DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment and Remarks filed on 17 December 2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim objections
Claims 7 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 7, line 4, it recites “the processing system” lacks antecedence basis. It should be amended as “the hardware processing system” (See claim 7, line 2, “a hardware processing system”.
In claim 7, line 10, it recites “a workload”, It should be amended as “the workload” (see claim 7, line 9, “a workload”. Are they the same workload?).
In claim 14, line 9, it recites “a workload”, It should be amended as “the workload” (see claim 14, line 7, “a workload”. Are they the same workload?).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1, Statutory Category: Yes, the claim 1 is a logically composed system (LCS) workload in-band resource device management system that recites a series of steps and therefore falls in the statutory category of a machine.
Step 2A- Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Yes, the claim recites: “determine a second plurality of resource devices that are available via the SCP device for the LCS”. As drafted, the claim as a whole recites a logically composed system (LCS) workload in-band resource device management system including step that could be performed in the human mind, but for the recitation of generic computing components. The human mind can easily judging/evaluating/determining the resources availability by observing. Therefore, but for the recitation of generic computing components, these steps may be a Mental Processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Therefore, yes, the claims do recite judicial exceptions.
Step 2A- Prong 2: Integrated into a practical Application: No, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional limitations that “A Logically Composed System (LCS) workload in-band resource device management system, a Logically Composed System (LCS) that is provided using a first plurality of resource devices, wherein the LCS uses the first plurality of resource devices to perform a workload; a System Control Processor (SCP) device that is separate from the LCS; and a resource device management subsystem that is coupled to the workload and the SCP device and that includes at least one hardware processor that is configured to” are directed to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). In addition, the limitation of “present, to the workload, an available-resource file hierarchy that identifies the second plurality of resource devices; receive, from the workload, a resource device request for a first resource device that is included in the second plurality of resource devices identified in the available-resource file hierarchy; and provide, to the SCP device, a resource device provisioning request that is configured to cause the SCP device to provide the LCS using the first plurality of resource devices and the first resource device” which are directed to insignificant extra solution activity (i.e., transmitting data) See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Further, the limitation of “wherein the LCS uses the first plurality of resource devices and the first resource device to perform the workload, and wherein the workload is configured to: perform one or more workload operations using resource device functionality that is available from the first resource device and that is not available from the first plurality of resource devices.” which is merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim does not define any particular machine to “perform” this “workload and workload operations,” other than a generic machine such as the “a logical composed system (LCS) using resources devices” (i.e., the claim does not define what is LCS) and no details what so ever on how the claimed function will occur. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept: No. The additional element “A Logically Composed System (LCS) workload in-band resource device management system, a Logically Composed System (LCS) that is provided using a first plurality of resource devices, wherein the LCS uses the first plurality of resource devices to perform a workload; a System Control Processor (SCP) device that is separate from the LCS; and a resource device management subsystem that is coupled to the workload and the SCP device and that includes at least one hardware processor that is configured to” are directed to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). In addition, the limitation of “wherein the LCS uses the first plurality of resource devices and the first resource device to perform the workload, and wherein the workload is configured to: perform one or more workload operations using resource device functionality that is available from the first resource device and that is not available from the first plurality of resource devices.” which is merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim does not define any particular machine to “perform” this “workload and workload operations,” other than a generic machine such as the “a logical composed system (LCS) using resources devices” (i.e., the claim does not define what is LCS) and no details what so ever on how the claimed function will occur. Further, the limitation of “present, to the workload, an available-resource file hierarchy that identifies the second plurality of resource devices; receive, from the workload, a resource device request for a first resource device that is included in the second plurality of resource devices identified in the available-resource file hierarchy; and provide, to the SCP device, a resource device provisioning request that is configured to cause the SCP device to provide the LCS using the first plurality of resource devices and the first resource device” which are directed to insignificant extra solution activity (i.e., transmitting data) See MPEP 2106.05(g)) which are well understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Courts have identified “receiving and transmitting data, storing and retrieving information”, et cetera as well understood, routine, conventional and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))). These additional elements and combination of the elements does not amount to significant more than the exception itself or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “present” “receive” and “provide” steps were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A as insignificant data communication and are well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The “present” “receive” and “provide” steps are for the purpose of “communication” and “transmitting the data” and these can be reached on one of court case (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) see MPEP § 2106.05(d) II). Accordingly, a conclusion that “present” “receive” and “provide” are well understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer options 2.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Independent claims 7 and 14 are rejected for the same reason as claim 1 above. Claim 7 further recites “a hardware processing system; and a memory system that is coupled to the hardware processing system and that includes instructions that, when executed by the processing system, cause the hardware processing system to provide a resource device management engine that is configured to:”. These additional elements are directed to generic computing components/functions merely applying the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
With respect to the dependent claim 2, the claim elaborates that wherein the at least one hardware processor in the resource device management subsystem provides a resource device driver (“resource device management subsystem provides a resource device driver” are directed to Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))).
