DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. This Office Action is in response to claims filed on 09/21/2022.
3. Claims 1-23 are pending.
Drawings
4. Fig. 3-8 are objected to because they fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(1) and 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3). 37 CFR 1.84(p)(1) requires that reference characters (numerals are preferred), sheet numbers, and view numbers must be plain and legible, and must not be used in association with brackets or inverted commas, or enclosed within outlines, e.g., encircled. They must be oriented in the same direction as the view so as to avoid having to rotate the sheet. Reference characters should be arranged to follow the profile of the object depicted. 37 CFR 1.84(p)(3) requires that numbers, letters, and reference characters must measure at least .32 cm. (1/8 inch) in height. They should not be placed in the drawing so as to interfere with its comprehension. Therefore, they should not cross or mingle with the lines. They should not be placed upon hatched or shaded surfaces. When necessary, such as indicating a surface or cross section, a reference character may be underlined and a blank space may be left in the hatching or shading where the character occurs so that it appears distinct. In the instant application, in Fig. 3, the labels of the graph are not plain and legible. in Fig. 4-6, the labels of the arrows are not plain and legible, further all of the VC and VS graph labels and “photo collection”, “3D processing optimization”, and “3D Processing” are written over hatching; Examiner notes that there is no need that this text is depicted within the hatched area but insofar as Applicant believes it must be placed within the hatching, it must appear underlined and with blank space behind in the hatching. In Fig. 7 and 8, the “photo” and “optimizer” graph labels are written over hatching; Examiner notes that there is no need that this text is depicted within the hatched area but insofar as Applicant believes it must be placed within the hatching, it must appear underlined and with blank space behind in the hatching.
Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. “Drawing and specification corrections, presentation of a new oath and the like are generally considered as formal matters, although the filing of drawing corrections in reply to an objection to the drawings cannot normally be held in abeyance … An amendment which does not comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.121(b), (c), (d), and (h) may be held not fully responsive” (MPEP § 714.02). The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
5. Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim is. Appropriate correction is required.
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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.
6. 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
© 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) is/are: "a virtualization engine" in claim 1, which is accompanied with the functional language of “configured to execute…”, "a geolocation module" in claims 1 and 11, which is accompanied with the functional language of “configured to provide…”, "a distributed system orchestrator" in claims 1, 2, and 8, which is accompanied with the functional language of “configured to manage…”, “a task assignment module” in claim 1, which is accompanied with the functional language of “configured to assign…”, and “an energy module” in claim 13, which is accompanied with the functional language of “for providing…”.
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. A review of the specification reveals the corresponding structure of the virtualization engine, geolocation module, distributed system orchestrator, and task assignment module as merely general purpose computers. “It will be appreciated that a virtualization engine is a software module that is running on the top of host machines with OS and physical hardware supporting virtualization” [Page 15 ¶ 1]. “The geolocation module may comprise at least one of a software module and a physical interface and is used for at least estimating a current position of a host machine. The skilled addressee will appreciate that the geolocation module may be of various types” [Page 16 ¶ 4]. “In fact, it will be appreciated that the distributed system orchestrator 12 comprises a software module running on each host machine to manage, in a collaborative manner, virtualization and all related processes…” [Page 18 ¶ 2]. “As mentioned above, it will be appreciated that the distributed system orchestrator 12 comprises a task assignment module. The task assignment module consists of a multi-objective placement problem defined by a Mixed-Integer-Non-Linear-Programming (MINP) formulation” [Page 18 ¶ 3]. “It will be further appreciated that each heterogeneous host machine comprises an energy module for providing an indication of a corresponding level of energy available” [Page 21 ¶ 5]. MPEP § 2181(II)(B) states: “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)”. The specification fails to disclose the computer + algorithm and, as such, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) and (b) below.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
7. Claims 1-13 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 claim(s) contains 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. “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 ack written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)” [MPEP § 2181(II)(B)]. The claims have been found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as referenced below, and thus lack written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
The following Is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
8. Claims 1-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “wherein the at least one telecommunication network property problem comprises…” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The meaning could be clarified as “wherein the at least one telecommunication network property comprises…”.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “wherein the amending of the multi-period workload placement problem comprises...” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The “amending” is not previously stated in the claim or in claim 14 on which the claim depends.
Claim limitations “a virtualization engine configured to execute…”, "a geolocation module configured to provide…”, and "a distributed system orchestrator configured to manage…”, and “a task assignment module configured to assign…” in claim 1, and “an energy module for providing…” in claim 13 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed functions as no algorithm is disclosed for performing the specific computer functions, as referenced above in the 112(f) analysis. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, either explicitly or inherently, to perform the above function of execute. The use of the terms “execute”, “provide”, “manage”, “assign”, and “providing” is not adequate structure for performing the function because it does not describe a particular structure for performing the function. In accordance with MPEP § 2181(II)(B), the specification must disclose corresponding computer + algorithm for computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations. No such computer + algorithm is disclosed. See also “Claim Interpretation” under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) above.
Claims 2-13 depend, directly or indirectly, from rejected claims and do not resolve the deficiencies thereof and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claims so that the claim limitations will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(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
© 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 § 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.
9. Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 1-13 are directed to a system and fall within the statutory category of machines. Claims 14-23 are directed to a method and fall within the statutory category of process. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1 and 14: The limitations of “wherein the task assignment module assigns the virtualized element according to a given multi-period workload placement problem” and “and for each task of the plurality of tasks, assigning each corresponding virtualized element of the plurality of corresponding virtualized elements to a corresponding host machine using the determined multi-period workload placement problem”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can observe a multi-period workload placement problem and based on this observation can mentally assign one or more virtualized elements to a corresponding host machine. This may also be done with pencil and paper. Further, the limitations of “a given multi-period workload placement problem that is determined by the distributed system orchestrator using at least the indication of a present position of each available heterogeneous host machine and an indication of corresponding resource availability in at least one heterogeneous host machine of the plurality of heterogeneous host machines and in accordance with at least one given criterion” and “determining, using the distributed system orchestrator, a multi-period workload placement problem using the received indication of a present location of each available heterogeneous host machine and the indication of a resource availability of each available heterogeneous host machine”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can observe an indication of a present location, resource availability, and another given criterion and based on these observations can determine a multi-period workload placement problem.
Therefore, Yes, claims 1 and 14 recite a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1, and 14: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the Claims recite the following additional elements – “A system for enabling an execution of a plurality of tasks in a heterogeneous dynamic environment, the system comprising: a plurality of heterogeneous host machines that are each characterized by corresponding processing resources, ”, “with each heterogeneous host machine comprising: a telecommunication application configured to enable the heterogeneous host machine to be part of a telecommunication network with at least one other heterogeneous host machine;”, “a virtualization engine configured to execute a received virtualized element using the corresponding processing resources of the heterogeneous host machine;”, “and a geolocation module configured to provide at least an indication of a present position of the corresponding heterogeneous host machine;”, “and a distributed system orchestrator configured to manage an execution of a plurality of tasks using at least one of the plurality of heterogeneous host machines, wherein the plurality of tasks is comprised of a corresponding plurality of virtualized elements,” , “with the distributed system orchestrator comprising: a telecommunication application configured to enable the distributed system orchestrator to be part of the telecommunication network comprising at least one heterogeneous host machine of the plurality of heterogeneous host machines;”, “and a task assignment module configured to assign each virtualized element of the plurality of virtualized elements to a selected heterogeneous host machine located on the telecommunication network,”, “A method for enabling an execution of a plurality of tasks in a heterogeneous dynamic environment, the method comprising: providing a plurality of heterogeneous host machines, each given heterogeneous host machine having corresponding processing resources,”, “each given heterogeneous host machine comprising: a telecommunication application for enabling the given heterogeneous host machine to be part of a telecommunication network with at least one other heterogeneous host machine,”, “a virtualization engine for executing a received virtualized element using the corresponding processing resources,”, “and a geolocation module for providing at least an indication of a present position of the given heterogeneous host machine;”, “providing a distributed system orchestrator for managing an execution of a plurality of tasks using at least one of the plurality of heterogeneous host machines”, “with a corresponding telecommunication application for enabling the distributed system orchestrator to be part of the telecommunication network comprising at least one available heterogeneous host machine of the plurality of heterogeneous host machines”, and “and with a task assignment module for assigning each virtualized element of the plurality of virtualized elements to a selected heterogeneous host machine located on the telecommunication network;” which are merely recitations of technological environment/field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the claims recite the following additional elements – “receiving, using the distributed system orchestrator, a plurality of tasks to execute, each task comprising a corresponding plurality of virtualized elements;”, “obtaining, using the distributed system orchestrator, an indication of a present location of each available heterogeneous host machine;”, and “obtaining, using the distributed system orchestrator, an indication of a resource availability for each available heterogeneous host machine;” which are merely recitations of data reception which is insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP §2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1 and 14: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components, field of use/technological environment, and insignificant extra solution activity which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, the insignificant extra solution activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network” [MPEP§ 2106.05(d)(II)].
