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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs and/or columns and lines in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims 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 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 or disclosed by the examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application
Applicant is encouraged to file an Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application form (http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) along with the response to this office action to facilitate and expedite future communication between Applicant and the examiner. If the form is submitted then Applicant is requested to provide a contact email address in the signature block at the conclusion of the official reply.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 11-12, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable over the prior art of record if rewritten to overcome the applicable rejection(s) and/or objection(s) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims because the examiner found neither prior art cited in its entirety, nor based on the prior art, found any motivation to combine any of the said prior art.
Claim Objections
Claims 8-10 and 12-13 are objected to because they all depend upon claim 8, however, it appears that they should depend upon claim 7. 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 (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As per claims 1-20, they are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim is a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter (Step 1). The claim recites an abstract idea because it includes limitations that can be considered mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind or via pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (Step 2A Prong One). The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application (Step 2A Prong Two) because the abstract idea is recited but for generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. data storage, processor, memory, computer readable medium, etc.) which do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea amounting to simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer using generic computing hardware and/or software (e.g. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the recited generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim includes limitations which can be considered extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) insufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional limitations only store and retrieve information in/from memory and/or transmit and receive data which are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)II (Step 2B). The claim further includes limitations that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they merely recite the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim, and its limitations when considered separately and in combination, is directed to patent ineligible subject matter. See below for the examiner’s analysis:
Claim 1. A system, said system comprising:
a memory (generic computing components); and
a processor (generic computing components) in communication with said memory, said processor being configured to perform operations, said operations comprising:
identifying a priority of a workload (abstract idea mental process);
calculating a workload preference based on said priority (abstract idea mental process);
selecting a host for said workload using said workload preference (abstract idea mental process); and
deploying said workload to said host (merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea).
Claim 2. The system of claim 1, said operations further comprising: determining said priority using a time factor, wherein said time factor is selected from the group consisting of a container deployment time for said workload and an execution time length for said workload (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 3. The system of claim 1, said operations further comprising: identifying a current launch time for a first host option (abstract idea mental process); generating a future launch time for a second host option (abstract idea mental process); and comparing said future launch time to said current launch time to select said host (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 4. The system of claim 1, said operations further comprising: quantifying a pending recycling resource amount (abstract idea mental process); enumerating a subsequent recycling resource amount (abstract idea mental process); and calculating a future resource availability on said host (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 5. The system of claim 1, said operations further comprising: calculating a launch time required to commence said workload on said host by computing a destruction phase start time for an active container deployed on said host, a destruction time required to destroy said active container, and a deployment time required to deploy said workload on available resources (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 6. The system of claim 1, said operations further comprising: delaying said workload from deployment for a delay time within a predetermined delay period (abstract idea mental process).
As per claim 7, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 8, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 9, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 10, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 11. The computer-implemented method of claim 10, further comprising: calculating resources in use by at least one terminal container in a destruction phase on said host to quantify said pending recycling resource amount; and calculating resources in use by at least one active container to enumerate said subsequent recycling resource amount, wherein said at least one active container is scheduled for destruction within a predetermined time (abstract idea mental process).
As per claim 12, it has similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 13, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 14. The computer-implemented method of claim 13, further comprising: optimizing host selection for said workload preference using said delay time (abstract idea mental process).
As per claim 15, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 16, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 17, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 18, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 19, it has similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 20, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 7, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson-Jones et al. (US 2023/0112031) (hereinafter Watson-Jones) in view of Aronovich et al. (US 2019/0310895) (hereinafter Aronovich).
As per claim 1, Watson-Jones teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a system, said system comprising:
a memory (fig. 6, block 603); and
a processor (fig. 6, block 601) in communication with said memory, said processor being configured to perform operations, said operations comprising:
identifying a priority of a workload ([0026] specify workload ranking and [0177] specify workload importance relative to other workloads);
calculating a workload preference based on said priority ([0026] relative workload ranking indicates which workload is preferred and [0177] workload preferences can be specified based on indication of relative workload importance)
Watson-Jones does not explicitly teach, but Aronovich teaches:
selecting a host for said workload using said workload preference ([0095] select a host for running a given workload based on a higher preference of the workload for the selected host);
deploying said workload to said host (claim 7 deploy an instance of a workload type to run in the cluster of hosts).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Watson-Jones in view of Aronovich because it would provide a way reduce the latency of accessing data by workloads, by placing workloads close to their data. Specifically, determining how to combine workload-related knowledge (typically coming from workload management systems) with data storage-related knowledge (typically coming from storage systems) in an efficient and automatic way, to place workloads close to their underlying data and therefore increase the efficiency of the workloads and the computing system as a whole.