With respect to the dependent claim 3, the claim elaborates that wherein the at least one hardware processor in the resource device management subsystem is configured to: provide, to the workload, operating information about at least one of the first plurality of resource devices (“provide” operating information is directed to insignificant extra solution activity (i.e., transmitting data) See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
With respect to the dependent claim 4, the claim elaborates that wherein the at least one hardware processor in the resource device management subsystem is configured to: determine a third plurality of resource devices that are provided by the SCP device to the LCS for utilization by the workload; and present, to the workload, a provided-resource file hierarchy that identifies the third plurality of resource devices (“determine a third plurality of resource devices” are being treated as part of abstract idea and is analogous to Mental processes, such that concept can be performed in the human mind. In addition, “present” a provided-resource file hierarchy is directed to insignificant extra solution activity (i.e., transmitting data) See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
With respect to the dependent claim 5, the claim elaborates that wherein the at least one hardware processor in the resource device management subsystem is configured to: provide, to the workload, operating information about at least one of the third plurality of resource devices (“provide, to the workload, operating information” is directed to insignificant extra solution activity (i.e., transmitting data) See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
With respect to the dependent claim 6, the claim elaborates that wherein the at least one hardware processor in the resource device management subsystem is configured to: configure, using the provided-resource file hierarchy, an attribute of at least one of the third plurality of resource devices (“configure, using the provided-resource file hierarchy, an attribute” are being treated as part of abstract idea and is analogous to Mental processes, such that concept can be performed in the human mind. Further, the claim as a whole is a Mental Processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)).
Dependent claims 8-12 recite the same features as applied to claims 2-6 respectively above, therefore they are also rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to the dependent claim 13, the claim elaborates that wherein the workload is provided by at least one of an operating system or an application running on the LCS (“wherein the workload is provided by at least one of an operating system or an application running on the LCS” are directed to Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))).
Dependent claims 15-20 recite the same features as applied to claims 2-6 and 13 respectively above, therefore they are also rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are: “a Logically Composed System (LCS) that is provided using a first plurality of resource devices” and “wherein the LCS uses the first plurality of resource devices and the first resource device to perform the workload, and wherein the workload is configured to” in claims 1, 7 and 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Claim limitations “a Logically Composed System (LCS)”, “first plurality of resource devices and the first resource device” in claims 1, 7 and 14 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The specification paragraph [0043] that discloses “As will be appreciated by one of skill in the art in possession of the present disclosure, many of the LCSs provided by the LCS provisioning system 200 will utilize a "compute" resource (e.g., provided by a processing resource such as an x86 processor, an AMD processor, an ARM processor, and/or other processing systems known in the art” as performing corresponding structure. However, said “Logically Composed System (LCS)”, “first plurality of resource devices and the first resource device” without the detail about the means to accomplish the functions are not an adequate disclosure of corresponding structure (i.e., they are general purpose computer (i.e., x86 processor, an AMD processor, an ARM processor) and they are not sufficient structure to be corresponding structure under 112(f). That is, the general purpose computer must be transformed into a specially programmed computer by way of an algorithm). MPEP § 2181(II)(B) specifically indicated that “For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign. Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1367, 88 USPQ2d 1751, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See also In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297, 99 USPQ2d 1936, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]hen the disclosed structure is a computer programmed to carry out an algorithm, ‘the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather that special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.’") (quoting WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999))” and “The corresponding structure is not simply a general purpose computer by itself but the special purpose computer as programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. Thus, the specification must sufficiently disclose an algorithm to transform a general purpose microprocessor to the special purpose computer” Therefore, the claims (i.e., 1-20) are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
The claims 1, 7 and 14 contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above in 112(f) (i.e., “Logically Composed System (LCS) using the first plurality of resource devices and the first resource device” in claims 1, 7 and 14), the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed functions. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2181(II)(B) “When a claim containing a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, it will also lack written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)”.
Claims 2-6, 8-13 and 15-20, they are depend on claims 1, 7 and 14 and do not overcome the deficiencies thereof, therefore they are rejected for the same reason as claims 1, 7 and 14 above.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
As per claims 1-20:
As described above in 112(f) (i.e., “Logically Composed System (LCS) using first plurality of resource devices and the first resource device” in claims 1, 7 and 14) without the detail about the means to accomplish the functions are not an adequate disclosure of corresponding structure. The MPEP § 2181(II)(B) specifically indicated that “For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). See Net MoneyIN, Inc. v. Verisign. Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1367, 88 USPQ2d 1751, 1757 (Fed. Cir. 2008). See also In re Aoyama, 656 F.3d 1293, 1297, 99 USPQ2d 1936, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]hen the disclosed structure is a computer programmed to carry out an algorithm, ‘the disclosed structure is not the general purpose computer, but rather that special purpose computer programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm.’") (quoting WMS Gaming, Inc. v. Int’l Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1349, 51 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (Fed. Cir. 1999))”. Therefore, the claims (i.e., 1-20) are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
As per claims 1, 7 and 14 (line# refers to claim 1):
Lines 20-22, it is not clearly indicated what is meant by “wherein the workload is configured to: perform one or more workload operations” (i.e., the workload executes itself? (i.e., workload operations, redundant?) How? Is that workload operations are part of the workload that performed by the LCS?). For examining purpose, examiner will interpret as the LCS is perform one or more workload operations of the workload.