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, Claims 1 and 14 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 2, the claim recites additional element recitations of “wherein the multi- period workload placement problem is determined by the distributed system orchestrator using information related to heterogeneous host machines joining or leaving the telecommunication network” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and technological environment/field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, claim 2 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 2 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claim 2 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claims 3 and 16, the claims recite additional element recitations of “wherein the telecommunication network comprises a virtual ad hoc mobile telecommunication network” which is merely a recitation of technological environment/field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, claims 3 and 16 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 3 and 16 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claims 3 and 16 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claims 4 and 17, the claims recite additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein the multi-period workload placement problem is amended in response to a given event” and “further comprising amending the multi-period workload placement problem in response to a given event” as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can observe a given event and based on this observation mentally evaluate and amend a multi-period workload placement problem. Further, claims 4 and 17 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 4 and 17 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claims 4 and 17 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claims 5 and 18, the claims recite additional element recitations of “wherein the given event comprises a change in resources available” which is merely a recitation of technological environment/field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, claims 5 and 18 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 5 and 18 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claims 5 and 18 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claims 6 and 19, the claims recite additional element recitations of “wherein the amendment/amending of the multi-period workload placement problem comprises transferring a virtualized element from a first given heterogeneous host machine directly to a second given heterogeneous host machine” which are merely recitations of data transmission which is insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP §2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, claims 6 and 19 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 6 and 19 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as It has not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Further, the insignificant extra solution activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network” [MPEP§ 2106.05(d)(II)]. Therefore, Claims 6 and 19 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 7, the claim recites additional element recitations of “wherein the heterogeneous host machines are wireless host machines,” and “and wherein the at least one given criterion is selected from a group consisting of: a minimization of host machine utilization costs; a minimization of a number of migrations; a minimization of energy consumption; a minimization of refused workloads; a minimization of host machine physical movements; a throughput of at least one given host machine; a spectrum sharing behavior between at least two pairs of host machines; and an interference between at least two pairs of host machines” which are merely a recitation of technological environment/field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, claim 7 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 7 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claim 7 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 8, the claim recites additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein the telecommunication application of the distributed system orchestrator reserves dedicated suitable routing paths according to the multi-period workload placement problem” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can evaluate a multi-period workload placement problem and based on this evaluation can mentally reserve dedicated routing paths. Further, claim 8 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 8 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical 16application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claim 8 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claims 9 and 20, the claims recite additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein the given multi-period workload placement problem is further determined using at least one telecommunication network property” and “wherein the determining of the multi-period workload placement problem is further performed using at least one property of the telecommunication network” as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can evaluate a telecommunication network property and based on this evaluation may mentally amend a multi-period workload placement problem. Further, claims 9 and 20 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 9 and 20 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claims 9 and 20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 10, the claim recites additional element recitations of “wherein the at least one telecommunication network property problem comprises at least one of: a latency for transferring a first given virtualized element to a given heterogeneous host machine; a latency for migrating a second given virtualized element from a first given heterogeneous host machine to a second given heterogeneous host machine; and a network topology” which is merely a recitation of technological environment/field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, claim 10 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 10 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claim 10 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claims 11 and 21, the claims recite additional abstract idea recitations of “and wherein the given multi-period workload placement problem is further determined using the indication of a possible future position of the corresponding heterogeneous host machine” and “wherein the determining of the multi-period workload placement problem is further performed using the received indications of a possible future location” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can evaluate a possible future location or position of a host machine and based on this evaluation may mentally determine a multi-period workload placement problem. Further, the claims recite additional element recitations of “wherein the geolocation module is further configured to provide an indication of a possible future position of the corresponding heterogeneous host machine;” which is merely a recitation of technological environment/field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the claims recite additional element recitations of “further comprising receiving, from each of the plurality of heterogeneous host machines, an indication of a possible future location;” which is merely a recitation of data reception which is insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP §2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, claims 11 and 21 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 11 and 21 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Further, the insignificant extra solution activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network” [MPEP§ 2106.05(d)(II)]. Therefore, Claims 11 and 21 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claims 12 and 22, the claims recite additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein each heterogeneous host machine is being assigned an indication of a corresponding reputation” and “further comprising assigning, for each of the plurality of heterogeneous host machines, an indication of a corresponding reputation;” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can mentally assign a reputation to a host machine. This may also be done with pencil and paper. Further, the claims recite additional abstract idea recitations of “further wherein the given multi-period workload placement problem is further determined using the indication of a corresponding reputation” and “wherein the determining of the multi-period workload placement problem is further performed using the plurality of indications of a corresponding reputation” as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can evaluate an indication of a reputation and based on this evaluation may mentally determine a multi-period workload placement problem. Further, claims 12 and 22 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 12 and 22 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claims 12 and 22 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claims 13 and 23, the claims recite additional abstract idea recitations of “and wherein the given multi-period workload placement problem is further determined using the indication of a corresponding level of energy available” and “wherein the determining of the multi-period workload placement problem is further performed using the obtained indications of a corresponding level of energy available” as drafted, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can evaluate a level of energy available and based on this evaluation may mentally determine a multi-period workload placement problem. Further, the claims recite additional element recitations of “wherein each heterogeneous host machine comprises an energy module for providing an indication of a corresponding level of energy available;” which is merely a recitation of technological environment/field of use (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the claims recite additional element recitations of “further comprising: obtaining an indication of a corresponding level of energy available in each of the plurality of heterogeneous host machines;” which is merely a recitation of data reception which is insignificant extra solution activity (see MPEP §2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, claims 13 and 23 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 13 and 23 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fail Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Further, the insignificant extra solution activity is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network” [MPEP§ 2106.05(d)(II)]. Therefore, Claims 13 and 23 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claim 15, the claim recites additional element recitations of “further comprising executing each of the assigned virtualized elements using the corresponding heterogeneous host machine” which is merely a recitation using a computer as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, claim 15 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 15 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claim 15 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Therefore, Claims 1-23 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under U.S.C. §101.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
10. Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 13-15, 17, 18, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shaw (US 10,733,004 B2).
11. With regard to claim 1, Shaw teaches:
A system for enabling an execution of a plurality of tasks in a heterogeneous dynamic environment, “Robots may be automatically instantiated, modified, evolved, trained, or terminated based on location, time of day, user preference, special event trigger, or emergency. The robots may perform tasks to provide selective services on-demand within medicine, agriculture, military, entertainment, manufacturing, personal, or public safety, among other things” [Shaw Col. 1 Lines 28-34].
the system comprising: a plurality of heterogeneous host machines that are each characterized by corresponding processing resources, “A system comprising: a plurality of robots (heterogenous host machines); and a server communicatively connected with the plurality of robots…” [Shaw Claim 7]. “A robot is a mechanical or virtual artificial agent, usually an electromechanical machine that is guided by a computer program or electronic circuitry, and thus is a type of an embedded system” [Shaw Col. 1 Lines 12-15]. “Robot 106 (also referred to herein as hardware resources) may be any type of robot (e.g., bipedal or quadrupedal; autonomous or non-autonomous), and may, for example, be humanoid robot” [Shaw Col. 3 Lines 7-10]. “In the second housecleaning service scenario, the multiple robots 106 may have different specifications based on the individual tasks to be performed (e.g., robot for vacuuming may not need the same height, reach, or maneuverability as a robot for mopping, dusting or cleaning windows) … In addition, specifications desired for robot 106 may be software or hardware related, which may include software versions, battery (e.g., current battery life, battery power output, estimated battery life to perform anticipated actions, etc.), antennas, processor speed, amount of memory, speed of robot 106, payload capacity, type of sensors of robot 106, lights, actuators, or the like” [Shaw Col. 6 Lines 12-17, 20-26].
