhait, Waldspurger, Yablokov and Ji teach the method of claim 1. Guchhait, Waldspurger, Yablokov and Ji do not explicitly disclose but Bharadwaj discloses instructing, by the one or more processors responsive to the predicted count of the number of delays greater than or equal to the threshold, a bus adapter for the virtual machine to perform at least one of: prioritizing, by the bus adapter, transmission and reception of protocol control packets, or increasing, by the bus adapter, a queue depth of the bus adapter [“Congestion Isolation is an existing mechanism used in slow drain situations where devices in the quarantine list are classified into a low priority lane in the network, thereby insulating the entire network from degradation. Manual intervention policy is an alerting mechanism that relies on the server administrator to make intelligent tuning of devices identified by the algorithm. End device tuning may include changing parameters like 110 operations per second (IOPS) of an application hosted on the end device to smoothen out the IO spikes, queue depth of a host bus adapter (HBA) on a switch port, increasing B2B buffers available on the HBA/switch port, adding additional HBAs or converged network adapters (CNAs), and so on,” ¶ 0075].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Guchhait, Waldspurger, Yablokov, Ji and Bharadwaj available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of performance estimation of virtual machine execution as disclosed by Guchhait, Waldspurger, Yablokov and Ji to include the capability of managing throughput delays as taught by Bharadwaj, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system usage and efficiency by using bus adapter techniques commonly applied in the art.
34. As per claim 18, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 10. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 10 above.
35. Claim 21 - 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guchhait, Waldspurger, Yablokov and Ji in further view of Masputra et al. (U.S. Publication 2013/0201996) (Masputra hereinafter).
36. As per claim 21, Guchhait, Waldspurger, Yablokov and Ji teach the method of claim 1. Ji further teaches wherein the process to migrate the application to the second one or more processors occurs in real time [“overall imbalance is compared to a threshold to determine if a process should be migrated,” col. 5, lines 42 – 44; “FIG. 6 illustrates a method for balancing processes in a cluster of computer systems, according to one embodiment of the present invention. In one embodiment, the method is executed by a cluster supervisor 702. The method can be executed based on the overall imbalance, in response to the expiration of an event counter (such as a timer), or in response to another event,” col. 11, lines 19 – 25; migration based on responses to events suggests a real-time process].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Guchhait, Waldspurger, Yablokov and Ji available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of performance estimation of virtual machine execution as disclosed by Guchhait, Waldspurger and Yablokov to include the capability of dynamic determination of resource availability as taught by Ji, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system usage and efficiency by identifying migration candidates for degraded virtual machines.
Guchhait, Waldspurger, Yablokov and Ji do not explicitly disclose but Masputra discloses further comprises: prioritizing one or more control packet transmissions [“wherein packets are scheduled for transmission according to the packet service classifications and wherein network control packets are prioritized for transmission above all other packet service classifications,” ¶ 0010].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Guchhait, Waldspurger, Yablokov, Ji and Masputra available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the capability of performance estimation of virtual machine execution as disclosed by Guchhait, Waldspurger, Yablokov and Ji to include the capability of prioritizing packet transmission as taught by Masputra, thereby providing a mechanism to enhance system usage and efficiency by enhancing network queueing.
37. As per claim 22, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 21. Thus, claim 22 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 21 above.
38. As per claim 23, it is a media claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 21. Thus, claim 23 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 21 above.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
39. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
40. Applicant argues on page 1 and 2 that the “limitations of claim 1 are not merely an alleged mental process” without explanation or support other than a specification reference of potential improvement of how a virtualized computing environment operates. Applicant ignores the detailed analysis of each of the claim limitations as well as the claim as a whole that are recited in the subject Office Action.
41. Regarding applicant’s arguments om page 3 and 4 that the claimed limitations are not generic in nature, the two limitations applicant identifies – “predicting for a future time period … using a model trained with historical time interrupt data …” and “executing … a process to migrate the application …” are both generic steps consisting of invoking a pre-trained model to produce a result and moving an application to an alternate host.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
42. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
43. Applicant argues on page 5 that Guchhait does not teach or suggest “executing … a progress (Sic) to migrate the application” based on the recited prediction. However, Guchhait is clearly not cited as disclosing this claim limitation, either in the subject Office Action or as recited above. Additionally, Guchhait does not limit degradation prediction “at the time of placement,” but includes other scenarios as cited above to include other particular points in time.
Conclusion
44. 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.
45. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-5285. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:30 pm.
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, Chat C Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/WILLIAM C WOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 2193
/Chat C Do/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193