As per claims 2-6, 8-13 and 15-20:
They are Logically Composed system (LCS) workload in-band resource device management system, information handling system (HIS) system and method claims that depend from rejected claims and do not resolve the deficiencies thereof and are therefore rejected for the same reasons as above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 13-14, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanghai et al. (US Patent. 11,212,237 B1) in view of Siddappa et al. (US Pub. 2019/0034237 A1) and further in view of Sun et al. (US Patent. 10,262,390 B1) and Zhou et al. (US Pub. 2022/0182439 A1).
Sanghai and Zhou were cited in the previous Office Action.
As per claim 1, Sanghai teaches the invention substantially as claimed including A system workload in-band resource device management system, comprising (Sanghai, Fig. 1, 100 (as a system workload in-band resource device management system), 124 resource; Fig. 3, 138, access resource; Col 2, lines 33-37, sharing local resources connected to client devices with other client devices in a virtual computing environment without utilizing resource servers. In the past, sharing of a resource such as a printer amongst client devices required that the printer be managed by an enterprise service Col 2, line 65- Col 3, line 10, a computing infrastructure 100 having a virtual computing environment in accordance with an illustrative embodiment. In this case, a server desktop 104 running, e.g., MS Windows®, Linux®, etc., includes a set of virtual desktop agents (VDAs) 122, that provide remote virtual access to the server desktop 104 for a set of client devices (e.g., laptops, smart devices, etc.)…server desktop 104 is implemented as an on-premises system and interacts with cloud 102 via a cloud connector 120 and delivery controller 118, which provides access to a workspace (WS) resource server 110):
a system to perform a workload (Sanghai, Fig. 1, 108 client device (as system), 140 workspace application (as workload), VDA session 142, server desktop 104, 122 VDAs; Col 3, lines 11-21, two client devices 106, 108 are configured to remotely access the server desktop 104…. the second client device 108 includes a WS application 140 (as workload) running a CS resource service 138, and is connected to the server desktop 104 via a VDA session 142; also see Col 3, lines 29-33, allows the second client device 108 to access the resource 124 on the first client device 106 with the use of: (1) the client side (CS) resource service 134, 138 installed on client devices 106, 108, respectively; and (2) the WS resource server 110 implemented in cloud 102);
a System Control Processor (SCP) device that is separate from the system (Sanghai, Fig. 1, 104 serve desktop which including 122 VDAs (as whole as SCP device), Col 3, lines 4-6, Server desktop 104 may for example be implemented as an on-premises system or via a cloud 102 (as separate from the system 108); and
a resource device management subsystem that is coupled to the workload and the SCP device and that includes at least one hardware processor that is configured to (Sanghai, Fig. 1, 102, 110 workspace (WS) resource server, 118, 120, 112, 114 and 116 (as whole as resource device management subsystem), 104 (as SCP), 140 workspace application (as workload); Col 10, lines 45-48, Elements of the described solution may be embodied in a computing system, such as that shown in FIG. 9 in which a computer 300 may include one or more processors 302; Col 3, lines 11-21, two client devices 106, 108 are configured to remotely access the server desktop 104…. the second client device 108 includes a WS application 140 (as workload) running a CS resource service 138, and is connected to the server desktop 104 via a VDA session 142 (as coupled to the workload and the SCP device); also see Col 2, line 65- Col 3, line 10, a computing infrastructure 100 having a virtual computing environment in accordance with an illustrative embodiment. In this case, a server desktop 104 running, e.g., MS Windows®, Linux®, etc., includes a set of virtual desktop agents (VDAs) 122, that provide remote virtual access to the server desktop 104 for a set of client devices (e.g., laptops, smart devices, etc.). Server desktop 104 may for example be implemented as an on-premises system or via a cloud 102. In the example shown, server desktop 104 is implemented as an on-premises system and interacts with cloud 102 via a cloud connector 120 and delivery controller 118, which provides access to a workspace (WS) resource server 110):
determine a second plurality of resource devices that are available via the SCP device for the system (Sanghai, Col 3, lines 22-23, a resource 124 such as a printer, scanner, fax, peripheral, etc., has been connected to client device 106 (as resource devices; also see Co 8, line 66-Col 9, line 2, shared resources and services can include, but are not limited to, networks, network bandwidth, servers, processing, memory, storage, applications, virtual machines, databases); Col 5, lines 26-28, Once the user is authorized, the WS resource server 110 (as resource device management subsystem) determines a list of resources available to the user, based on the user's authorization and associated policies; Col 3, lines 56-66, The CS resource services 134, 138 communicate with the WS resource server 110 using the associated WS application 130, 140 via an active session, e.g., using an HDX VDA session, a headless VDA session, or some other protocol. Illustrative functions performed by CS resource services 134, 138 include capturing resource connect and disconnect events, e.g., “plug and play” events, generated by the resource 124 and forwarding device metadata to the WS resource server 110 to effectuate registration of the resource 124 in the cloud 102);
