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 .
Claims 1 – 20 are pending for examination. Claims 1 – 2, 4 – 5, 10 – 12, and 16 - 20 are amended.
Examiner’s Note
The prior art rejection below cites particular paragraphs, columns, and/or line numbers in the references for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 - 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As to claim 1, lines 10, 13 and 16, “the computing device” has improper antecedent basis;
As to claims 2 – 11, they are objected as their objected independent claim.
As to claim 12, lines 10, 11, 14 and 18, “the computing device” has improper antecedent basis.
As to claims 13 – 16, they are objected as their objected independent claim.
As to claim 17, lines 10, 11, 14 and 16, “the computing device” has improper antecedent basis.
As to claims 18 – 20, they are objected as their objected independent claim.
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 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
As to claim 1, the claim recites
1. A method of dynamically creating a datacenter of a plurality of datacenters in geographic proximity to one or more applications, the method comprising:
receiving an indication of a contribution of computing resources from each of a plurality of computing devices in proximity to a geographic area connected to a communication network in a multi-access edge computing environment;
based on the contribution of computing resources, determining a device ranking for each computing device of the plurality of computing devices; (C)
based on the device ranking of the computing device of the plurality of computing devices, determining that the computing device of the plurality of computing devices meets at least one condition for dynamically creating a new datacenter of the plurality of datacenters in proximity to the geographic area, wherein the computing device of the plurality of computing devices represents a mobile computing device that is located in proximity to the geo-graphic area and connects wirelessly to the communication network in the multi-access edge computing environment;
federating the computing device of the plurality the of computing devices and one or more other computing devices of the plurality of computing devices to dynamically create the new datacenter of the plurality of datacenters in in proximity to the geographic area, wherein the new datacenter of the plurality of datacenters in comprises shared computing resources of the federated of computing device and the one or more other computing devices;
based on the device rankings of the federated subset of computing devices, assigning a datacenter ranking to the datacenter; and
based on the datacenter ranking, deploying one or more workloads of the one or more applications onto the shared computing resources of the new datacenter of the plurality of datacenters.
Step 1: Thus, the claim is directed to a process which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A:
Prong I: the limitations “based on the contribution of computing resources, determining a device ranking for each computing device of the plurality of computing devices;
based on the device ranking of the computing device of the plurality of computing devices, determining that the computing device of the plurality of computing devices meets at least one condition for dynamically creating a new datacenter of the plurality of datacenters in proximity to the geographic area, wherein the computing device of the plurality of computing devices represents a mobile computing device that is located in proximity to the geo-graphic area and connects wirelessly to the communication network in the multi-access edge computing environment” and “based on the device rankings of the federated subset of computing devices, assigning a datacenter ranking to the datacenter” are all functions that can be reasonably performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion.
Prong II: the additional element “receiving an indication of a contribution of computing resources from each of a plurality of computing devices in proximity to a geographic area connected to a communication network in a multi-access edge computing environment” is mere data gathering which the courts have held to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The additional elements “federating the computing device of the plurality the of computing devices and one or more other computing devices of the plurality of computing devices to dynamically create the new datacenter of the plurality of datacenters in in proximity to the geographic area, wherein the new datacenter of the plurality of datacenters in comprises shared computing resources of the federated of computing device and the one or more other computing devices” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The additional elements “A method of dynamically creating a datacenter of a plurality of datacenters in geographic proximity to one or more applications” and “based on the datacenter ranking, deploying one or more workloads of the one or more applications onto the shared computing resources of the new datacenter of the plurality of datacenters” merely link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, thus does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Step 2B: the additional element the additional element “receiving an indication of a contribution of computing resources from each of a plurality of computing devices in proximity to a geographic area connected to a communication network in a multi-access edge computing environment” is mere data gathering which the courts have held to be insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The additional elements “federating the computing device of the plurality the of computing devices and one or more other computing devices of the plurality of computing devices to dynamically create the new datacenter of the plurality of datacenters in in proximity to the geographic area, wherein the new datacenter of the plurality of datacenters in comprises shared computing resources of the federated of computing device and the one or more other computing devices” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The additional element “A method of dynamically creating a datacenter of a plurality of datacenters in geographic proximity to one or more applications” and “based on the datacenter ranking, deploying one or more workloads of the one or more applications onto the shared computing resources of the new datacenter of the plurality of datacenters” merely link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, thus does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.05(h).