As per claim 7, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 2, 8, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson-Jones in view of Aronovich in view of Ghag et al. (US 2020/0341789) (hereinafter Gag) in view of Li et al. (US 2020/0159587) (hereinafter Li).
As per claim 2, Watson-Jones in view of Aronovich do not explicitly teach, but Ghag teaches:
determining said priority using a time factor, wherein said time factor is selected from the group consisting of a container deployment time for said workload ([0053] generate/assign rating/score for containerized workloads to be deployed on containers based on an amount of time to execute the containerized workloads and [0055] workload information can include ratings/scores for workloads and is based on a duration time for which the workloads will be executed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Watson-Jones in view of Aronovich in view of Ghag because it would provide for an improved scheduling of containerized workloads that can lead to improved performance of a computing system such as a software defined data center, virtual computing cluster, server, or other computing device. For example, by scheduling containerized workloads, applications can be assembled from containerized workloads more efficiently than in some approaches, which can reduce an amount of computing resources and/or an amount of time required to execute the application. This can lead to reduced downtime, quicker application execution, and/or improved user experience.
Watson-Jones in view of Aronovich in view of Ghag do not explicitly teach, but Li teaches:
an execution time length for said workload ([0065] priorities of workloads may be calculated based on time for finishing the workload and/or execution time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Watson-Jones in view of Aronovich in view of Ghag in view of Li because it would provide for a preemptive scheduling mechanism based on knowledge of releasable resources of currently running workloads, so that a scheduler can accurately select which ones of the currently running workloads are to be preempted by a pending workload. As sufficient resources can be released from the selected workloads for the pending workload, the pending workload will run efficiently without influencing other running workloads. This would also provide for a resource releasing mechanism that can quickly reclaim releasable resources from the preempted workloads so that the releasable resources can be immediately used by the preemptive workload, as compared to slow resource releasing by frequent and inefficient OS swapping.
As per claim 8, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 16, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 3, 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson-Jones in view of Aronovich in view Butler et al. (US 2022/0197773) (hereinafter Butler).
As per claim 3, Watson-Jones in view of Aronovich do not explicitly teach, but Butler teaches:
identifying a current launch time for a first host option; generating a future launch time; and comparing said future launch time to said current launch time to select said host ([0265] score/rank possible workload placements based on varying time frames for workload placement and comparing current and future time points and [0267] optimal workload placement is based on comparing current time and future time points).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Watson-Jones in view of Aronovich in view of Butler because it would provide a way for exploitation of processing architecture features, improved resource management, and improved resource matching. For example, with respect to exploitation of processing architecture features optimized to handle a specific workload are easily identified with a continuous resource prediction model, and they are used to understand decisions around workload placement/deferral for optimality and delivering expected performance. This solution also improves resource management and service assurance in a highly distributed and resource-constrained edge computing environment. Further, this solution provides better resource matching as specialized resources become available in time, which leads to lower service level agreement (SLA) violations, uniform resource utilization, and low saturation amongst resources to achieve the optimum total cost of ownership.
As per claim 9, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 17, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 4, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson-Jones in view of Aronovich in view of Arndt et al. (US 2017/0206463) (hereinafter Arndt) in view of Fang et al. (US 2016/0253215) (hereinafter Fang) in view of Sharma et al. (US 2020/0133702) (hereinafter Sharma).
As per claim 4, Watson-Jones in view of Aronovich do not explicitly teach, but Arndt teaches:
quantifying a pending recycling resource amount ([0042] calculating reusable resources being held);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Watson-Jones in view of Aronovich in view of Arndt because it would provide a way for historical information for the processes and serialized resource to be collected and used to create a time series model of their behavior. The model can be updated periodically as additional historical information in created and stored. Possible action choices can be modeled using the snapshot, and historical information, resource information, and action data, to simulate an effect of the possible action. The simulated possible action choice with the most positive change in process throughput and overall system utility can be chosen. Further, the least destructive option to the currently blocking process can be chosen if the simulations results are not significant. Additionally, historical data can be kept on action choices, and the contention health ratio at intervals after the action is selected and processed. If a similar abnormal contention is found again, the historical data for that action can also be used to tailor the simulated action models, improving the algorithm used to resolve abnormal contention.
