DETAILED ACTION
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 .
1. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 12-13, 15-16, 21-22, 24-25, 33, 38-40, and 44-47 are currently pending in this application.
Claims 1, 12, and 21 are amended as filed on 12/26/2025.
Claims 41-43 are canceled as filed on 12/26/2025.
Claims 45-47 are new as filed on 12/26/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-2, 4-5, 12-13, 15-16, 21-22, 24-25, 31, 41, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stenberg et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2020/0076709 A1), hereinafter Stenberg, in view of Lucas et al. (Patent No. US 10,560,372 B1), hereinafter Lucas, in view of Chen et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2021/0258217 A1), hereinafter Chen, in view of George et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2017/0371558 A1), hereinafter George, and in further view of Zerr et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2016/0184710 A1), hereinafter Zerr.
2. With respect to claims 1, 12, and 21, Stenberg taught a method comprising: receiving, from a terminal device, a latency requirement parameter comprising first information about a service of the user and a latency requirement that the service needs to meet (0004, where the latency assurance can be seen in 0039); and providing latency assurance for the service according to the latency requirement (0039).
However, Stenberg did not explicitly state generating, based on the latency requirement parameter and a formulation policy, a latency assurance policy used to implement a latency assurance cloud service; obtaining latency information of the cloud service, wherein the latency information indicates an actual latency of the cloud service; calculating a difference between the latency requirement that the cloud service needs to meet and the actual latency of the cloud service; generating an adjustment policy for adjusting a first resource used for the cloud service when the difference indicates that the actual latency of the cloud service does not meet the latency requirement that the cloud service needs to meet; and adjusting, according to the adjustment policy, the first resource used for the cloud service. On the other hand, Lucas did teach generating, based on the latency requirement parameter and a formulation policy, a latency assurance policy used to implement a latency assurance cloud service (13:46-63, where the latency policy adjustment can be seen in 8:39-45, and where the service is a cloud service in accordance with 2:48-50); obtaining latency information of the cloud service, wherein the latency information indicates an actual latency of the cloud service (13:46-63); calculating a difference between the latency requirement that the cloud service needs to meet and the actual latency of the cloud service (13:46-63); generating an adjustment policy for adjusting a first resource used for the cloud service when the difference indicates that the actual latency of the cloud service does not meet the latency requirement that the cloud service needs to meet (8:39-45); and adjusting, according to the adjustment policy, the first resource used for the cloud service (8:39-45). Both of the systems of Stenberg and Lucas are directed towards managing assurance policies and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Stenberg, to utilize generating an assurance policy, as taught by Lucas, in order to efficiently implement the requested requirements.
However, Stenberg did not explicitly state sending to a cloud platform, the latency assurance policy to instruct the cloud platform to provide the cloud service to the terminal device according to the latency requirement. On the other hand, Chen did teach sending to a cloud platform, the latency assurance policy to instruct the cloud platform to provide the cloud service to the terminal device according to the latency requirement (0082). Both of the systems of Stenberg and Chen are directed towards managing assurance policies and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Stenberg, to utilize transmitting an assurance policy to a cloud platform, as taught by Chen, in order to efficiently implement the requested requirements.
However, Stenberg did not explicitly state performing actions when a plurality of actual latencies within a preset duration does not meet the latency requirement that the cloud service needs to meet, wherein the plurality of actual latencies comprises processing latencies. On the other hand, George did teach performing actions when a plurality of actual latencies within a preset duration does not meet the latency requirement that the cloud service needs to meet (0086, the actual latency values), wherein the plurality of actual latencies comprises processing latencies (0045, the measured operations). Both of the systems of Stenberg and George are directed towards improving system performance and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Stenberg, to utilize actual latency determinations, as taught by George, in order to more specifically optimize the system.
However, Stenberg did not explicitly state wherein the plurality of actual latencies comprises transmission latencies and wherein the plurality of actual latencies within the preset duration does not meet the latency requirement when none of the plurality of actual latencies meets the latency requirement. On the other hand, Zerr did teach wherein the plurality of actual latencies comprises transmission latencies (0042, the transmission rates) and wherein the plurality of actual latencies within the preset duration does not meet the latency requirement when none of the plurality of actual latencies meets the latency requirement (0043, the actual measured latency fails if not within threshold, with teaches the “none” limitation under broadest reasonable interpretation. Furthermore, the plurality of measured actual latencies can be seen in 0025). Both of the systems of Stenberg and Zerr are directed towards optimizing security and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Stenberg, to utilize actual latency determinations for transmission latencies, as taught by Zerr, in order to more specifically optimize the system.
3. As for claims 2, 13, and 22, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1, 12, and 21 (respectively). In addition, Stenberg taught wherein the latency requirement parameter further comprises one or more of second information about a resource used to provide the latency assurance, third information about time used to provide the latency assurance, forcible information for providing the latency assurance, a preference formulation policy used to provide the latency assurance, or a collection period of latency information of the service (0039, the resource allocations, at least, teaches the information about a resource used limitation), and wherein the latency assurance method further comprises further providing, based on the latency requirement parameter, the latency assurance for the service (0039, where the assurance is provided).