present, to the workload, an available-resource list that identifies the second plurality of resource devices (Sanghai, Col 5, lines 28-30, The WS resource server 110 then sends a list of available resources to the user via WS application 140 (as present to the workload));
receive, from the workload, a resource device request for a first resource device that is included in the second plurality of resource devices identified in the available-resource list (Sanghai, Fig. 3, 138 CS resource service via WS App 140, sending resource selection to 110; (as receive, from the workload, a resource device request for a first resource device that is included in the second plurality of resource devices identified in the available-resource list); Col 5, lines 30-32, The user selects a resource 124 they want to access and sends the request to the WS resource server 110; also see Col 3, lines 11-21, two client devices 106, 108 are configured to remotely access the server desktop 104…. the second client device 108 includes a WS application 140 (as workload) running a CS resource service 138, and is connected to the server desktop 104 via a VDA session 142; Col 1, lines33-35, a selection of a resource included within the list of available resources from the first client device); and
provide, to the SCP device, a resource device provisioning request that is configured to cause the SCP device to provide the system using the first resource device (Sanghai, Fig. 1, 110 with 116 that send the communication to the 104 for resource provisioning, VDAs 122 with 130 and 134, 128 132; Col 5, lines 32-44, The WS resource server 110 then sends a push notification to the client device 106, to wake up the WS Application 130/VDA session 128 connected to the resource 124. A push notification service 116 may be incorporated into, or be independent, from the WS resource server 110 (as to provide, to the SCP device (i.e., Fig. 1, 104 and VDA), a resource device provisioning request that is configured to cause the SCP device to provide the first resource device (i.e., resource 124). Once the push notification is received, the user can directly access the resource 124 via the resource metadata information. In an illustrative VDA embodiment, HDX manages any data required by the resource 124, such as print data. In this case, an HDX Printing Virtual Channel is utilized to map the local resource 124 into the session as a virtual printer; (as to provide the first resource device to the system for utilization); Col 5, lines 44-51, Push notifications from the WS resource server 110 are first sent to a push notification service 116 that is part of the WS resource server 110 or provided by a third party. The notification is then forwarded to the operating system of the client device 106, which forwards the notification to the WS application 130. The notification is then forwarded to the CS resource service 134, which issues a wake up or connect signal to the resource 124; Col 5, line 65- Col 6, line 9, Initially, at the time of resource registration with the WS resource server 110, the WS application 130 may also register with the push notification service 116 and obtain a device token, which is sent along with the resource information to the WS resource server 110).
Sanghai fails to explicitly teach the system is Logically Composed System (LCS), the Logically Composed System (LCS) that is provided using a first plurality of resource devices, wherein the LCS uses the first plurality of resource devices to perform a workload, and the LCS using the first plurality of resource devices and the first resource device, wherein the LCS uses the first plurality of resource devices and the first resource device to perform the workload, and wherein the workload is configured to: perform one or more workload operations using resource device functionality that is available from the first resource device and that is not available from the first plurality of resource devices.
However, Siddappa teaches Logically Composed System (LCS), the Logically Composed System (LCS) that is provided using a first plurality of resource devices, wherein the LCS uses the first plurality of resource devices to perform a workload (Siddappa, Fig. 2, physical rack 1 (as LCS), which including nodes/server 224; [0025] lines 2-5, The virtual server rack 206 of the illustrated example enables abstracting hardware resources (e.g., physical hardware resources 224, 226). In some examples, the virtual server rack 206 includes a set of physical units (e.g., one or more racks) with each unit including hardware such as server nodes; Fig. 3, nodes 9, 10 and 11 (as first plurality of resource devices) to perform initial workload 1; Fig. 4, workload domain 1 (needy), host 1, host 2, host 3; also see [0033] lines 3-10, In the illustrated example of FIG. 3, WORKLOAD 1 initially includes server nodes N9, N10, and N11 and WORKLOAD 2 initially includes server nodes N5, N6, N7, N8. In response to WORKLOAD 1 becoming needy and requesting additional resources, the workload manager 120, causes node 8 to spin an Esxi virtual machine 302 and causes the Esxi virtual machine to be assigned to WORKLOAD 1).