with each heterogeneous host machine comprising: a telecommunication application configured to enable the heterogeneous host machine to be part of a telecommunication network with at least one other heterogeneous host machine; “One or more instances of the machine can operate, for example, as mobile device 108, robot 106, server 101, processor 302, UE 414, eNB 416, MME 418, SGW 420, HSS 422, PCRF 424, PGW 426 and other devices of FIG. 1…In a networked deployment, the machine may operate in the capacity of a server or a client user machine in a server-client user network environment, or as a peer machine in a peer-to-peer (or distributed) network environment” [Shaw Col. 20, 21 Lines 62-66, 1-5]. “Further, server 101 may schedule and allow a plurality of robots 106 to collaborate with each other to perform the determined tasks” [Shaw Col. 5 Lines 57-59]. “Network device 300 may comprise hardware or a combination of hardware and software. The functionality to facilitate telecommunications via a telecommunications network may reside in one or combination of network devices 300.” [Shaw Col. 13 Lines 50-53].
a virtualization engine configured to execute a received virtualized element using the corresponding processing resources of the heterogeneous host machine; “At this step 114, server 101 may consider the control functions (e.g., the hardware or software functions used to perform certain actions, such as lift an object) to select or generate an appropriate virtual machine 102. At step 115, instructions are provided to activate virtual machine 102 to control robot 106” [Shaw Col. 4 Lines 19-21]. “Server 101 may transfer virtual machine 107 to robot 106 after the control function is determined” [Shaw Col. 10 Lines 51-52]. “Indeed, virtual machines can be hardware-independent, and can be portably provisioned and deployed on one of multiple different computing devices, operating systems, and environments. Indeed, depending on the availability of computing devices within a cloud environment 10 (e.g., server 101) a particular virtual machine 102 may be provisioned on any one (or multiple) of the devices included in cloud environment 101” [Shaw Col. 13 Lines 6-13].
and a geolocation module configured to provide at least an indication of a present position of the corresponding heterogeneous host machine; “Sensor 104 may be an accelerometer, gyroscope, magnetometer, light sensor, temperature sensor, motion sensor, pressure sensor, weight sensor, global positioning sensor (GPS), or a sensor that monitors a user's health (e.g., blood pressure, blood sugar, oxygen level, heart rate), among others. Sensor 104 may be located in or outside a structure, located in or on robot 106, located in or on mobile device 108, located in or on a user, or the like” [Shaw Col. 2, 3 Lines 64-67, 1-6]. “Server 101 may instantiate the robot based on robot location…In addition, server 101 may also transmit instructions to robot 106 to move from its current location to a destination location to perform the service (e.g., from robot's current location to the user's house to perform cleaning services)” [Shaw Col. 6 Lines 38-46]. “Another aspect of the disclosure is systems and apparatuses for robot virtualization leveraging Geo analytics and augmented reality. A plurality of robots 106 may be distributed or placed at various locations in a geographic area. In one example, server 101 may receive information from each robot 106 in the geographic area (e.g., location, specifications, availability status (e.g., robot is unavailable, available, or will be available at a specified time or in a specified amount of time))” [Shaw Col. 7 Lines 55-63].
and a distributed system orchestrator configured to manage an execution of a plurality of tasks using at least one of the plurality of heterogeneous host machines, “In an example, an apparatus may include a processor and a memory coupled with the processor that effectuates operations. The operations may include receiving information associated with a service; determining at least one task to perform to fulfill the service; determining based on the at least one task, specifications for a robot; generating a virtual machine based on the specifications for the robot; and providing instructions to activate the virtual machine to control the robot” [Shaw Col. 1 Lines 35-43]. “If server 101 (distributed system orchestrator) determines to use more than one robot 106, at step 131, server 101 may determine task execution information that identifies how multiple robots 106 will perform the tasks to fulfill the service” [Shaw Col. 5 Lines 52-55].
wherein the plurality of tasks is comprised of a corresponding plurality of virtualized elements, “At step 125, virtual machine 102 may be generated or selected based on the task or tasks to be performed, based on the control functions, or based on the specifications (desired or actual) of robot 106” [Shaw Col. 6 Lines 29-32]. “Virtual machines can encapsulate a complete set of virtual hardware resources, including an operating system and all its applications, inside a software package” [Shaw Col. 13 Lines 2-4].
with the distributed system orchestrator comprising: a telecommunication application configured to enable the distributed system orchestrator to be part of the telecommunication network comprising at least one heterogeneous host machine of the plurality of heterogeneous host machines; “Server 101 may be communicatively connected via network 103 to sensor 104, robot 106, or mobile device 108” [Shaw Col. 2 Lines 53-55, Fig. 1].
and a task assignment module configured to assign each virtualized element of the plurality of virtualized elements to a selected heterogeneous host machine located on the telecommunication network, “If server 101 determines to use more than one robot 106, at step 131, server 101 may determine task execution information that identifies how multiple robots 106 will perform the tasks to fulfill the service” [Shaw Col. 5 Lines 52-55]. “At this step 114, server 101 may consider the control functions (e.g., the hardware or software functions used to perform certain actions, such as lift an object) to select or generate an appropriate virtual machine 102. At step 115, instructions are provided to activate virtual machine 102 to control robot 106” [Shaw Col. 4 Lines 16-22].
wherein the task assignment module assigns the virtualized element according to a given multi-period workload placement problem “Disclosed herein are methods, systems, and apparatuses for on-demand robot virtualization, intelligent service on-demand robot virtualization, and robot virtualization leveraging Geo analytics and augmented reality. Robots may be instantiated on-demand and may be adaptive to an environment, application, or event change. Robots may also, for example, be automatically instantiated, modified, evolved, trained, or terminated to provide services on-demand based on location, time of day, user preference, special event trigger, or emergency” [Shaw Col. 2 Lines 30-39]. “For example, server 101 may schedule the task execution sequentially or in parallel” [Shaw Col. 5 Lines 55-57 Examiner notes that tasks executed sequentially is in line with the description of multi-period workload given on page 18 of the instant specification]. “For example, server 101 may relocate robot 106 based on a current request for robot 106 (e.g., user request for services to be performed by a robot at a specific location) or anticipated user requests for services based on time of day, location of users, geographic location, and/or event (e.g., lunchtime at a food court, detected large group of users at a sports stadium, plane arriving at an airport terminal, fire at a residential or commercial building)” [Shaw Col. 8 Lines 9-17].
that is determined by the distributed system orchestrator using at least the indication of a present position of each available heterogeneous host machine “Server 101 may instantiate the robot based on robot location, priority e.g., emergency service may have higher priority to access robot than a personal service request), and task execution information (e.g., multiple robots sequentially or in parallel). In addition, server 101 may also transmit instructions to robot 106 to move from its current location to a destination location to perform the service (e.g., from robot's current location to the user's house to perform cleaning services)” [Shaw Col. 6 Lines 38-46].
and an indication of corresponding resource availability in at least one heterogeneous host machine of the plurality of heterogeneous host machines “At step 113, as eluded to in step 112, based on the event, server 101 may determine desired specifications of robot 106. Server 101 may have a list of minimum to ideal specifications for robot 106 to have for the type of event…Specifications desired for robot 106 may be software or hardware related, which may include software versions, battery (e.g., current battery life, battery power output, estimated battery life to perform anticipated actions, etc.), antennas, processor speed, amount of memory, speed of robot 106, payload capacity (e.g., carrying a person or thing), types of sensors of robot 106, lights, actuators, or the like. The specifications may also apply to mobile device 108” [Shaw Col. 3, 4 Lines 62-65, 5-12]. “At step 124, server 101 may determine the desired specifications for a robot to play guitar and for a robot to play harmonica. Based on the specifications of the two available robots, server 101 may select the first robot to play guitar and the second robot to play harmonica” [Shaw Col. 9 Lines 45-49].
and in accordance with at least one given criterion. “In addition, robots, users, or a central controller may leverage Geo analytics and augmented reality to search for, discover, access and use robots. Geo analytics is the analysis of data (e.g., demographic, customer, or robot data) by geographical area or other form of spatial referencing” [Shaw Col. 2 Lines 39-44].