4. As for claims 4, 15, and 24 they are rejected on the same basis as claims 3, 14, and 23 (respectively). In addition, Chen taught adjusting one or more of a network resource used for the service, a computing resource used for the service, or a storage resource used for the service (0082, where the allocation is the adjustment).
5. As for claims 5, 16, and 25, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 3, 14, and 23 (respectively). In addition, Chen taught reserving the resource for the service; or adjusting a restriction of the resource that can be used for the service (0082, where the allocation is the reservation under broadest reasonable interpretation).
6. As for claim 31, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Chen taught monitoring a latency of the cloud service provided to the terminal device by the cloud platform (0059); adjusting, based on the latency, a resource configuration of the cloud service according to the latency assurance policy (0082, where the allocation is the adjustment); and sending, to the cloud platform, the resource configuration (0082).
7. As for claim 41, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Lucas taught wherein generating the adjustment policy comprises generating the adjustment policy when a plurality of actual latencies within a preset duration does not meet the latency requirement that the cloud service needs to meet (13:46-63, where the latency policy adjustment can be seen in 8:39-45).
8. As for claim 43, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 41. In addition, Lucas taught wherein the plurality of actual latencies within the preset duration does not meet the latency requirement when a total quantity of the actual latencies that does not meet the latency requirement is above a predetermined quantity threshold (13:46-63, where the latency policy adjustment can be seen in 8:39-45, wherein the total of latencies is measured).
Claim(s) 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stenberg, in view of Lucas, in view of Chen, in view of George, in view of Zerr, and in further view of Collomb et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2008/0208653 A1), hereinafter Collomb.
9. As for claim 32, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Chen taught pre-storing a plurality of formulation policies (0008). However, Stenberg did not explicitly state simulating, according to the plurality of formulation policies, yields after applying the plurality of formulation policies; and selecting, based on the yields, the formulation policy. On the other hand, Collomb did teach simulating, according to the plurality of formulation policies, yields after applying the plurality of formulation policies; and selecting, based on the yields, the formulation policy (0043-0044). Both of the systems of Stenberg and Collomb are directed towards optimizing computer networks/infrastructure and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Stenberg, to utilize simulating configuration changes, as taught by Collomb, in order to maximize the system’s efficiency.
Claim(s) 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stenberg, in view of Lucs, in view of Chen, in view of George, in view of Zerr, and in further view of Sharma et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2019/0363954 A1), hereinafter Sharma.
10. As for claim 33, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. However, Chen did not explicitly state providing, to the terminal device, a graphical user interface, wherein the graphical user interface is configured to receive a service identifier, a service object identifier, and a latency upper limit value, and wherein receiving the latency requirement parameter comprises receiving, from the graphical user interface, the service identifier, the service object identifier, and the latency upper limit value. On the other hand, Sharma did teach providing, to the terminal device, a graphical user interface, wherein the graphical user interface is configured to receive a service identifier, a service object identifier, and a latency upper limit value, and wherein receiving the latency requirement parameter comprises receiving, from the graphical user interface, the service identifier, the service object identifier, and the latency upper limit value (0014, where the GUI can be seen in 0078). Both of the systems of Chen and Sharma are directed to QoS management and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Chen, to utilize a graphical user interface that specifically allows a user to enter desired requirements, as it could be argued that the GUI would’ve been required at some point in order to perform the functions. However, Sharma provides a more explicit showing the claimed limitation.
Claim(s) 39-40 and 45-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stenberg, in view of Von, in view of Dilley, in view of George, in view of Zerr, and in further view of Watt et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2021/0099542 A1), hereinafter Watt.
12. As for claims 39 and 45, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 12 (respectively). However, the combination of Stenberg and Dilley did not explicitly state wherein the configuration for implementing the cloud service further comprises a number of cores of each of the processors and a memory size of each of the processors to implement the cloud service. On the other hand, Watt did teach wherein the configuration for implementing the cloud service further comprises a number of cores of each of the processors and a memory size of each of the processors to implement the cloud service (0017). Both of the systems of Dilley and Watt are directed towards managing the provisioning of resources and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Dilley, to utilize specifying the number of cores and memory per processor, as taught by Watt, in order to efficiently implement the user’s desired system.
13. As for claims 40 and 46, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 39 and 45 (respectively). In addition, Dilley taught wherein the bandwidth limits comprise bandwidth limits of ports of the virtual machines to implement the cloud service (21:18-21).
Claim(s) 44 and 47 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stenberg, in view of Lucas, in view of Chen, and in further view of Official Notice.
15. As for claims 44 and 47, they are rejected on the same basis as claim 1 and 12 (respectively). However, Lucas did not explicitly state pre-charging for latency assurance; and performing, based on actual usage of a final resource, settlement for the latency assurance. On the other hand, business strategies, such as charging for usage were well known and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Stenberg, to utilize charging strategies for actual usage, in order to efficiently bill clients for their usage.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
16. The applicant’s argues on page 17, with respect to official notice, appear to be directed towards the limitations that were previously found in claim 42 and are presently amended into the independent claims. Accordingly, the applicant did not appear to challenge the official notice taken for claim 44 and thus, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH L GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-3730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 10:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Nicholas R. Taylor can be reached at 571 272-3889. 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.
/JOSEPH L GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443