the LCS using the first plurality of resource devices and the first resource device, wherein the LCS uses the first plurality of resource devices and the first resource device to perform the workload (Siddappa, [0023] last 4 lines, the workload selector 182 selects a needy workload to receive additional resources from an offering workload in response to a request for resources received from the needy workload. Fig. 4, workload domain (needy) which including original resource devices host 1, host 2 and host 3 (as first plurality of resource devices), and the workload domain 2 (offered) is providing host 4 to the workload domain 1 to perform the workload domain 1; [0034] lines 1-20, FIG. 4 depicts an example first workload, WORKLOAD 1, and an example second workload, WORKLOAD 2, in a container-based virtual environment. In the illustrated example of FIG. 4, WORKLOAD 1 is initially supported by a virtual integrated container appliance, A1, of a first virtual container host V1 including HOST 1, HOST 2, and HOST 3, a first virtual integrated container C1, and a second virtual integrated container, C2. WORKLOAD 2 is initially supported by HOST 4 and HOST 5. In response to WORKLOAD 1 becoming needy and requesting additional resources, the workload manager 120 (see FIG. 1 and FIG. 2), causes the fourth host, HOST 4, to spin a ESXi virtual machine H4′ and assign it to needy WORKLOAD 1, thereby associating H4′ to virtual container host V1. Further, vSphere integrated container C3′ can be spun on H4′ as a part of virtual container host V1. As a result of the operation of the workload manager 120, revised WORKLOAD 1 is supported by the virtual integrated container appliance, A1, the first virtual integrated container C1, the second virtual integrated container, C2, and the third virtual integrated container, C3′, (as LCS uses the first plurality of resource devices and the first resource device to perform the workload) and WORKLOAD 2 is supported by the fourth host, HOST 4 (minus ESXi virtual machine H4′), and the fifth host, HOST 5. In some examples, after the ESXi virtual machine H4′ becomes a part of the (formerly needy workload)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Sanghai with Siddappa because Siddappa’s teaching of allocating the additional resources to the needy workload for processing would have provided Sanghai’s system with the advantage and capability to allow the system to efficiently using different resources for different workloads in order to provide smarter and less wasteful utilization of computing resources (see Sanghai, [0014] “The methods and apparatus described herein result smarter and less wasteful utilization of CPU, memory and storage resources.”).
Although Sanghai and Siddappa teach the LCS uses the first plurality of resource devices and the first resource device to perform the workload, Sanghai and Siddappa fail to explicitly teach wherein the workload is configured to: perform one or more workload operations using resource device functionality that is available from the first resource device and that is not available from the first plurality of resource devices.
However, Sun teaches wherein the workload is configured to: perform one or more workload operations using resource device functionality that is available from the first resource device and that is not available from the first plurality of resource devices (Sun, Fig. 3, client system 310 (as LCS), Col 4, lines 53-60, The client system 110 generically represents any type of user computing device such as a desktop computer, a laptop computer, an electronic tablet, or any other type of client computing device having computing resources (e.g., processor, memory, etc.) to store and execute the GPU accelerated application 112 (as workload), and the GPU API 114. In another embodiment, the client system 110 may comprise a server in a data center; Fig. 3, 200-1 and 2002 GPU server, 230-1 to 230-g (GPU) (as include first resource device has resource device functionality that is available from the first resource device and that is not available from the first plurality of resource devices); Col 6, lines 39-42, allocate and schedule one or more of the GPU server nodes 150-1, 150-2, . . . , 150-s within the GPU server cluster 150 to handle execution of GPU processing tasks associated with the received service request; Col 13, lines 50-54, GPU processing services for executing compute-intensive code portions of the GPU-accelerated application process 312 which are encountered during execution of the GPU-accelerated application process (as wherein the workload/LCS is configured to: perform one or more workload operations [of the workload] using resource device functionality that is available from the first resource device (i.e., GPU) and that is not available from the first plurality of resource devices (i.e., memory and CPU)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Sanghai and Siddappa with Sun because Sun’s teaching of executing compute-intensive code portions of the GPU-accelerated application process by using GPU resource would have provided Sanghai and Siddappa’s system with the advantage and capability to allow the system to offloading the portion of the workload to be processed by the GPU in order to improving the overall workload processing efficiency and system performance. (see Sun, Col 1, lines 33-34, “GPUs are used to accelerate data processing in high-performance computing”).
Sanghai, Siddappa and Sun fail to specifically teach the available-resource list is available-resource file hierarchy.
However, Zhou teaches the available-resource list is available-resource file hierarchy (Zhou, [0056] lines 1-11, API server identifies (at 410) a set of network resources (e.g., VIFs, virtual machines, Pods, custom resources, etc.) that are related to the service. In some embodiments, the API server queries a YAML file or other similar hierarchical document or file that identifies available network resources (e.g., network resources in namespaces identified in the sets of criteria, network resources available in an availability zone in which the service is provided, etc.) to identify network resources matching at least one set of type-specific criteria; [0057] lines 7-10, sending the identified set of resources to the resource selector controller includes sending a document or file (e.g., a YAML file) that includes the specification for each network resource in the set of network resources).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Sanghai, Siddappa and Sun with Zhou because Zhou’s teaching of providing the YAML hierarchical file that identifying the available resources would have provided Sanghai, Siddappa and Sun’s system with the advantage and capability to allow the system to easily identifying the available resources via the hierarchical file which improving the system performance and efficiency.