Thus, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
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- 20 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.
As to claim 1,
Lines 1 and 18 - 19, “creating a datacenter” in line 1 to be – creating a new datacenter – to be consistent with limitation “a new datacenter” in line 18 – 19. And therefore, “a new datacenter” should be – the new datacenter --.
line 8, “each computing device of the plurality of computing device” would mean all of the computing devices;
line 10, the limitation “the computing device of the plurality of computing device” would mean only one of the computing devices. Examiner wonder which computing device of “each computing device” the limitation refers to? As best, for examination purpose, examiner treats the limitations as -- each computing device of the plurality of computing device --.
Line 16, “federating the computing device of the plurality of computing devices and one or more other computing devices of the plurality of computing devices” is confusing. For examiner purpose, examiner treats the limitations as – federating each computing device of the plurality devices and one or more other computing devices --.
Lines 21 – 22, limitation “base on the device rankings of the federated computing device and the one or more other computing devices” is not clearly understood. After federating step in lines 16 – 17, the federated computing device should comprise of “each of each computing device of the plurality devices and one or more other computing devices”.
As to claims 2 - 11, they are rejected as their independent claim.
As to claims 3, line 2, “the datacenter” refers to “a datacenter” in line 1 of claim 1 or “a new datacenter” in line 11 – 12 of claim 1.
As to claim 12, see rejection for claim 1 above.
As to claims 13 – 16, they are rejected as their independent claim.
As to claims 13, line 2, “the cloudlet” refers to “a cloudlet” in line 1 of claim 1 or “a new cloudlet” in line 11 – 12 of claim 1.
As to claim 17, see rejection for claim 1 above.
As to claims 18 - 20, they are rejected as their independent claim.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1 - 2, 7 – 12 and 16 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahman et al., (US PUB 2023/0061112 hereinafter Rahman) in view of Singh, (US PAT 10,326,830).
Rahman reference was cited in previous office action.
As to claim 1, Rahman teaches a method of dynamically creating a datacenter (“…on-demand dynamic cloudlet instantiation…” para. 0015) and (“…A cloudlet can be perceived as a mobility-enhanced small-scale cloud datacenter…” para. 0018) of a plurality of datacenters in geographic proximity (“... the deployment of cloudlets in near proximity to a device wherein the cloudlet acts as a miniature cloud or a combination of both, can be considered as a “fog” comprising a plurality of cloudlets, wherein the cloudlets can be referred to as “fog nodes.” Para. 0017) to one or more applications (“…the instantiation of the dynamic on-demand cloudlet node can change or modify an operational parameter of the small cell device by adjusting an azimuth value associated with an antenna of the small cell device; the instantiation of the dynamic on-demand cloudlet node can modify or change an operation parameter of the small cell device by changing or adjusting a broadcast power value associated with transmission power used by the small cell device to transmit data packets within the group of small cell devices” para. 0030. Note: application running on devices), the method comprising:
receiving an indication of a contribution of computing resources from each of a plurality of computing devices (“…data (e.g., QoS metrics) received from 5G small cell grouping 104, can detect a traffic surge…” para. 0053) in proximity to a geographic area (“…where the group of small cell devices is a first group of small cell devices, the first group of small cell devices and a second group of small cell devices can be geographically proximate to each other…” para. 0031 and 0047) connected to a communication network in a multi-access edge computing environment (“The cloud-fog-edge architecture can provide numerous benefits. A cloudlet can be perceived as a mobility-enhanced small-scale cloud datacenter that can be located at an edge of the Internet, and a cloudlet fog...” para. 0018);
based on the contribution of computing resources, determining a device ranking for each computing device of the plurality of computing devices (“…in response to receiving QoS data/metrics from the various small cell devices associated with the collection of 5G small cell devices 104, can collate/order/rank the QoS data/metrics, based for example, on a selection of the small cell devices…” para. 0039. Note: 5G cell device is computing device/mobile/wireless device);