12. Regarding Claim 4, Shaw teaches:
the system according to claim 1, as referenced above.
wherein the multi-period workload placement problem is amended in response to a given event. “Disclosed herein are methods, systems, and apparatuses for on-demand robot virtualization, intelligent service on-demand robot virtualization, and robot virtualization leveraging Geo analytics and augmented reality. Robots may be instantiated on-demand and may be adaptive to an environment, application, or event change. Robots may also, for example, be automatically instantiated, modified, evolved, trained, or terminated to provide services on-demand based on location, time of day, user preference, special event trigger, or emergency” [Shaw Col. 2 Lines 30-39].
13. Regarding Claim 5, Shaw teaches:
the system according to claim 4, as referenced above.
wherein the given event comprises a change in resources available. “At step 128, server 101 may determine to modify a task. For example, a task may be modified due to environmental factors (e.g., weather, physical obstructions), a change in the user’s service request, a malfunction in the robot 106, a change in available hardware resources (e.g., additional robots may be available to collaborate on a task), user location, preferences, and/or time of day” [Shaw Col. 6 Lines 55-61].
14. Regarding Claim 7, Shaw teaches:
the system according to claim 1, as referenced above.
wherein the heterogeneous host machines are wireless host machines, “As shown in FIG. 6, telecommunication system 600 may include wireless transmit/receive units (WTRUs) 602, a RAN 604, a core network 606, a public switched telephone network (PSTN) 608, the Internet 610, or other networks 612, though it will be appreciated that the disclosed examples contemplate any number of WTRUs, base stations, networks, or network elements, Each WTRU 602 may be any type of device configured to operate or communicate in a wireless environment. For example, a WTRU may comprise robot 106, mobile device 108, network device 300, or the like, or any combination thereof.” [Shaw Col. 21 Lines 48-58].
and wherein the at least one given criterion is selected from a group consisting of: a minimization of host machine utilization costs; a minimization of a number of migrations; a minimization of energy consumption; a minimization of refused workloads; a minimization of host machine physical movements; a throughput of at least one given host machine; a spectrum sharing behavior between at least two pairs of host machines; and an interference between at least two pairs of host machines. “Geofences may be used create a boundary for the use of robot 106. A geofence is a virtual barrier. Programs that incorporate geo-fencing allow an administrator to set up triggers so when a device enters (or exits) the boundaries defined by the administrator, an action is taken, such as a SMS message is sent, email alert is sent, a siren goes off. In an example, if robot 106 reaches a geofence boundary it may shutoff, move back towards the center of the geofence, or otherwise stop moving” [Shaw Col. 12 Lines 11-19 Examiner notes the use of geofences is considered a minimization of host physical movements through limitation].
15. Regarding Claim 13, Shaw teaches:
the system according to claim 1, as referenced above.
wherein each heterogeneous host machine comprises an energy module for providing an indication of a corresponding level of energy available; “Specifications desired for robot 106 may be software or hardware related, which may include software versions, battery (e.g., current battery life, battery power output, estimated battery life to perform anticipated actions, etc.)…” [Shaw Col. 4 Lines 5-8].
and wherein the given multi-period workload placement problem is further determined using the indication of a corresponding level of energy available. “At step 113, as eluded to in step 112, based on the event, server 101 may determine desired specifications of robot 106. Server 101 may have a list of minimum to ideal specifications for robot 106 to have for the type of event” [Shaw Col. 3 Lines 62-65].
16. Regarding Claim 14, Shaw teaches:
A method for enabling an execution of a plurality of tasks in a heterogeneous dynamic environment, “Robots may be automatically instantiated, modified, evolved, trained, or terminated based on location, time of day, user preference, special event trigger, or emergency. The robots may perform tasks to provide selective services on-demand within medicine, agriculture, military, entertainment, manufacturing, personal, or public safety, among other things” [Shaw Col. 1 Lines 28-34].
the method comprising: providing a plurality of heterogeneous host machines, each given heterogeneous host machine having corresponding processing resources, “A system comprising: a plurality of robots (heterogenous host machines); and a server communicatively connected with the plurality of robots…” [Shaw Claim 7]. “A robot is a mechanical or virtual artificial agent, usually an electromechanical machine that is guided by a computer program or electronic circuitry, and thus is a type of an embedded system” [Shaw Col. 1 Lines 12-15]. “Robot 106 (also referred to herein as hardware resources) may be any type of robot (e.g., bipedal or quadrupedal; autonomous or non-autonomous), and may, for example, be humanoid robot” [Shaw Col. 3 Lines 7-10]. “In the second housecleaning service scenario, the multiple robots 106 may have different specifications based on the individual tasks to be performed (e.g., robot for vacuuming may not need the same height, reach, or maneuverability as a robot for mopping, dusting or cleaning windows) … In addition, specifications desired for robot 106 may be software or hardware related, which may include software versions, battery (e.g., current battery life, battery power output, estimated battery life to perform anticipated actions, etc.), antennas, processor speed, amount of memory, speed of robot 106, payload capacity, type of sensors of robot 106, lights, actuators, or the like” [Shaw Col. 6 Lines 12-17, 20-26].
each given heterogeneous host machine comprising: a telecommunication application for enabling the given heterogeneous host machine to be part of a telecommunication network with at least one other heterogeneous host machine, “One or more instances of the machine can operate, for example, as mobile device 108, robot 106, server 101, processor 302, UE 414, eNB 416, MME 418, SGW 420, HSS 422, PCRF 424, PGW 426 and other devices of FIG. 1…In a networked deployment, the machine may operate in the capacity of a server or a client user machine in a server-client user network environment, or as a peer machine in a peer-to-peer (or distributed) network environment” [Shaw Col. 20, 21 Lines 62-66, 1-5]. “Further, server 101 may schedule and allow a plurality of robots 106 to collaborate with each other to perform the determined tasks” [Shaw Col. 5 Lines 57-59]. “Network device 300 may comprise hardware or a combination of hardware and software. The functionality to facilitate telecommunications via a telecommunications network may reside in one or combination of network devices 300.” [Shaw Col. 13 Lines 50-53].
a virtualization engine for executing a received virtualized element using the corresponding processing resources, “At this step 114, server 101 may consider the control functions (e.g., the hardware or software functions used to perform certain actions, such as lift an object) to select or generate an appropriate virtual machine 102. At step 115, instructions are provided to activate virtual machine 102 to control robot 106” [Shaw Col. 4 Lines 19-21]. “Server 101 may transfer virtual machine 107 to robot 106 after the control function is determined” [Shaw Col. 10 Lines 51-52]. “Indeed, virtual machines can be hardware-independent, and can be portably provisioned and deployed on one of multiple different computing devices, operating systems, and environments. Indeed, depending on the availability of computing devices within a cloud environment 10 (e.g., server 101) a particular virtual machine 102 may be provisioned on any one (or multiple) of the devices included in cloud environment 101” [Shaw Col. 13 Lines 6-13].
and a geolocation module for providing at least an indication of a present position of the given heterogeneous host machine; “Sensor 104 may be an accelerometer, gyroscope, magnetometer, light sensor, temperature sensor, motion sensor, pressure sensor, weight sensor, global positioning sensor (GPS), or a sensor that monitors a user's health (e.g., blood pressure, blood sugar, oxygen level, heart rate), among others. Sensor 104 may be located in or outside a structure, located in or on robot 106, located in or on mobile device 108, located in or on a user, or the like” [Shaw Col. 2, 3 Lines 64-67, 1-6]. “Server 101 may instantiate the robot based on robot location…In addition, server 101 may also transmit instructions to robot 106 to move from its current location to a destination location to perform the service (e.g., from robot's current location to the user's house to perform cleaning services)” [Shaw Col. 6 Lines 38-46]. “Another aspect of the disclosure is systems and apparatuses for robot virtualization leveraging Geo analytics and augmented reality. A plurality of robots 106 may be distributed or placed at various locations in a geographic area. In one example, server 101 may receive information from each robot 106 in the geographic area (e.g., location, specifications, availability status (e.g., robot is unavailable, available, or will be available at a specified time or in a specified amount of time))” [Shaw Col. 7 Lines 55-63].