Watson-Jones in view of Aronovich in view of Arndt do not explicitly teach, but Fang teaches:
enumerating a subsequent recycling resource amount ([0042] resource recycling associated with predicted future resource consumption requirements).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Watson-Jones in view of Aronovich in view of Arndt in view of Fang because it would provide for a resource allocator to allocate, e.g., supply, amounts of the resource supplied by resource suppliers to resource consuming entities during a subsequent time period, in accordance with the predicted resource consumption requirements, e.g., demand. Since the resource consumption requirements during or in the subsequent time period may vary from current resource consumption by resource consuming entities, the resource allocator may accordingly increase amounts of the resource to be allocated to the resource consuming entities or recycle current amounts of the resource consumed by resource consuming entities to avoid waste.
Watson-Jones in view of Aronovich in view of Arndt in view of Fang do not explicitly teach, but Sharma teaches:
calculating a future resource availability on said host ([0042] predict future computational resource availability at source hosts for a particular workload).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Watson-Jones in view of Aronovich in view of Arndt in view of Fang in view of Sharma because it would provide a way for migration of workloads that may result in a more efficient computing resource utilization reflecting present conditions in a shared resource pool and providing for substantially real-time accommodations to changes in conditions. The resulting system may compare the unused residual computing capacity and/or unused network resource capacity to the demand for computational capacity and/or network resource capacity imposed by a workload to a candidate destination host that is capable of executing the workload without disrupting other workloads being executed at the candidate destination host and/or at other hosts in the shared pool of resources. The resulting system may identify any ancillary migrations of other workloads from their source hosts to destination hosts that may be executed in order to migrate the workload without creating ripple disruptions throughout the shared resource pool.
As per claim 10, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 18, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson-Jones in view of Aronovich in view of Ocon Cardenas et al. (US 2023/0118846) (hereinafter Ocon Cardenas).
As per claim 6, Watson-Jones in view of Aronovich do not explicitly teach, but Ocon Cardenas teaches: delaying said workload from deployment for a delay time within a predetermined delay period ([0013] delay deploying the new workload altogether until one or more nodes having sufficient unreserved resources become available).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Watson-Jones in view of Aronovich in view of Ocon Cardenas because it would provide a way of reserving the sum of (requested or assigned) resource limits of all workloads deployed on a node, so that a scheduler may guarantee availability of the maximum resource limit for any deployed workload even if all the deployed workloads request their maximum resource limits at the same time. This could thus advantageously free some of the resources on the node for allocation to other workloads during periods when the first workload is deemed to be running in the second or non-transient state.
As per claim 13, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 20, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watson-Jones in view of Aronovich in view of Rao et al. (US 11,863,616).
As per claim 14, Watson-Jones in view of Aronovich do not explicitly teach, but Rao teaches: optimizing host selection for said workload preference using said delay time (col. 2, ll. 35-44 select the best host to host a service based on round-trip time and latency).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Watson-Jones in view of Aronovich in view of Rao because it would provide for an architecture that is linearly scalable. Thus the resulting system may be scaled quickly and easily with little or no risk of losing usage information, with minimum or no downtime, and without affecting the latency of the overall system. A hosting server that provides better performance for the more heavily weighted participant nodes is more likely to be selected relative to a hosting server that provides better performance for the less weighted participant nodes. A heuristics model may rank all of the participant nodes and then weigh the experience of the participant nodes for each hosting server based on that ranking. The heuristics model may exclude outliers, such as the lowest priority participant nodes, from the determination, while the algorithm can optimize performance for all the participant nodes, optimize performance the region having the most participant nodes, and select a hosting server that is at a geographic midpoint of the participant nodes.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Billore et al. (US 2015/0169366) disclose assigning priority ordering for workloads based on preference factors of each workload.
Grushka et al. (US 2023/0259408) disclose using a workload priority to give preference to a workload designated as high priority.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam Lee whose telephone number is (571)270-3369. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 8AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the above noted Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Chat Do, can be reached at the following telephone number: (571) 272-3721. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/Adam Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193 October 3, 2025