As per claim 4, Sanghai, Siddappa, Sun and Zhou teach the invention according to claim 1 above. Sanghai teaches wherein the at least one hardware processor in the resource device management subsystem is configured to: determine a third plurality of resource devices that are provided by the SCP device to the LCS for utilization by the workload (Sanghai, Fig. 1, 102, 110 workspace (WS) resource server, 118, 120, 112, 114 and 116 (as whole as resource device management subsystem), Col 10, lines 45-48, Elements of the described solution may be embodied in a computing system, such as that shown in FIG. 9 in which a computer 300 may include one or more processors 302; Col 2, lines 32-35, Embodiments of the disclosure provide technical solutions for sharing local resources connected to client devices with other client devices; Col 3, lines 22-23, a resource 124 such as a printer, scanner, fax, peripheral, etc., has been connected to client device 106 (as including third plurality of resource devices (i.e., different clients is sharding different resources); Col 5, lines 26-28, Once the user is authorized, the WS resource server 110 determines a list of resources available to the user, based on the user's authorization and associated policies (as including third plurality of resource devices, since the resources are shared between different client devices); Col 3, lines 56-66, The CS resource services 134, 138 communicate with the WS resource server 110 using the associated WS application 130, 140 via an active session, e.g., using an HDX VDA session, a headless VDA session, or some other protocol. Illustrative functions performed by CS resource services 134, 138 include capturing resource connect and disconnect events, e.g., “plug and play” events, generated by the resource 124 and forwarding device metadata to the WS resource server 110 to effectuate registration of the resource 124 in the cloud 102); also see Col 8, line 66-Col 9, line 2, shared resources and services can include, but are not limited to, networks, network bandwidth, servers, processing, memory, storage, applications, virtual machines, databases);; and
present, to the workload, the provided-resource list file hierarchy that identifies the third plurality of resource devices (Sanghai, Col 5, lines 28-30, The WS resource server 110 then sends a list of available resources to the user via WS application 140).
In addition, Zhou teaches when present, it is present a provided-resource file hierarchy (Zhou, [0056] lines 1-11, API server identifies (at 410) a set of network resources (e.g., VIFs, virtual machines, Pods, custom resources, etc.) that are related to the service. In some embodiments, the API server queries a YAML file or other similar hierarchical document or file that identifies available network resources (e.g., network resources in namespaces identified in the sets of criteria, network resources available in an availability zone in which the service is provided, etc.) to identify network resources matching at least one set of type-specific criteria; [0067] lines 3-7, The API server performs an operation similar to operation 410 described above in relation to FIG. 4 to identify the network resources related to the service by applying the queries to a document or file (or set of documents) that identifies network resources).
As per claim 7, it is an information handling system (HIS) claim of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason as claim 1 above. In addition, Sanghai further teaches information handling system (HIS) comprising: a hardware processing system; and a memory system that is coupled to the hardware processing system and that includes instructions that, when executed by the processing system, cause the hardware processing system to (Sanghai, Fig. 1, 100; Fig. 9, 302 processor, 304, 308; Claim 11, A computing device, comprising: a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory and being configured for).
As per claim 10, it is an information handling system (HIS) claim of claim 4 above. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason as claim 4 above.
As per claim 13, Sanghai, Siddappa, Sun and Zhou teach the invention according to claim 7 above. Sanghai further teaches wherein the workload is provided by at least one of an operating system or an application running on the system (Sanghai, Fig. 1, client side resource service 138, 108 client device; Col 3, lines 3-4, a set of client devices (e.g., laptops, smart devices, etc.) (as including operating system); Col 10, lines 45-61, Elements of the described solution may be embodied in a computing system, such as that shown in FIG. 9 in which a computer 300 may include one or more processors 302, volatile memory 304 (e.g., RAM), non-volatile memory 308 (e.g., one or more hard disk drives (HDDs) or other magnetic or optical storage media,…Non-volatile memory 308 stores operating system 314). In addition, Siddappa teaches the system is Logically Composed System (LCS) (Siddappa, Fig. 2, physical rack 1 (as LCS), which including nodes/server 224; [0025] lines 2-5, The virtual server rack 206 of the illustrated example enables abstracting hardware resources (e.g., physical hardware resources 224, 226). In some examples, the virtual server rack 206 includes a set of physical units (e.g., one or more racks) with each unit including hardware such as server nodes; Fig. 3, nodes 9, 10 and 11 (as first plurality of resource devices) to perform initial workload 1; Fig. 4, workload domain 1 (needy), host 1, host 2, host 3).
As per claim 14, it is a method claim of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason as claim 1 above.
As per claim 17, it is a method claim of claim 4 above. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason as claim 4 above.
As per claim 20, it is a method claim of claim 13 above. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason as claim 13 above.
Claims 2, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanghai, Siddappa, Sun and Zhou, as applied to claims 1, 7 and 14 respectively above, and further in view of FANG et al. (US Pub. 2019/0266011 A1).
FANG was cited in the previous Office Action.
As per claim 2, Sanghai, Siddappa, Sun and Zhou teach the invention according to claim 1 above. Sanghai, Siddappa, Sun and Zhou fail to specifically teach wherein the at least one hardware processor in the resource device management subsystem provides a resource device driver.