providing a distributed system orchestrator for managing an execution of a plurality of tasks using at least one of the plurality of heterogeneous host machines “In an example, an apparatus may include a processor and a memory coupled with the processor that effectuates operations. The operations may include receiving information associated with a service; determining at least one task to perform to fulfill the service; determining based on the at least one task, specifications for a robot; generating a virtual machine based on the specifications for the robot; and providing instructions to activate the virtual machine to control the robot” [Shaw Col. 1 Lines 35-43]. “If server 101 (distributed system orchestrator) determines to use more than one robot 106, at step 131, server 101 may determine task execution information that identifies how multiple robots 106 will perform the tasks to fulfill the service” [Shaw Col. 5 Lines 52-55].
with a corresponding telecommunication application for enabling the distributed system orchestrator to be part of the telecommunication network comprising at least one available heterogeneous host machine of the plurality of heterogeneous host machines “Server 101 may be communicatively connected via network 103 to sensor 104, robot 106, or mobile device 108” [Shaw Col. 2 Lines 53-55, Fig. 1].
and with a task assignment module for assigning each virtualized element of the plurality of virtualized elements to a selected heterogeneous host machine located on the telecommunication network; “If server 101 determines to use more than one robot 106, at step 131, server 101 may determine task execution information that identifies how multiple robots 106 will perform the tasks to fulfill the service” [Shaw Col. 5 Lines 52-55]. “At this step 114, server 101 may consider the control functions (e.g., the hardware or software functions used to perform certain actions, such as lift an object) to select or generate an appropriate virtual machine 102. At step 115, instructions are provided to activate virtual machine 102 to control robot 106” [Shaw Col. 4 Lines 16-22].
receiving, using the distributed system orchestrator, a plurality of tasks to execute, “At step 121, server 101 may receive information associated with a service to be performed” [Shaw Col. 4 Lines 64-66]. “At step 122, server 101 may determine, based on the information, what task(s) need to be performed to fulfill the service” [Shaw Col. 5 Lines 35-37].
each task comprising a corresponding plurality of virtualized elements; “At step 125, virtual machine 102 may be generated or selected based on the task or tasks to be performed, based on the control functions, or based on the specifications (desired or actual) of robot 106” [Shaw Col. 6 Lines 29-32]. “Virtual machines can encapsulate a complete set of virtual hardware resources, including an operating system and all its applications, inside a software package” [Shaw Col. 13 Lines 2-4].
obtaining, using the distributed system orchestrator, an indication of a present location of each available heterogeneous host machine; “Server 101 may instantiate the robot based on robot location, priority e.g., emergency service may have higher priority to access robot than a personal service request), and task execution information (e.g., multiple robots sequentially or in parallel). In addition, server 101 may also transmit instructions to robot 106 to move from its current location to a destination location to perform the service (e.g., from robot's current location to the user's house to perform cleaning services)” [Shaw Col. 6 Lines 38-46].
obtaining, using the distributed system orchestrator, an indication of a resource availability for each available heterogeneous host machine; “In another example, server 101 may receive information from each robot 106 in a geographic area (e.g., location, specifications, availability status) and transmit at least a portion of that information to robots 106 provide robot 106 information for other robots 106 in the geographic area)” [Shaw Col. 10 Lines 5-9]. “At step 113, as eluded to in step 112, based on the event, server 101 may determine desired specifications of robot 106. Server 101 may have a list of minimum to ideal specifications for robot 106 to have for the type of event…Specifications desired for robot 106 may be software or hardware related, which may include software versions, battery (e.g., current battery life, battery power output, estimated battery life to perform anticipated actions, etc.), antennas, processor speed, amount of memory, speed of robot 106, payload capacity (e.g., carrying a person or thing), types of sensors of robot 106, lights, actuators, or the like. The specifications may also apply to mobile device 108” [Shaw Col. 3, 4 Lines 62-65, 5-12].
determining, using the distributed system orchestrator, a multi-period workload placement problem “Disclosed herein are methods, systems, and apparatuses for on-demand robot virtualization, intelligent service on-demand robot virtualization, and robot virtualization leveraging Geo analytics and augmented reality. Robots may be instantiated on-demand and may be adaptive to an environment, application, or event change. Robots may also, for example, be automatically instantiated, modified, evolved, trained, or terminated to provide services on-demand based on location, time of day, user preference, special event trigger, or emergency” [Shaw Col. 2 Lines 30-39]. “quote” [citation]. “For example, server 101 may schedule the task execution sequentially or in parallel” [Shaw Col. 5 Lines 55-57 Examiner notes that tasks executed sequentially is in line with the description of multi-period workload given on page 18 of the instant specification]. “For example, server 101 may relocate robot 106 based on a current request for robot 106 (e.g., user request for services to be performed by a robot at a specific location) or anticipated user requests for services based on time of day, location of users, geographic location, and/or event (e.g., lunchtime at a food court, detected large group of users at a sports stadium, plane arriving at an airport terminal, fire at a residential or commercial building)” [Shaw Col. 8 Lines 9-17].
using the received indication of a present location of each available heterogeneous host machine “Server 101 may instantiate the robot based on robot location, priority e.g., emergency service may have higher priority to access robot than a personal service request), and task execution information (e.g., multiple robots sequentially or in parallel). In addition, server 101 may also transmit instructions to robot 106 to move from its current location to a destination location to perform the service (e.g., from robot's current location to the user's house to perform cleaning services)” [Shaw Col. 6 Lines 38-46].
and the indication of a resource availability of each available heterogeneous host machine; “At step 113, as eluded to in step 112, based on the event, server 101 may determine desired specifications of robot 106. Server 101 may have a list of minimum to ideal specifications for robot 106 to have for the type of event…Specifications desired for robot 106 may be software or hardware related, which may include software versions, battery (e.g., current battery life, battery power output, estimated battery life to perform anticipated actions, etc.), antennas, processor speed, amount of memory, speed of robot 106, payload capacity (e.g., carrying a person or thing), types of sensors of robot 106, lights, actuators, or the like. The specifications may also apply to mobile device 108” [Shaw Col. 3, 4 Lines 62-65, 5-12]. “At step 124, server 101 may determine the desired specifications for a robot to play guitar and for a robot to play harmonica. Based on the specifications of the two available robots, server 101 may select the first robot to play guitar and the second robot to play harmonica” [Shaw Col. 9 Lines 45-49].
and for each task of the plurality of tasks, assigning each corresponding virtualized element of the plurality of corresponding virtualized elements to a corresponding host machine using the determined multi-period workload placement problem. “In an example, an apparatus may include a processor and a memory coupled with the processor that effectuates operations. The operations may include receiving information associated with a service; determining at least one task to perform to fulfill the service; determining based on the at least one task, specifications for a robot; generating a virtual machine based on the specifications for the robot; and providing instructions to activate the virtual machine to control the robot” [Shaw Col. 1 Lines 35-43]. “If server 101 determines to use more than one robot 106, at step 131, server 101 may determine task execution information that identifies how multiple robots 106 will perform the tasks to fulfill the service” [Shaw Col. 5 Lines 52-55].
17. Regarding Claim 15, Shaw teaches:
the method according to claim 14, as referenced above.
further comprising executing each of the assigned virtualized elements using the corresponding heterogeneous host machine. “At step 126, instructions are provided to activate virtual machine 102 that will configure and control robot 106 to perform a task or tasks to fulfill the service” [Shaw Col. 6 Lines 58-60]. “A virtual machine (e.g., system virtual machine or process virtual machine) is a software implementation of a machine (for example, a computer) that executes programs like a physical machine” [Shaw Col. 12 Lines 44-47].
