DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-7, 9, 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollingsworth (US 2010/0192156 A1) in view of Sutton (US 2020/0249974 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hollingsworth teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a method comprising:
allocating, using a programming interface associated with a host, to an application associated with the host, a resource of a computational device configured to communicate with the host, the resource of the computational device comprising at least a portion of a storage resource of the computational device and at least a portion of a processor resource of the computational device (Fig. 1; [0015] a system is disclosed that includes a computer system 102 that includes one or more software applications (e.g., software application 104) and one or more hardware resources 106…The allocation 118 of the particular hardware resource represents a fraction of the particular hardware resource that is made available to support the running software application.; [0017] The identified hardware resources 130 represent one or more hardware resources supporting the running software application. The resource APIs 132 identify one or more software APIs used to adjust allocations of each of the identified hardware resources 130. Thus, software APIs may be used to adjust an amount (e.g., an allocation) of a particular hardware resource available to support the running software application.; [0019] For example, the first hardware resource 122 may include a logical processing resource that is associated with at least one physical processing unit (e.g., a central processing unit (CPU)). The second hardware resource 124 may include a logical memory resource that is associated with at least one physical storage device. The third hardware resource 126 may include a logical bandwidth resource associated with at least one device that provides physical communication bandwidth (e.g., a network resource). Other hardware resources may also be included in the computer system 102. For example, the one or more hardware resources 106 may include both physical hardware resources and virtual hardware resources (e.g., cloud computing).);
executing a first operation of the application based on the resource of the computational device ([0021] The software application 104 executes on the computer system 102 and has access to the first allocation 118 of the first hardware resource 122 during a first analysis interval (e.g., one of the analysis intervals 138 of the hardware resource adjustment inputs 116). The first analysis interval represents a time interval to perform analysis of an impact of a change of allocation of a particular hardware resource on an application service level of the software application 104. Thus, during the first analysis interval, the first allocation 118 of the first hardware resource 122 that is available to the software application 104 remains fixed. This allows measurements to be made for a long enough period of time to obtain accurate hardware resource metrics 120.);
While Hollingsworth teaches varying level of resource allocation to meet a desired application service level but does not explicitly teach tracking, using a resource manager associated with the host, the resource based on execution of the first operation of the application; and
determining, using the resource manager, a second operation of the application, the second operation corresponding to a change in an execution state of the application.
However, tracking, using a resource manager associated with the host, the resource based on execution of the first operation of the application ([0065] Each of the DPSs 202 may include a resource manager 203 and set of resources 206. The resource manager 203 manages the use of the one or more resources 206. Further, the resource manager 203 may communicate with corresponding resource management modules of the other DPSs 202 in the resource management environment 200 to provide/receive additional computing resources 206 to or from the other DPSs 202.; [0066]; [0076] According to one or more embodiments described herein, the resource management process 204 may monitor set of resources 206 and manage the request 210. The resource management process 204 may monitor the use of resources 206 in the DPS 202; [0115] The process 700 may include, in operation 710, monitoring for an abnormal event at a partition 414 from the set of partitions 402 in the DPS 202. In one or more examples, the hypervisor 330 or the partition manager 334 may monitor the performance of the partitions for the abnormal event. The abnormal event in the partition 414 may be detected by monitoring an output level of the partition 414, where the abnormal event is a condition that adversely affects the ability of the partition 414 to deliver expected levels of output. The abnormal event may further include an IPL of an operating system 430 of the partition 414.; [0116] Until an abnormal event is detected at operation 720, (operation 720: NO) the partition 414 may continue to operate, at operation 730 using the allotted computing resources 206. The allotted computing resources 206 may be based on the SLA with the user/client using the partition 414. This is referred to as a “steady state” or “normal operation” of the partition 414, when the partition is operating using the default computing resource settings according to the SLA.Fig. 8 first operation corresponds to runtime operating with one core prior to the abnormal event); and
determining, using the resource manager, a second operation of the application, the second operation corresponding to a change in an execution state of the application ([0112]; [0125] In operation 825, an indication of a second abnormal event, such as an IPL, may be determined or received by the resource manager 203, indicating that the processing capacity of a second partition 414b should be increased to deal with an increased processing load created by the second abnormal event. In operation 830, a third core 220c associated with the second partition 414b is changed from the inactive state 221 to the active state 223, thereby providing additional processing power to the second partition 414b. In operation 835, once the abnormal event has concluded in the first partition 414a, or when a predefined or other criteria described above occurs, the second core 220b in the first partition 414a may be changed from an active state 223 to an inactive state 221. Similarly, once the abnormal event has concluded in the second partition 414b, or when a predefined or other criteria described above occurs, the third core 220c in the first partition 414a may be changed from an active state 223 to an inactive state 221.; [0118])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Sutton with the teachings of Hollingsworth to have a resource manager to handle resource allocations by adjusting them to meet service levels as taught by Hollingsworth. The modification would have been motivated by the desire of combining known elements to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Sutton teaches further comprising modifying, by the resource manager, based on the determining the second operation of the application, a status of at least a portion of the resource of the computation device ([0009] A resource manager determines whether to increase processing capacity for the partition utilizing the LCC based on an occurrence of an abnormal event. In response to the determination of the increase, the system activates the one or more second cores from the inactive state to the active state, and operates the partition using both the one or more first cores and the one or more second cores after the one or more second cores has been activated.).
Regarding claim 3, Sutton teaches wherein the operation of the application comprises a modification of the execution of the first operation of the application ([0023-24]; [0119] In one or more examples, the additional processing capacity of the partition 414 may be provided by increasing I/O devices 218, increasing memory 216, or other such computing resources 206 allocated to the partition 414. Alternatively, or in addition, the additional capacity may be delivered by moving the operating system image of the partition 414 using live guest relocation techniques to another DPS 202 that may deliver additional capacity with the intent of partially or fully offsetting the performance impact of the abnormal event. In this case, the other DPS 202 to which the partition 414 is moved may be referred to as a backup DPS 202. In one or more examples, the resource manager 203 of the backup DPS 202 may allocate one or more computing resources 206 to the relocated partition 414 from a third DPS 202. As described herein, the computing resources allocated to the partition 414 may be further configured dynamically, such as using CoD or other techniques.; [0121]).
Regarding claim 4, Sutton teaches wherein the modification of the execution of the first operation of the application is based on an execution state of the application ([0023-24]; [0119]; [0121]).
Regarding claim 5, Sutton teaches wherein the execution state comprises a valid execution state ([0023-24]; [0116] Until an abnormal event is detected at operation 720, (operation 720: NO) the partition 414 may continue to operate (i.e., valid state), at operation 730 using the allotted computing resources 206.).
Regarding claim 6, Sutton teaches further comprising transferring, based on the determining the second operation of the application, the execution of the first operation of the application to a mechanism to control the application ([0119] In one or more examples, the additional processing capacity of the partition 414 may be provided by increasing I/O devices 218, increasing memory 216, or other such computing resources 206 allocated to the partition 414. Alternatively, or in addition, the additional capacity may be delivered by moving the operating system image of the partition 414 using live guest relocation techniques to another DPS 202 that may deliver additional capacity with the intent of partially or fully offsetting the performance impact of the abnormal event. In this case, the other DPS 202 to which the partition 414 is moved may be referred to as a backup DPS 202. In one or more examples, the resource manager 203 of the backup DPS 202 may allocate one or more computing resources 206 to the relocated partition 414 from a third DPS 202. As described herein, the computing resources allocated to the partition 414 may be further configured dynamically, such as using CoD or other techniques.).
Regarding claim 7, Sutton teaches further comprising executing, based on the determining the second operation of the application, a mechanism to monitor the second operation of the application (Fig. 7, Abnormal event processing done? 770).
Regarding claim 9, Sutton teaches further comprising modifying, by the resource manager, based on the determining the second operation of the application, a status of a request from the application ([0010] The code directs the process to, in response to the increase request, activate the second core from the inactive state to the active state and operate the partition using both the first and second core after the second core has been activated.).
Regarding claim 11, Sutton teaches wherein the resource comprises one of a computational engine, a computational execution environment, a computational device function, or a memory ([0010] A first set of computing resources comprises a set of processor units, the set of processor units comprise one or more first cores in an active state, and one or more second cores that are initially in an inactive state.; [0074]).
Regarding claim 12, Sutton teaches wherein the application comprises one of a program, a virtual machine ([0001] Disclosed herein is a data processing system to dynamically increase processing capacity of one or more virtual machines executing on corresponding partitions of the data processing system when an abnormal event occurs.), a hypervisor, a container, or a container platform.
Regarding claim 13, Sutton teaches wherein the tracking is performed, at least partially, by the computational device ([0065] Each of the DPSs 202 may include a resource manager 203 and set of resources 206. The resource manager 203 manages the use of the one or more resources 206. Further, the resource manager 203 may communicate with corresponding resource management modules of the other DPSs 202 in the resource management environment 200 to provide/receive additional computing resources 206 to or from the other DPSs 202.).
Regarding claim 14, it is a system type claim having similar limitations as claim 1 above. Therefore it is rejected under the same rationale above.
Regarding claim 15, it is a system type claim having similar limitations as claim 2 above. Therefore it is rejected under the same rationale above.
Regarding claim 16, it is a system type claim having similar limitations as claim 9 above. Therefore it is rejected under the same rationale above.
Regarding claim 17, it is a system type claim having similar limitations as claim 14 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale above.
Regarding claim 18, it is a system type claim having similar limitations as claim 1 above. Therefore it is rejected under the same rationale above.
Regarding claim 19, it is a system type claim having similar limitations as claim 2 above. Therefore it is rejected under the same rationale above.
Regarding claim 20, Eisler teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to operate, at least partially, the resource manager ([0008]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollingsworth and Sutton, as applied to claim 1, in further view of Schantz et al. (US 8,140,655 B1).
Schantz was cited in the previous Office Action.
Regarding claim 8, Hollingsworth nor Sutton expressly teach further comprising sanitizing, by the resource manager, based on the determining the operation of the application, the resource.
However, Schantz teaches further comprising sanitizing, by the resource manager, based on the determining the operation of the application, the resource (Abstract: Subsystem resources are assigned to enclaves and additional subsystem resources are able to be added or removed as needs fluctuate. Removed subsystem resources are sanitized and returned to a resource pool, and are available for allocation.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Schantz with the teachings of Hollingsworth and Sutton to sanitize resources after they are released. The modification would have been motivated by the desire of ensuring resources are ready to be used.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hollingsworth and Sutton, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Agarwal (US 2022/0121367 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Hollingsworth nor Sutton expressly teach wherein the request comprises a queued request.
However, Bostic teaches wherein the request comprises a queued request (Col. 2, lines 63-65: A job may be submitted to a job queue for execution by a distributed application on the cluster. The job queue may request an initial resource for the job from the resource manager when ready to begin the job.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Agarwal with the teachings of Hollingsworth and Sutton to store jobs in a queue awaiting for resources to run. The modification would have been motivated by the desire of ensuring jobs are serviced in an ordered manner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JORGE A CHU JOY-DAVILA whose telephone number is (571)270-0692. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 6:00am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aimee J Li can be reached at (571)272-4169. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JORGE A CHU JOY-DAVILA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195