based on the device ranking of the computing device of the plurality of computing devices, determining that the computing device a of the plurality of computing devices (“In additional instances, a third grouping of UE devices can be determined based at least in part on a relative ranking/ordering of QoS criteria, wherein, for example, one or more of the QoS criteria (e.g., packet loss data, bit rate data, throughput data, transmission delay data, availability data, data relating to deviations from a time periodicity from a periodic signal determined in relation to a reference clock signal (e.g., jitter data), service response time data, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) data, crosstalk data, echo data, interrupt data, frequency response data, loudness level data, and the like) can be individually and/or collectively ranked in a relative ordering…” para. 0024) meets at least one condition (“…classifying ranking or ordering, in response to for example, an importance value that can be determined based on one or more defined or definable threshold values being met and exceed or not being met and not surpassed) various data from each device included in collection of 5G small cell devices 104…” para. 0049. Note: 5G cell device is computing device/mobile device) for dynamically creating a new datacenter of the plurality of datacenters in proximity to the geographic area (“…receiving the notification or the traffic surge from HFC device 102, can direct HFC device 102 to initiate deployment of one or more on-demand cloudlet instantiation into a cloudlet fog comprising on-demand instantiated cloudlet instantiations” para. 0053) and (“…A cloudlet can be perceived as a mobility-enhanced small-scale cloud datacenter…” para. 0018), wherein the computing device of the plurality of computing devices represents a mobile computing device (“...Core/edge device 106 can receive raw QoS data/metrics, via HFC device 102 (e.g., wherein HFC device 102 acts as a pass-through device) for each respective small cell device that can comprise collection of 5G small cell devices 104, and/or core/edge device 106 can receive pre-processed QoS data/metrics from HFC device 102...” para. 0046. Note: 5G cell device is computing device/mobile device) and (“...As has been noted above, each of the dynamic on-demand cloudlets can be instantiated and customized for a unique and specific purpose associated with at least one 5G small cell device that can comprise 5G small cell grouping 104. In accordance with various embodiments, each 5G small cell device can be associated with a customized dynamic on-demand cloudlet (e.g., the dynamic on-demand cloudlet can have been adapted and/or configured specifically for the 5G small cell device...” para. 0056) and (“...5G small cell grouping 104 can comprise a grouping of small cell devices, such as access point devices, base station devices, eNodeB devices, femtocell devices, picocell devices, microcell devices, small form factor (SFF) devices, and the like. Generally, small cell devices can be low power, short range wireless transmission devices covering small indoor/outdoor geographic areas...” para. 0042) that is located in proximity to the geo-graphic area and connects wirelessly to the communication network in the multi-access edge computing environment (“The cloud-fog-edge architecture can provide numerous benefits. A cloudlet can be perceived as a mobility-enhanced small-scale cloud datacenter that can be located at an edge of the Internet, and a cloudlet fog, as disclosed, can be thought of as virtualized computing nodes that can be facilitated by one or more 5G deep fiber hybrid fiber coaxial (HFC) device (e.g., hybrid fiber coaxial (HFC) 5th generation (5G) Long Term Evolution (LTE) small cell device). The main purpose of the HFC hosted cloudlet is to support resource-intensive and/or 5G supported interactive mobile applications by providing powerful computing resources to mobile devices with lower latency...” para. 0018) and (“...In additional and/or alternative embodiments, HFC device 102 can contemporaneously send the received data (e.g., raw data received from one or more 5G small cell device comprising the collection of 5G small cell devices 104) and the preprocessed data to core/edge device 106.” Para. 0050) and (“...5G small cell grouping 104 can comprise a grouping of small cell devices, such as access point devices, base station devices, eNodeB devices, femtocell devices, picocell devices, microcell devices, small form factor (SFF) devices, and the like. Generally, small cell devices can be low power, short range wireless transmission devices covering small indoor/outdoor geographic areas...” para. 0042);
federating the computing device of the plurality of computing devices and one or more other computing devices of the plurality of computing devices to dynamically create the new datacenter of the plurality of datacenters in proximity to the geographic area (“…on-demand dynamic cloudlet instantiation by leveraging a grouping of software defined network devices…” abstract) and (“…As has been noted above, each of the dynamic on-demand cloudlets can be instantiated and customized for a unique and specific purpose associated with at least one 5G small cell device that can comprise 5G small cell grouping 104...” para. 0056), wherein the new datacenter of the plurality of datacenters comprises shared computing resources of the federated of computing device and the one or more other computing devices (“…Each instantiation of an on-demand dynamic cloudlet can be a customization of one or more virtual (virtual machine (VM) based) cloudlet infrastructure by using SDN instructions executed by one or more SDN device of the grouping of SDN devices.” Para. 0015) and (“…a first generated cloudlet within the generated cloudlet fog can service a cluster of UE devices, wherein the cluster of UE devices can comprise a grouping of disparate UE devices, and wherein the grouping can be determined based on one or more common characteristic associated with UE devices that form the grouping.” para. 0023);
Rahman does not but Sigh teaches
based on the device rankings of the federated computing device and the one or more other of computing devices, ranking the [new] datacenter with a datacenter ranking with the plurality of datacenters (“...rank the datacenters...” col. 11 lines 46 – 55) and (“....the multipath groups can be ranked according to certain properties. For example, a cost can be assigned to each multipath group (and/or datacenter) of a service... For example, a certain datacenter may be heavily loaded due to an excess of processing requests and the datacenter or a certain resources of the datacenter being unavailable, for example. A datacenter's relative ranking can be adjusted depending upon such factors indicating a cost to process a network packet at a datacenter... The ranking can include assigning higher ranks to those multipath groups (and/or datacenters)....” col. 12 lines 4 - 48) and (“..A datacenter can be a group of networked computer devices that can be used to store, process, and/or distribute relatively large amounts of data...” col. 2 lines 18 – 30); and
based on the datacenter ranking, deploying one or more workloads of the one or more applications onto [the shared computing resources of] the new datacenter of the plurality of datacenters (“In certain embodiments, a cost of processing a network packet by a datacenter of a service can also or alternatively be used to rank multipath groups associated with the service. For example, a first datacenter may have more processing resources than a second datacenter of a service. If so, the first datacenter may be ranked higher relative to the second datacenter when considering processing costs....” col. 12 lines 33 – 47) and (“...a highest ranked/lowest cost datacenter can always be selected for forwarding of a network packet to be processed by a service... As such, a multipath group can be selected associated with a datacenter determined to have relatively greater processing resources...” Col. 12 lines 48 – col. 13 lines 7. Note: ranking across datacenters would comprise ranking new datacenter and the new datacenter is selected to be deployed workloads because it because it is new and have does not have any workloads yet; it has greater resources).
It 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 was made to modify Rahman by applying the teachings of Singh because Singh would proving rankings of datacenters to assign more loads (col. 12). Rahman can apply ranking between datacenters to assign loads to new datacenter that does not have load.
As to claim 2, Rahman modified by Singh teaches the method of claim 1, Rahman does not but Singh teaches further comprising:
monitoring a performance of each computing device of the federated computing device and the one or more other computing devices (“... In some embodiments, the SoC or other component may be communicatively coupled to another computing system to provide various services such as traffic monitoring, traffic shaping, computing, etc.…” col.18 lines 1 - 5); and
in response to determining that a first performance of a first computing device is insufficient to process at least a portion of a deployed workload, automatically migrating the at least one portion of the deployed workload to a second computing device of the federated computing device and the one or more other computing devices (“...selectively forward packets across multipath groups to more evenly distribute loading across the datacenters and more efficiently use service resources as a whole...” col. 12 lines 48 – col. 13 lines 5).
It 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 was made to modify Rahman by applying the teachings of Singh because Singh would assign loads to more effective datacenter to perform load balancing for the system (col. 12).
As to claim 3, Rahman modified by Singh teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
Rahman teaches in proximity to the geographic area (“…where the group of small cell devices is a first group of small cell devices, the first group of small cell devices and a second group of small cell devices can be geographically proximate to each other…” para. 0031 and 0047).
Rahman does not but Singh teaches
monitoring a performance of the datacenter (“... In some embodiments, the SoC or other component may be communicatively coupled to another computing system to provide various services such as traffic monitoring, traffic shaping, computing, etc.…” col.18 lines 1 - 5); and
in response to determining that the datacenter performance is insufficient to process the one or more deployed workloads (“...if all network packets to be processed by a service are forwarded to only the lowest cost multipath group, the associated datacenter may become overburdened...” col. 12 lines 50 – 60), determining whether one or more datacenters are available (“...selectively forward packets across multipath groups to more evenly distribute loading across the datacenters and more efficiently use service resources as a whole...” col. 12 lines 48 – col. 13 lines 5) [in proximity to the geographic area].
It 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 was made to modify Rahman by applying the teachings of Singh because Singh would assign loads to more effective datacenter to perform load balancing for the system (col. 12).
As to claim 3, the claim recites similar scope of claim. See rejection for claim 3 above.
As to claim 7, Rahman modified by Singh teaches the method of claim 1, Rahman teaches wherein the indication of computing resources includes one or more of an amount of available processing power, an amount of available memory, an amount of available storage, and a guaranteed availability period (“…data (e.g., QoS metrics) received from 5G small cell grouping 104, can detect a traffic surge…” para. 0053. Note: traffic surge would cause less available processing power, memory and/or storage).
As to claim 8, Rahman modified by Singh teaches the method of claim 7, Rahman teaches wherein at least one of the amount of available processing power, the amount of available memory, the amount of available storage, or the guaranteed availability period is configurable (“…data (e.g., QoS metrics) received from 5G small cell grouping 104, can detect a traffic surge… can direct HFC device 102 to initiate deployment of one or more on-demand cloudlet instantiation into a cloudlet fog comprising on-demand instantiated cloudlet instantiations.” para. 0053).
As to claim 9, Rahman modified by Singh teaches the method of claim 1, Rahman teaches wherein the indication of computing resources is received continuously or periodically (“…data relating to deviations from a time periodicity from a periodic signal determined in relation to a reference clock signal…” para. 0024).
As to claim 10, Rahman modified by Singh teaches the method of claim 1, Rahman teaches wherein the indication of computing resources is received from an application associated with each computing device of the plurality of computing devices (“…the instantiation of the dynamic on-demand cloudlet node can change or modify an operational parameter of the small cell device by adjusting an azimuth value associated with an antenna of the small cell device; the instantiation of the dynamic on-demand cloudlet node can modify or change an operation parameter of the small cell device by changing or adjusting a broadcast power value associated with transmission power used by the small cell device to transmit data packets within the group of small cell devices” para. 0030. Note: application running on devices).
As to claim 11, Rahman modified by Singh teaches the method of claim 2, Rahman teaches wherein monitoring the performance of each computing device of the federated subset of computing devices comprises monitoring one or more of: the device ranking, device resource utilization, device processing speed, network stability, device mobility, or a remaining time of a guaranteed availability period (“…an existing SDN AM can estimate potential traffic surges in a 5G cell site for a defined duration of time and based at least in part on the estimated potential traffic surges can dynamically satisfy the traffic surges in demand for service…” para. 0020).
As to claim 12, Rahman modified by Singh teaches system for dynamically creating a cloudlet of a plurality of cloudlets in geographic proximity to one or more applications (“...the deployment of cloudlets in near proximity to a device wherein the cloudlet acts as a miniature cloud or a combination of both, can be considered as a “fog” comprising a plurality of cloudlets, wherein the cloudlets can be referred to as “fog nodes.”’ Para. 0017), the system comprising computer-executable instructions (…non-transitory machine readable media comprising instructions…” para. 0033) that when executed by a processor cause the system to perform operations (“at least one processor to perform operations” para. 0033), comprising:
receiving an indication of a contribution of computing resources from each of a plurality of computing devices (“…data (e.g., QoS metrics) received from 5G small cell grouping 104, can detect a traffic surge…” para. 0053) in proximity to a geographic area (“…where the group of small cell devices is a first group of small cell devices, the first group of small cell devices and a second group of small cell devices can be geographically proximate to each other…” para. 0031 and 0047) connected to a communication network in a multi-access edge computing environment (“The cloud-fog-edge architecture can provide numerous benefits. A cloudlet can be perceived as a mobility-enhanced small-scale cloud datacenter that can be located at an edge of the Internet, and a cloudlet fog...” para. 0018);
based on the contribution of computing resources, determining a device ranking for each computing device of the plurality of computing devices (“…in response to receiving QoS data/metrics from the various small cell devices associated with the collection of 5G small cell devices 104, can collate/order/rank the QoS data/metrics, based for example, on a selection of the small cell devices…” para. 0039);
based on the device ranking of the computing device of the plurality of computing devices, determining that the computing device a of the plurality of computing devices (“In additional instances, a third grouping of UE devices can be determined based at least in part on a relative ranking/ordering of QoS criteria, wherein, for example, one or more of the QoS criteria (e.g., packet loss data, bit rate data, throughput data, transmission delay data, availability data, data relating to deviations from a time periodicity from a periodic signal determined in relation to a reference clock signal (e.g., jitter data), service response time data, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) data, crosstalk data, echo data, interrupt data, frequency response data, loudness level data, and the like) can be individually and/or collectively ranked in a relative ordering…” para. 0024) meets at least one condition (“…classifying ranking or ordering, in response to for example, an importance value that can be determined based on one or more defined or definable threshold values being met and exceed or not being met and not surpassed) various data from each device included in collection of 5G small cell devices 104…” para. 0049) for dynamically creating a new datacenter of the plurality of datacenters in proximity to the geographic area (“…receiving the notification or the traffic surge from HFC device 102, can direct HFC device 102 to initiate deployment of one or more on-demand cloudlet instantiation into a cloudlet fog comprising on-demand instantiated cloudlet instantiations” para. 0053) and (“…A cloudlet can be perceived as a mobility-enhanced small-scale cloud datacenter…” para. 0018), wherein the computing device of the plurality of computing devices represents a mobile computing device that is located in proximity to the geo-graphic area and connects wirelessly to the communication network in the multi-access edge computing environment (“The cloud-fog-edge architecture can provide numerous benefits. A cloudlet can be perceived as a mobility-enhanced small-scale cloud datacenter that can be located at an edge of the Internet, and a cloudlet fog...” para. 0018) and (“...In additional and/or alternative embodiments, HFC device 102 can contemporaneously send the received data (e.g., raw data received from one or more 5G small cell device comprising the collection of 5G small cell devices 104) and the preprocessed data to core/edge device 106.” Para. 0050);
federating the computing device of the plurality subset of computing devices and one or more other computing devices of the plurality of computing devices to dynamically create the new datacenter of the plurality of datacenters in proximity to the geographic area (“…on-demand dynamic cloudlet instantiation by leveraging a grouping of software defined network devices…” abstract) and (“…The disclosed architecture provides an on-demand dynamic cloudlet instantiation by leveraging a grouping of software defined network (SDN) devices and their respective associated analytics modules (AMs). Each instantiation of an on-demand dynamic cloudlet can be a customization of one or more virtual (virtual machine (VM) based) cloudlet infrastructure by using SDN instructions executed by one or more SDN device of the grouping of SDN devices” para. 0015), wherein the new datacenter of the plurality of datacenters comprises shared computing resources of the federated of computing device and the one or more other computing devices (“…Each instantiation of an on-demand dynamic cloudlet can be a customization of one or more virtual (virtual machine (VM) based) cloudlet infrastructure by using SDN instructions executed by one or more SDN device of the grouping of SDN devices.” Para. 0015) and (“…a first generated cloudlet within the generated cloudlet fog can service a cluster of UE devices, wherein the cluster of UE devices can comprise a grouping of disparate UE devices, and wherein the grouping can be determined based on one or more common characteristic associated with UE devices that form the grouping.” para. 0023);
Rahman does not but Sigh teaches
based on the device rankings of the federated computing device and the one or more other of computing devices, ranking the [new] datacenter with a datacenter ranking with the plurality of datacenters (“...rank the datacenters...” col. 11 lines 46 – 55) and (“....the multipath groups can be ranked according to certain properties. For example, a cost can be assigned to each multipath group (and/or datacenter) of a service... For example, a certain datacenter may be heavily loaded due to an excess of processing requests and the datacenter or a certain resources of the datacenter being unavailable, for example. A datacenter's relative ranking can be adjusted depending upon such factors indicating a cost to process a network packet at a datacenter... The ranking can include assigning higher ranks to those multipath groups (and/or datacenters)....” col. 12 lines 4 - 48) and (“..A datacenter can be a group of networked computer devices that can be used to store, process, and/or distribute relatively large amounts of data...” col. 2 lines 18 – 30); and
based on the datacenter ranking, deploying one or more workloads of the one or more applications onto [the shared computing resources of] the new datacenter of the plurality of datacenters (“In certain embodiments, a cost of processing a network packet by a datacenter of a service can also or alternatively be used to rank multipath groups associated with the service. For example, a first datacenter may have more processing resources than a second datacenter of a service. If so, the first datacenter may be ranked higher relative to the second datacenter when considering processing costs....” col. 12 lines 33 – 47) and (“...a highest ranked/lowest cost datacenter can always be selected for forwarding of a network packet to be processed by a service... As such, a multipath group can be selected associated with a datacenter determined to have relatively greater processing resources...” Col. 12 lines 48 – col. 13 lines 7. Note: ranking across datacenters would comprise ranking new datacenter and the new datacenter is selected to be deployed workloads because it because it is new and have does not have any workloads yet; it has greater resources).
monitoring a performance of each computing device of the federated computing device and the one or more other computing devices (“…. In some embodiments, the SoC or other component may be communicatively coupled to another computing system to provide various services such as traffic monitoring, traffic shaping, computing, etc.…” col.18 lines 1 - 5); and
in response to determining that a first performance of a first computing device and the one or more other computing devices falls below a threshold (“...if all network packets to be processed by a service are forwarded to only the lowest cost multipath group, the associated datacenter may become overburdened...” col. 12 lines 50 – 60), automatically migrating the at least one portion of the deployed workload to a second computing device of the federated computing device and the one or more other computing devices (“...selectively forward packets across multipath groups to more evenly distribute loading across the datacenters and more efficiently use service resources as a whole...” col. 12 lines 48 – col. 13 lines 5).
It 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 was made to modify Rahman by applying the teachings of Singh because Singh would proving rankings of datacenters to assign more loads (col. 12). Rahman can apply ranking between datacenters to assign loads to new datacenter that does not have load.
As to claim 13, this claim recites similar scope of claim 3. See rejection for claim 3 above.
As to claim 16, this claim recites similar scope of claim 11. See rejection for claim 11 above.
As to claim 17, this is a system claim of claim 12. See rejection for claim 12 above.
As to claim 18, this is a system claim of claim 4. See rejection for claim 4 above.
As to claim 19, this claim recites similar scope of claim 2. See rejection for claim 2 above.
As to claim 20, this claim recites similar scope of claim 11. See rejection for claim 11 above.
Claims 4 - 5 and 14 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahman in view of Singh, as applied to claims 1 and 12, In view of Iyer et al., (US PUB 2012/0297016 hereinafter Iyer).
Iyer reference was cited in previous office action.
As to claim 4, Rahman modified by Singh teaches The method of claim 3, further comprising:
Rahman teaches in proximity to the geographic area (“…where the group of small cell devices is a first group of small cell devices, the first group of small cell devices and a second group of small cell devices can be geographically proximate to each other…” para. 0031 and 0047).
Rahman does not but Singh teaches
when the one or more datacenters are available [in proximity to the geographic area], evaluating unused shared resources of each of the one or more available datacenters;
identifying at least one available datacenter having the unused shared resources estimated to process at least a portion of the deployed one or more workloads without a failure; and automatically migrating at least the portion of the deployed one or more workloads to the unused shared resources of the at least one available datacenter in proximity to the geographic area.
Rahman and Singh do not but Iyer teaches when one or more datacenters are available [in proximity to the geographic area], evaluating unused shared resources of each of the one or more available datacenters (“…The cloud migration system monitors loads within a datacenter and detects a threshold that indicates that the current load is nearing the datacenter's capacity. For example, the system may monitor central processing unit (CPU) usage, memory usage, storage usage, network bandwidth, and other metrics to determine how well the datacenter is handling the current load…” Para. 0015) and (“…Alerts are thrown in the monitoring/usage systems when capacity is within 5% of the bursting being initiated…” para. 0019. Note: when no alert, the system has unused shared resources);
identifying at least one available datacenter having unused shared resources estimated to process at least a portion of the deployed one or more workloads without a failure; and automatically migrating at least the portion of the deployed one or more workloads to the unused shared resources of the at least one available datacenter [in proximity to the geographic area] (“Upon detecting that the threshold will be reached, the cloud migration system facilitates an orderly move of at least some datacenter load to another datacenter or cloud-based resources. For example, the system may migrate some peak load to a public cloud…” para. 0015 - 0016).
It 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 was made to modify Rahman and Singh by applying the teachings of Iyer because Iyer’s cloud/datacenter management system to monitor and manage workloads for datacenters to avoid crash and thus, allows to build efficient datacenters that leverage other resources with rare extra loads (para. 0016).
As to claim 5, Rahman modified by Singh teaches The method of claim 3, further comprising: Rahman and Mukherjee do not but Iyer teaches
when the one or more datacenters are not available in proximity to the geographic area, automatically migrating the deployed one or more workloads to a public cloud datacenter (“In another example, a cloud provider decides to burst from one cluster to another. The public cloud capacity planning team decides that a cluster in the Chicago datacenter is critically full but wants to maintain high utilization. They set up bursting to an underutilized cluster in a West coast datacenter when utilization gets to 90%…” para. 0021).
See motivation for claim 4 above.
As to claims 14 - 15, these claims recite similar scope of claims 4 - 5. See rejection for claims 4 - 5 above.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahman in view of Singh, and In view of Iyer, as applied to claim 5, and further in view of Nikam et al., (US PUB 2020/0250012 hereinafter Nikam).
Nikam reference was cited in previous office action.
As to claim 6, Rahman modified by Singh and Iyer teaches The method of claim 5, Rahman, Singh and Iyer do not but Nikam teaches wherein the deployed one or more workloads are automatically migrated to reserved resources on the public cloud datacenter (“…As shown in FIG. 1, a training, recommendation, and deployment engine 150 can be used to coordinate the migration/deployment of a machine learning based process 150 from a private cloud 120 to a public cloud 110. In the present example of FIG. 1, the machine learning based process 150 maintains a particular service to a number of users using the private cloud 120 and is migrated/deployed to the public cloud 110 when spikes in resource demands occur. ...” para. 0022) and (“...In operation 614, the appropriate hybrid cloud resources are created/reserved to allow for a machine learning based process to be migrated/deployed from a private cloud to a public cloud (i.e., allow for a cloud bursting operation)…” para. 0044).
It 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 was made to modify Rahman and Angel by applying the teaching of Rahman, Mukherjee and Iyer by applying the teachings of Nikam because Nikam would reserve resources to service from private cloud in cased of bursting operation (para. 0022 and 0044).
Response to Arguments
Objections to Claims
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim amendments overcomes previous claim objections; however, new amended claims are objected. See objection above.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 (pages 10 – 11 of remark)
Applicant argued that
“...As discussed in the current application, and as recited in the claims, embodiments generally relate to creating a datacenter of a plurality of datacenters. In particular, the present technology is directed to dynamically creating a datacenter in proximity to a geographic area by federating a computing device of a plurality of computing devices with one or more other computing devices of the plurality of computing devices in proximity of the geographic area, and further by sharing computing resources to form the datacenter.
Specifically, claim 1 recites, in part, use of a mobile computing device in a multi- access edge computing environment ("MEC") as a part of a federation of computing devices to create a cloudlet (i.e., a new datacenter) in proximity of a particular geographic area.
Applicant respectfully submits that it is impractical for the human mind by using pen and paper or by applying the generic computing component to create a data center (i.e., a cloudlet) according to the federation of computing devices and to deploy/execute a workload in the data center in the MEC environment. As such, claim 1 is patent eligible. The other independent claims, i.e., claims 12 and 17, recite similar limitations and are eligible for at least the same or similar reasons. The dependent claims, i.e., claims 2-11, 13-16, and 18-20, incorporate all of the limitations of one of the independent claims and are eligible for at least the same or similar reasons.
Withdrawal of the § 101 rejections is therefore respectfully requested.”
In response,
Claimed limitations are rejected under 101 when claims can be planned in human mind with or without pen and paper.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. &112 (page 11 of remark)
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the 112 rejection have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Previous 112 rejection was persuasive; however, claim amendments are rejection under 112(b). See rejection above.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. &103 (pages 11 - 14 of remark).
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Rahman and Singh.
Applicant argued that
“...Applicant respectfully traverses the § 103 rejections because the Examiner failed to state a prima facie case of obviousness and/or the current amendments to the claims now render the Examiner's arguments moot. To establish a prima facie case of obviousness, the references must teach or suggest each and every one of the claim elements to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (C.C.P.A. 1970); See also, KSR Int'l Co. v. TeleflexInc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007); Ball Aerosol v. Ltd. Brands, 555 F.3d 984, 89 USPQ2d 1870 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The Examiner agrees that Rahman fails to teach or suggest all the claimed limitations, but, as discussed below, Mukherjee fails to compensate for the deficiencies of Rahman.
......
We further submit that only the Specification and not any of the cited art teaches creating a datacenter based on a federation of mobile computing devices in the mu