18. Regarding Claim 17, Shaw teaches:
the method according to claim 14, as referenced above.
further comprising amending the multi-period workload placement problem in response to a given event. “Disclosed herein are methods, systems, and apparatuses for on-demand robot virtualization, intelligent service on-demand robot virtualization, and robot virtualization leveraging Geo analytics and augmented reality. Robots may be instantiated on-demand and may be adaptive to an environment, application, or event change. Robots may also, for example, be automatically instantiated, modified, evolved, trained, or terminated to provide services on-demand based on location, time of day, user preference, special event trigger, or emergency” [Shaw Col. 2 Lines 30-39].
19. Regarding Claim 18, Shaw teaches:
the method according to claim 17, as referenced above.
wherein the given event comprises a change in resources available. “At step 128, server 101 may determine to modify a task. For example, a task may be modified due to environmental factors (e.g., weather, physical obstructions), a change in the user’s service request, a malfunction in the robot 106, a change in available hardware resources (e.g., additional robots may be available to collaborate on a task), user location, preferences, and/or time of day” [Shaw Col. 6 Lines 55-61].
20. Regarding Claim 23, Shaw teaches:
the method according to claim 14, as referenced above.
further comprising: obtaining an indication of a corresponding level of energy available in each of the plurality of heterogeneous host machines; “Specifications desired for robot 106 may be software or hardware related, which may include software versions, battery (e.g., current battery life, battery power output, estimated battery life to perform anticipated actions, etc.)…” [Shaw Col. 4 Lines 5-8].
wherein the determining of the multi-period workload placement problem is further performed using the obtained indications of a corresponding level of energy available. “At step 113, as eluded to in step 112, based on the event, server 101 may determine desired specifications of robot 106. Server 101 may have a list of minimum to ideal specifications for robot 106 to have for the type of event” [Shaw Col. 3 Lines 62-65].
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.
21. Claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw (US 10,733,004 B2) in view of Glottmann (US 2019/0116544 A1).
22. Regarding Claim 2, Shaw teaches:
the system according to claim 1, as referenced above.
wherein the multi-period workload placement problem is determined by the distributed system orchestrator using information… “At step 123, server 101 may determine whether to use multiple robots 106 to perform the task or tasks to fulfill the service. At this step, server 101 may consider several factors, including, for example, the tasks to be performed, the timeframe for completing the service, the amount of available robots 106, the number of users receiving the service, and the user’s preference (e.g., user requests multiple robots)” [Shaw Col. 5 Lines 45-52].
Shaw fails to explicitly teach wherein the multi- period workload placement problem is determined by the distributed system orchestrator using information related to heterogeneous host machines joining or leaving the telecommunication network.
However, Glottmann teaches wherein the multi-period workload placement problem is determined by the distributed system orchestrator using information related to heterogeneous host machines joining or leaving the telecommunication network. “Now in a Classical Ad-Hoc Network there is Self-Forming and Self-Healing. There is no Single Point Of Failure, no Central Management, and MPRs form a routing backbone. Other nodes act as hosts and as the nodes move, topological relationships change, routes change accordingly and the backbone shape and composition changes” [Glottmann ¶ 138]. “Self-healing Nodes can join or leave rapidly without affecting operation of the remaining nodes” [Glottmann Table 1]. “The overlay apparatus may change the reserved path if the current configuration and topology changes, or in addition or in the alternative may reserve at least two paths in parallel for the respective relatively large communication” [Glottmann ¶ 32 Examiner notes a node joining or leaving the network would cause a change in the configuration and topology, thus affecting the workload placement problem].
Glottmann is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of wireless communication networks. The system of Shaw includes a peer-to-peer network implementation. “In a networked deployment, the machine may operate in the capacity of a server or a client user machine in a server-client user network environment, or as a peer machine in a peer-to-peer (or distributed) network environment” [Shaw Col. 21 Lines 1-5]. This network could be implemented as the ad hoc network of Glottmann. Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shaw to incorporate the teachings of Glottmann and include using information related to heterogeneous host machines joining or leaving the telecommunication network. Doing so would allow for increased network flexibility to support mobile host machines. “Mobile nodes are in continuous motion, and ad hoc networking topologies are constantly changing” [Glottmann Table 1].
23. Regarding Claim 3, Shaw teaches the system according to claim 1, as referenced above.
Shaw fails to teach wherein the telecommunication network comprises a virtual ad hoc mobile telecommunication network.
However, Glottmann teaches wherein the telecommunication network comprises a virtual ad hoc mobile telecommunication network. “The present invention, in some embodiments thereof, relates to ad hoc networks and, more particularly, but not exclusively, to ad hoc networks set up by mobile entities as they move, for example satellites, autonomous vehicles or drones, autonomous aircraft, watercraft and autonomous watercraft, and vehicles in general (Airborne, maritime, vehicular) and even persons on foot wanting to transmit large amounts of information between each other” [Glottmann ¶ 2]. “In an Ad-Hoc network, sometimes also referred to MANET (mobile ad-hoc network), each node/satellite may see various other nodes/satellites, and there may be several paths going through different nodes/satellites to reach the node/satellite that is currently over a ground station and can transmit the images/video/other sensor information to the ground station…” [Glottmann ¶ 12].
The system of Shaw includes a peer-to-peer network implementation. “In a networked deployment, the machine may operate in the capacity of a server or a client user machine in a server-client user network environment, or as a peer machine in a peer-to-peer (or distributed) network environment” [Shaw Col. 21 Lines 1-5]. This network could be implemented as the ad hoc network of Glottmann. Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shaw to incorporate the teachings of Glottmann and include that the telecommunication network comprises a virtual ad hoc mobile telecommunication network. Doing so would allow for increased network flexibility to support mobile host machines. “Mobile nodes are in continuous motion, and ad hoc networking topologies are constantly changing” [Glottmann Table 1].
24. Regarding Claim 8, Shaw teaches the system according to claim 1, as referenced above.
Shaw fails to teach wherein the telecommunication application of the distributed system orchestrator reserves dedicated suitable routing paths according to the multi-period workload placement problem.
However, Glottmann teaches wherein the telecommunication application of the distributed system orchestrator reserves dedicated suitable routing paths according to the multi-period workload placement problem. “The overlay apparatus may identify a plurality of relatively large communications from different nodes and may reserve paths respectively for each relatively large communication” [Glottmann ¶ 35].
It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shaw to incorporate the teachings of Glottmann and include that the telecommunication application of the distributed system orchestrator reserves dedicated suitable routing paths according to the multi-period workload placement problem. Doing so would allow for increased network flexibility to support mobile host machines, as well as increased support for large volume data. “Mobile nodes are in continuous motion, and ad hoc networking topologies are constantly changing” [Glottmann Table 1]. “The reserved path ensures that defined large volume data is transferred smoothly over the network, and the net effect on other smaller data items traversing the same ad hoc network at the same time is generally minor as alternative paths remain open” [Glottmann ¶ 23].
25. Regarding Claim 9, Shaw teaches the system according to claim 1, as referenced above.
Shaw fails to explicitly teach wherein the given multi-period workload placement problem is further determined using at least one telecommunication network property.
However, Glottmann teaches wherein the given multi-period workload placement problem is further determined using at least one telecommunication network property. “According to an aspect of some embodiments of the present invention there is provided overlay apparatus for an ad-hoc/MESH communication network, the network comprising a plurality of nodes, at least some of which nodes are mobile with respect to other nodes, the nodes able to establish and abandon connections as they move with respect to one another, the nodes generally requiring relatively small bandwidth communications in order to generate and maintain an ad-hoc/MESH physical network of the nodes and the overlay apparatus, configured to reserve at least one assured protected communication path between a source node of a relatively large bandwidth communication and at least one destination node of the relatively large bandwidth communication, the reserved path being via at least one intervening node according to a current topology configuration (a telecommunication network property) of the connections of the ad hoc/MESH network.” [Glottmann ¶ 24 Examiner notes reserving a network path is interpreted as a part of the multi-period workload placement problem].
It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shaw to incorporate the teachings of Glottmann and include that the given multi-period workload placement problem is further determined using at least one telecommunication network property. Doing so would allow for increased network flexibility to support mobile host machines, as well as increased support for large volume data. “Mobile nodes are in continuous motion, and ad hoc networking topologies are constantly changing” [Glottmann Table 1]. “The reserved path ensures that defined large volume data is transferred smoothly over the network, and the net effect on other smaller data items traversing the same ad hoc network at the same time is generally minor as alternative paths remain open” [Glottmann ¶ 23].