However, FANG teaches wherein the at least one hardware processor in the resource device management subsystem provides a resource device driver (FANG, Fig. 17, 171 processor; [0004] lines 1-7, The resource management layer, referred to as driver, is a central control device of the entire system that is responsible for task assignment, resource allocation, and applications program interface (API) of a client).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Sanghai, Siddappa, Sun and Zhou with FANG because FANG’s teaching of utilizing the resource device driver for the resource device management would have provided Sanghai, Siddappa, Sun and Zhou’s system with the advantage and capability to allow the system to create an abstraction layer between the operating system and the resource management in order to improving the system efficiency and performance.
As per claim 8, it is an information handling system (HIS) claim of claim 2 above. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason as claim 2 above.
As per claim 15, it is a method claim of claim 2 above. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason as claim 2 above.
Claims 3, 5, 9, 11, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanghai, Siddappa, Sun and Zhou, as applied to claims 1, 4, 7, 10, 14 and 17 respectively above, and further in view of WEN et al. (US Pub. 2016/0337084 A1).
WEN was cited in the previous Office Action.
As per claim 3, Sanghai, Siddappa, Sun and Zhou teach the invention according to claim 1 above. Sanghai, Siddappa, Sun and Zhou fail to specifically teach wherein the at least one hardware processor in the resource device management subsystem is configured to: provide, to the workload, operating information about at least one of the first plurality of resource devices.
However, WEN teaches wherein the at least one hardware processor in the resource device management subsystem is configured to: provide, to the workload, operating information about at least one of the first plurality of resource devices (WEN, Fig. 12, 1202 processor; [0110] lines 1-22, Specifically, in embodiments of the present invention, the application layer agent process or the application layer management process may subscribe to a result event related to hardware failure, performance detection and/or reliability detection, and transmit a subscribe request including the subscriptions to the IaaS agent process, the IaaS agent process (as resource device management subsystem) detects the resource state related to the subscribe request according to the subscribe request, and transmits a detected resource state exception event (as operating information about at least one of the first plurality of resource devices) related to the subscribe request to the application layer agent process (as workload) or the application layer management process, the application layer agent process or the application layer management process handle the exception event according to a specific service, for instance, a subscribe request transmitted by the application layer management process or the application layer agent process, requiring detection for virtual machine sub-health status such as high temperature of hardware and a multi-bit memory error may be received, so as to complete service migration and failure isolation when the sub-health status occurs).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Sanghai, Siddappa, Sun and Zhou with WEN because WEN’s teaching of providing the resource status/operation information would have provided Sanghai, Siddappa, Sun and Zhou’s system with the advantage and capability to allow the system to perform the failure isolation in order to preventing the potential system failures which improving the system performance and reliability (see WEN [0110] “memory error may be received, so as to complete service migration and failure isolation when the sub-health status occurs”).
As per claim 5, Sanghai, Siddappa, Sun and Zhou teach the invention according to claim 4 above. Sanghai, Siddappa, Sun and Zhou fail to specifically teach wherein the at least one hardware processor in the resource device management subsystem is configured to: provide, to the workload, operating information about at least one of the third plurality of resource devices.
However, WEN teaches wherein the at least one hardware processor in the resource device management subsystem is configured to: provide, to the workload, operating information about at least one of the third plurality of resource devices (WEN, Fig. 12, 1202 processor; [0110] lines 1-22, Specifically, in embodiments of the present invention, the application layer agent process or the application layer management process may subscribe to a result event related to hardware failure, performance detection and/or reliability detection, and transmit a subscribe request including the subscriptions to the IaaS agent process, the IaaS agent process (as resource device management subsystem) detects the resource state related to the subscribe request according to the subscribe request, and transmits a detected resource state exception event (as operating information about at least one of the third plurality of resource devices) related to the subscribe request to the application layer agent process (as workload) or the application layer management process, the application layer agent process or the application layer management process handle the exception event according to a specific service, for instance, a subscribe request transmitted by the application layer management process or the application layer agent process, requiring detection for virtual machine sub-health status such as high temperature of hardware and a multi-bit memory error (as operation information about at least one of the third plurality of resource devices) may be received, so as to complete service migration and failure isolation when the sub-health status occurs).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Sanghai, Siddappa, Sun and Zhou with WEN because WEN’s teaching of providing the resource status/operation information would have provided Sanghai, Siddappa, Sun and Zhou’s system with the advantage and capability to allow the system to perform the failure isolation in order to preventing the potential system failures which improving the system performance and reliability (see WEN [0110] “memory error may be received, so as to complete service migration and failure isolation when the sub-health status occurs”)..
As per claims 9 and 11, they are information handling system (HIS) claims of claims 3 and 5 respectively above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reason as claims 3 and 5 respectively above.
As per claims 16 and 18, they are method claims of claims 3 and 5 respectively above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reason as claims 3 and 5 respectively above.
Claims 6, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sanghai, Siddappa, Sun and Zhou, as applied to claims 4, 10 and 14 respectively above, and further in view of Nalam (US Patent. 11,711,314 B1)
Nalam was cited in the previous Office Action.
As per claim 6, Sanghai, Siddappa, Sun and Zhou teach the invention according to claim 4 above. Sanghai teaches the at least one hardware processor in the resource device management subsystem (Sanghai, Fig. 1, 102, 110 workspace (WS) resource server, 118, 120, 112, 114 and 116 (as whole as resource device management subsystem), Col 10, lines 45-48, Elements of the described solution may be embodied in a computing system, such as that shown in FIG. 9 in which a computer 300 may include one or more processors 302).
In addition, Zhou teaches specifying, using the provided-resource file hierarchy, an attribute of at least one of the third plurality of resource devices (Zhou, Fig. 8, receive a notification with a list of network resources associated with the service, 825 Provide the list of network resource to the service engines to facilitate the service; [0079] lines 3-15, the service engine controllers receive (at 820) a notification identifying the list of network resources (e.g., endpoints) associated with the service. In some embodiments, the notification is an API (or YAML file) that specifies the list of network resources and a set of attributes of the network resources that are used to provide the service. For example, in order to provide load balancing across a set of endpoints identified in the list of network resources, the notification includes IP addresses of the identified network resources and ports on which the network resources listen. The list of network resources and attributes are then provided (at 825) to the service engines to facilitate the service and the process ends (as to configure, using the provided-resource file hierarchy, at least one of the second plurality of resource devices)).
Sanghai, Siddappa, Sun and Zhou fail to specifically teach configure an attribute of at least one of the third plurality of resource devices.
However, Nalam teaches configure an attribute of at least one of the third plurality of resource devices (Nalam, Col 4, lines 21-26, The resource attribute management service 120 may be configured to manage the resource attributes 122, according to some embodiments. For example, the resource attribute management service 120 may be configured to apply, modify or remove respective ones of the resource attributes 122 to respective ones of the resources 112).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Sanghai, Siddappa, Sun and Zhou with Nalam because Nalam’s teaching of modifying the resource attributes for the different resources would have provided Sanghai, Siddappa, Sun and Zhou’s system with the advantage and capability to allow the system to easily adjusting and configuring the resource attribute for resource allocation which improving the system performance and efficiency.
As per claim 12 it is an information handling system (HIS) claim of claim 6 above. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason as claim 6 above.
As per claim 19, it is a method claim of claim 6 above. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason as claim 6 above.
Response to Arguments
The Amendment filed on 12/17/2025 has been entered. Applicant’s amendment has overcome the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C § 112(a) and 112(b). However, new 112(a) and 112(b) rejections has been made in response to the Applicant’s amendment.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 under 103 rejection 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.
In the remark applicant’s argue in substance:
(a), 101 rejection: the Applicant has amended the claims to clarify that 1) the resource device provisioning request causes the SCP device to provide the LCS using the first plurality of resource devices and the first resource device, 2) the LCS uses the first plurality of resource devices and the first resource device to perform the workload, and 3) the workload performs one or more workload operations using resource device functionality that is available from the first resource device and that is not available from the first plurality of resource devices, which is submitted as overcoming the rejections based on 35 USC 101.
Examiner respectfully disagreed with Applicant’s argument for the following reasons:
As to point (a), in response to applicant’s argument that “ 1) the resource device provisioning request causes the SCP device to provide the LCS using the first plurality of resource devices and the first resource device, 2) the LCS uses the first plurality of resource devices and the first resource device to perform the workload, and 3) the workload performs one or more workload operations using resource device functionality that is available from the first resource device and that is not available from the first plurality of resource devices, which is submitted as overcoming the rejections based on 35 USC 101”. Examiner respectfully disagreed
Firstly, the “1) the resource device provisioning request” send to the SCP device which is related to sending/transmitting the request/data, and this is directed to insignificant extra solution activity (i.e., transmitting data) See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Secondly, the limitations of “causes the SCP device to provide the LCS using the first plurality of resource devices and the first resource device, 2) the LCS uses the first plurality of resource devices and the first resource device to perform the workload, and 3) the workload performs one or more workload operations using resource device functionality that is available from the first resource device and that is not available from the first plurality of resource devices” are directed to merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim only recites using a undefined “LCS” to using a generic computing component (“resource devices”(i.e., first resource device and first plurality of resource devices) to perform the workload. That is, the claim does not define any particular machine to “perform” this “workload and workload operations,” other than a generic machine such as the “a logical composed system (LCS) using first resource device and first plurality of resource devices” (i.e., the claim does not define what is LCS) and no details what so ever on how the claimed function will occur. In addition, “using resource device functionality that is available from the first resource device and that is not available from the first plurality of resource devices” is just basically explaining why first resource is needed (i.e., first resource is providing the resource functionality (extra resource needed) for performing the workload), it does not providing any additional details on how the resource functionality is utilized to perform the workload. Please also see 101 rejection above.
For the reasons above, Applicant’s argument has not been found to be persuasive, and therefore the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZUJIA XU whose telephone number is (571)272-0954. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30 EST.
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, Aimee J Li can be reached at (571) 272-4169. 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.
/ZUJIA XU/Examiner, Art Unit 2195
Prosecution Insights