26. Regarding Claim 10, Shaw in view of Glottmann teaches the system according to claim 9, as referenced above.
Shaw fails to teach wherein the at least one telecommunication network property problem comprises at least one of: a latency for transferring a first given virtualized element to a given heterogeneous host machine; a latency for migrating a second given virtualized element from a first given heterogeneous host machine to a second given heterogeneous host machine; and a network topology.
However, Glottmann teaches wherein the at least one telecommunication network property problem comprises at least one of: a latency for transferring a first given virtualized element to a given heterogeneous host machine; a latency for migrating a second given virtualized element from a first given heterogeneous host machine to a second given heterogeneous host machine; and a network topology. “The overlay apparatus may change the reserved path if the current configuration and topology changes, or in addition or in the alternative may reserve at least two paths in parallel for the respective relatively large communication” [Glottmann ¶ 32].
It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shaw to incorporate the teachings of Glottmann and include that the at least one telecommunication network property problem comprises a network topology. Doing so would allow for increased network flexibility to support mobile host machines, as well as increased support for large volume data. “Mobile nodes are in continuous motion, and ad hoc networking topologies are constantly changing” [Glottmann Table 1]. “The reserved path ensures that defined large volume data is transferred smoothly over the network, and the net effect on other smaller data items traversing the same ad hoc network at the same time is generally minor as alternative paths remain open” [Glottmann ¶ 23].
27. Regarding Claim 16, Shaw teaches the method according to claim 14, as referenced above.
Shaw fails to teach wherein the telecommunication network comprises a virtual ad hoc mobile telecommunication network.
However, Glottmann teaches wherein the telecommunication network comprises a virtual ad hoc mobile telecommunication network. “The present invention, in some embodiments thereof, relates to ad hoc networks and, more particularly, but not exclusively, to ad hoc networks set up by mobile entities as they move, for example satellites, autonomous vehicles or drones, autonomous aircraft, watercraft and autonomous watercraft, and vehicles in general (Airborne, maritime, vehicular) and even persons on foot wanting to transmit large amounts of information between each other” [Glottmann ¶ 2]. “In an Ad-Hoc network, sometimes also referred to MANET (mobile ad-hoc network), each node/satellite may see various other nodes/satellites, and there may be several paths going through different nodes/satellites to reach the node/satellite that is currently over a ground station and can transmit the images/video/other sensor information to the ground station…” [Glottmann ¶ 12].
It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shaw to incorporate the teachings of Glottmann and include that the telecommunication network comprises a virtual ad hoc mobile telecommunication network. Doing so would allow for increased network flexibility to support mobile host machines. “Mobile nodes are in continuous motion, and ad hoc networking topologies are constantly changing” [Glottmann Table 1].
28. Regarding Claim 20, Shaw teaches the method according to claim 14, as referenced above.
Shaw fails to explicitly teach wherein the determining of the multi-period workload placement problem is further performed using at least one property of the telecommunication network.
However, Glottmann teaches wherein the determining of the multi-period workload placement problem is further performed using at least one property of the telecommunication network. “According to an aspect of some embodiments of the present invention there is provided overlay apparatus for an ad-hoc/MESH communication network, the network comprising a plurality of nodes, at least some of which nodes are mobile with respect to other nodes, the nodes able to establish and abandon connections as they move with respect to one another, the nodes generally requiring relatively small bandwidth communications in order to generate and maintain an ad-hoc/MESH physical network of the nodes and the overlay apparatus, configured to reserve at least one assured protected communication path between a source node of a relatively large bandwidth communication and at least one destination node of the relatively large bandwidth communication, the reserved path being via at least one intervening node according to a current topology configuration (a telecommunication network property) of the connections of the ad hoc/MESH network.” [Glottmann ¶ 24 Examiner notes reserving a network path is interpreted as a part of the multi-period workload placement problem].
It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shaw to incorporate the teachings of Glottmann and include that the determining of the multi-period workload placement problem is further performed using at least one property of the telecommunication network. Doing so would allow for increased network flexibility to support mobile host machines, as well as increased support for large volume data. “Mobile nodes are in continuous motion, and ad hoc networking topologies are constantly changing” [Glottmann Table 1]. “The reserved path ensures that defined large volume data is transferred smoothly over the network, and the net effect on other smaller data items traversing the same ad hoc network at the same time is generally minor as alternative paths remain open” [Glottmann ¶ 23].
29. Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw (US 10,733,004 B2) in view of Harper (US 2013/0185667 A1).
30. Regarding Claim 6, Shaw teaches the system according to claim 4, as referenced above.
Shaw fails to teach wherein the amendment of the multi-period workload placement problem comprises transferring a virtualized element from a first given heterogeneous host machine directly to a second given heterogeneous host machine.
However, Harper teaches wherein the amendment of the multi-period workload placement problem comprises transferring a virtualized element from a first given heterogeneous host machine directly to a second given heterogeneous host machine. “FIG. 4 shows an example of a geographically dispersed Disaster-Resilient configuration comprising Site A (block diagram element 401) and Site B (block diagram element 403), that utilizes IBM’s systems management products. Each site contains physical server resources capable of supporting the Application and Virtual resources of a workload” [Harper ¶ 166 Examiner notes that each site containing physical server resources capable of supporting the Application and Virtual resources of a workload are considered a heterogenous host machine in this example]. “In this example, the responsibility for determining that a site is impaired and workload needs to be recovered on or otherwise migrated to another site (either as a result of a whole-site failure, a whole-site planned outage, or a partial site failure) belongs to the Tivoli Systems Automation (TSA) product” [Harper ¶ 167]. “The term “evacuate” is used to indicate that a resource (e.g., VM or higher level element) is to be gracefully migrated from a condemned element to an approved element in the IT stack. Modes of evacuation can range from the known active migration capabilities of virtual machines, to a clean shutdown and restart of an affected component” [Harper ¶ 126].
Harper is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of workload placement in a distributed system. Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shaw to incorporate the teachings of Harper and include that the amendment of the multi-period workload placement problem comprises transferring a virtualized element from a first given heterogeneous host machine directly to a second given heterogeneous host machine. Doing so would allow for the workload placement to provide optimized service in accordance with user priorities. “Various embodiments provide a mechanism for allowing a user to specify his or her resilience goal at a level of abstraction that is meaningful to that user, and then automatically initializing and configuring the white box and the black box availability managers to meet the resilience goals (of course, various embodiments may be applied in the context of one user or multiple users)” [Harper ¶ 6].
31. Regarding Claim 19, Shaw teaches the method according to claim 14, as referenced above.
Shaw fails to teach wherein the amending of the multi-period workload placement problem comprises transferring a given virtualized element from a first given heterogeneous host machine to a second given heterogeneous host machine.
However, Harper teaches wherein the amending of the multi-period workload placement problem comprises transferring a given virtualized element from a first given heterogeneous host machine to a second given heterogeneous host machine. “FIG. 4 shows an example of a geographically dispersed Disaster-Resilient configuration comprising Site A (block diagram element 401) and Site B (block diagram element 403), that utilizes IBM’s systems management products. Each site contains physical server resources capable of supporting the Application and Virtual resources of a workload” [Harper ¶ 166 Examiner notes that each site containing physical server resources capable of supporting the Application and Virtual resources of a workload are considered a heterogenous host machine in this example]. “In this example, the responsibility for determining that a site is impaired and workload needs to be recovered on or otherwise migrated to another site (either as a result of a whole-site failure, a whole-site planned outage, or a partial site failure) belongs to the Tivoli Systems Automation (TSA) product” [Harper ¶ 167]. “The term “evacuate” is used to indicate that a resource (e.g., VM or higher level element) is to be gracefully migrated from a condemned element to an approved element in the IT stack. Modes of evacuation can range from the known active migration capabilities of virtual machines, to a clean shutdown and restart of an affected component” [Harper ¶ 126].
It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shaw to incorporate the teachings of Harper and include that the amending of the multi-period workload placement problem comprises transferring a given virtualized element from a first given heterogeneous host machine to a second given heterogeneous host machine. Doing so would allow for the workload placement to provide optimized service in accordance with user priorities. “Various embodiments provide a mechanism for allowing a user to specify his or her resilience goal at a level of abstraction that is meaningful to that user, and then automatically initializing and configuring the white box and the black box availability managers to meet the resilience goals (of course, various embodiments may be applied in the context of one user or multiple users)” [Harper ¶ 6].
32. Claims 11 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw (US 10,733,004 B2) in view of Gibbon (US 10,516,757 B2).
33. Regarding Claim 11, Shaw teaches:
the system according to claim 1, as referenced above.
and wherein the given multi-period workload placement problem is further determined using the indication of a possible future position of the corresponding heterogeneous host machine. “Signal strength may help determine selected virtual machines or how much of an identity is downloaded. For example, there may be different levels of an identity downloaded based on signal strength at current location of robot 106 or anticipated signal strength for an area robot 106 will traverse” [Shaw Col. 10 Lines 63-67].
Shaw fails to explicitly teach wherein the geolocation module is further configured to provide an indication of a possible future position of the corresponding heterogeneous host machine.
However, Gibbon teaches wherein the geolocation module is further configured to provide an indication of a possible future position of the corresponding heterogeneous host machine; “Network throughput at a future time can be inferred based on an anticipated trajectory of a moving mobile client device. If the client device is mobile (step 304), the server can use the movement history (including the current location) of the client device and its trajectory (step 306) to predict a future location of the client device (step 308)” [Gibbon Col. 4 Lines 31-36].
Gibbon is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of network arrangements. Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shaw to incorporate the teachings of Gibbon and include that the geolocation module is further configured to provide an indication of a possible future position of the corresponding heterogeneous host machine. Doing so would allow for further optimization of the workload placement by considering future host paths. “The method further comprises scheduling, by the server, a time for fulfilling the request in accordance with the future transport characteristic and the current transport characteristic, to avoid a degradation in a viewing quality of the media content” [Gibbon Col. 2 Lines 54-59].
34. Regarding Claim 21, Shaw teaches:
the method according to claim 14, as referenced above.
wherein the determining of the multi-period workload placement problem is further performed using the received indications of a possible future location. “Signal strength may help determine selected virtual machines or how much of an identity is downloaded. For example, there may be different levels of an identity downloaded based on signal strength at current location of robot 106 or anticipated signal strength for an area robot 106 will traverse” [Shaw Col. 10 Lines 63-67].
Shaw fails to explicitly teach further comprising receiving, from each of the plurality of heterogeneous host machines, an indication of a possible future location.
However, Gibbon teaches further comprising receiving, from each of the plurality of heterogeneous host machines, an indication of a possible future location; “Network throughput at a future time can be inferred based on an anticipated trajectory of a moving mobile client device. If the client device is mobile (step 304), the server can use the movement history (including the current location) of the client device and its trajectory (step 306) to predict a future location of the client device (step 308)” [Gibbon Col. 4 Lines 31-36].
It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shaw to incorporate the teachings of Gibbon and include that receiving, from each of the plurality of heterogeneous host machines, an indication of a possible future location. Doing so would allow for further optimization of the workload placement by considering future host paths. “The method further comprises scheduling, by the server, a time for fulfilling the request in accordance with the future transport characteristic and the current transport characteristic, to avoid a degradation in a viewing quality of the media content” [Gibbon Col. 2 Lines 54-59].
35. Claims 12 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaw (US 10,733,004 B2) in view of Huang (US 2015/0220357 A1).
36. Regarding Claim 12, Shaw teaches the system according to claim 1, as referenced above.
Shaw fails to teach wherein each heterogeneous host machine is being assigned an indication of a corresponding reputation; further wherein the given multi-period workload placement problem is further determined using the indication of a corresponding reputation.
However, Huang teaches wherein each heterogeneous host machine is being assigned an indication of a corresponding reputation; “The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 13, wherein the physical resource tag identifies a hardware reliability rating (corresponding reputation) of the identified physical resource” [Huang Claim 15, Fig. 5]. “Referring again to the examples shown in FIGS. 7A-7C, if the tag having a TAG_ID of "1" is associated with an offering selected with the customer, then in step 606 the host server named "Host A" may be selected based on the tag association in table 700a to host the new virtual machine” [Huang ¶ 81, Fig. 7A].
further wherein the given multi-period workload placement problem is further determined using the indication of a corresponding reputation. “…cause a system to: receive a request to create a virtual machine in a cloud-computing environment, the request to create the virtual machine identifying one or more requested hardware characteristics for a physical resource running the virtual machine; access a storage system storing physical resource tags that identify hardware characteristics of physical resources in the cloud-computing environment; retrieve, from the storage system, a physical resource tag identifying a physical resource of the physical resources in the cloud-computing environment, the physical resource tag being retrieved based on the identified physical resource having the one or more requested hardware characteristics identified in the request to create the virtual machine; and provision the virtual machine using the physical resource identified by the physical resource tag” [Huang Claim 13].
Huang is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of operating system virtualization. Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shaw to incorporate the teachings of Huang and include that each heterogeneous host machine is being assigned an indication of a corresponding reputation; further wherein the given multi-period workload placement problem is further determined using the indication of a corresponding reputation. Doing so would allow for the workload placement to provide service in accordance with customer specifications and agreements. “In some examples, when a cloud customer connects to the cloud customer console 535 and requests a new virtual machine, the customer console may present a user interface to the customer showing predetermined combinations of virtual machine templates, functional specifications, and/or features which may be selected by the customer, rather than requiring the customer to individually choose every hardware and software feature for the new virtual machine” [Huang ¶ 75].
37. Regarding Claim 22, Shaw teaches the method according to claim 14, as referenced above.
Shaw fails to teach further comprising assigning, for each of the plurality of heterogeneous host machines, an indication of a corresponding reputation; wherein the determining of the multi-period workload placement problem is further performed using the plurality of indications of a corresponding reputation.
However, Huang teaches further comprising assigning, for each of the plurality of heterogeneous host machines, an indication of a corresponding reputation; “The one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 13, wherein the physical resource tag identifies a hardware reliability rating (corresponding reputation) of the identified physical resource” [Huang Claim 15, Fig. 5]. “Referring again to the examples shown in FIGS. 7A-7C, if the tag having a TAG_ID of "1" is associated with an offering selected with the customer, then in step 606 the host server named "Host A" may be selected based on the tag association in table 700a to host the new virtual machine” [Huang ¶ 81, Fig. 7A].
wherein the determining of the multi-period workload placement problem is further performed using the plurality of indications of a corresponding reputation. “…cause a system to: receive a request to create a virtual machine in a cloud-computing environment, the request to create the virtual machine identifying one or more requested hardware characteristics for a physical resource running the virtual machine; access a storage system storing physical resource tags that identify hardware characteristics of physical resources in the cloud-computing environment; retrieve, from the storage system, a physical resource tag identifying a physical resource of the physical resources in the cloud-computing environment, the physical resource tag being retrieved based on the identified physical resource having the one or more requested hardware characteristics identified in the request to create the virtual machine; and provision the virtual machine using the physical resource identified by the physical resource tag” [Huang Claim 13].
It would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shaw to incorporate the teachings of Huang and include assigning, for each of the plurality of heterogeneous host machines, an indication of a corresponding reputation; wherein the determining of the multi-period workload placement problem is further performed using the plurality of indications of a corresponding reputation. Doing so would allow for the workload placement to provide service in accordance with customer specifications and agreements. “In some examples, when a cloud customer connects to the cloud customer console 535 and requests a new virtual machine, the customer console may present a user interface to the customer showing predetermined combinations of virtual machine templates, functional specifications, and/or features which may be selected by the customer, rather than requiring the customer to individually choose every hardware and software feature for the new virtual machine” [Huang ¶ 75].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARI F RIGGINS whose telephone number is (571)272-2772. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:00AM-4:30PM.
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, Bradley Teets can be reached at (571) 272 3338. 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.
/A.F.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2197
/BRADLEY A TEETS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights