DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to arguments filed on 1/27/2025.
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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the abstract idea of mental steps without significantly more.
Independent claim 1:
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “determining,… a third metric as a function of a second metric of the first metric type for the version of the application and the first metric for the cluster of computing devices;”, “determining,… the third metric exceeds a threshold for the first metric type for the cluster of computing devices, the threshold proportional to a capacity of the cluster of computing devices for the first metric type;” and “and responsive to the determination, increasing,… a size of the cluster of computing devices.” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. For instance, a person can mentally, through observation, determine a third metric as a function of a second metric, determine if the third metric exceed a threshold and increase a size of the cluster of computing devices. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element “by a processor” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The additional element “receiving,… a first metric of a first metric type for a cluster of computing devices and an identification of a version of an application;” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements 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 of “by a processor” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, The generic recitation of use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and mere data transmission do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional element “receiving, by a processor, a first metric of a first metric type for a cluster of computing devices and an identification of a version of an application;” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data. The courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 2:
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “wherein increasing the size of the cluster comprises increasing, by the processor, the size of the cluster such that the threshold of the cluster of computing devices is at least equal to the third metric” merely recites the “increasing,… a size of the cluster of computing devices” recited in claim 1, thus is also analyzed under prong 1 as a mental process. Thus, similar to claim 1, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Claims 3:
Regarding claim 3, The additional element “calculating,… a difference between the third metric and the threshold; and calculating,… a number of computing devices to add to the cluster of computing devices based on the difference, wherein increasing the size of the cluster comprises adding,… the calculated number of computing devices to the cluster.” recite mental processes. Therefore, it is also analyzed under prong 1 as a mental process. Thus, similar to claim 1, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Claim 4:
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “responsive to increasing the size of the cluster, deploying, by the processor, the version of the application to each computing device of the cluster of computing devices, receipt of the version of the application causing each computing device of the cluster to download the version of the application.” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Similar to claim 1, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Claim 5:
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “wherein obtaining the first metric of the first metric type for the cluster of computing devices comprises receiving, by the processor, a value of memory utilization or a value of central processing unit (CPU) utilization of the cluster of computing devices.” .” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Similar to claim 1, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Claim 6:
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “calculating, by the processor, an average of the plurality of metrics; determining, by the processor, the average of the plurality of metrics exceeds a second threshold for the first metric type or the second metric type; and responsive to determining the average exceeds the second threshold, increasing, by the processor, the size of the cluster of computing devices” recites a mental process capable of being performed by human. Therefore, it is also analyzed under prong 1 as a mental process.
The limitation “receiving, by the processor, a plurality of metrics of the first metric type or a second metric type for the cluster of computing devices;” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Thus, similar to claim 1, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Claim 7:
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “and calculating, by the processor, the second threshold based on the metrics of the second plurality of metrics” recites a mental process capable of being performed by human. Therefore, it is also analyzed under prong 1 as a mental process.
The limitation “receiving, by the processor, a second plurality of metrics for the first metric type or the second metric type for the cluster of computing devices for a second time period prior to a time period associated with the plurality of metrics;” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Thus, similar to claim 1, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Claim 8:
Regarding claim 8, the additional element “wherein the management profile comprises a first threshold and a second threshold, and the device is further caused to manage a data amount that is to be processed by of the computing system by any of: decreasing the data amount in response to the workload estimation being above the first threshold; increasing the data amount in response to the workload estimation being below the second threshold; and maintaining the data amount in response to the workload estimation being between the first threshold and the second threshold.” recites a mental process capable of being performed by human. Therefore, it is also analyzed under prong 1 as a mental process. Thus, similar to claim 1, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Claim 9:
Regarding claim 9, the additional element “wherein receiving the plurality of metrics of the second metric type corresponding to the application comprises receiving, by the processor, metrics for one of start-up delays, failures, timeouts, or out of speed triggers of the application executing on the cluster of computing devices.” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. similar to claim 1, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Claim 10:
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “calculating, by the processor, an average of the plurality of metrics; determining, by the processor, the average exceeds a second threshold for the second metric type; and responsive to determining the average exceeds the second threshold, adjusting, by the processor, a configuration of the application” recites a mental process capable of being carried out by a human using pen and paper for example. Therefore, it is also analyzed under prong 1 as a mental process.
The limitation “receiving, by the processor, a plurality of metrics of a second metric type corresponding to the application executing on the cluster of computing devices;” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Thus, similar to claim 1, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Claim 11:
Regarding claim 11, the limitation “wherein adjusting the configuration of the application comprises increasing or decreasing, by the processor, a driver or executor memory allocation of the application at each computing device of the cluster of computing devices.” merely further recites the “increasing,… a size of the cluster of computing devices” of claim 1, a mental process capable of being carried out by a human using pen and paper for example. Thus, similar to claim 1, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Claim 12:
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “determining, by the processor, to adjust the configuration of the application instead of adjusting the size of the cluster of computing devices based on the second metric type.” recites a mental process capable of being carried out by a human using pen and paper for example. Thus, similar to claim 1, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Claim 13:
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “applying, by the processor, one or more rules to the plurality of metrics; determining, by the processor, to increase the size of the cluster of computing devices based on the plurality of metrics satisfying at least one rule of the one or more rules; and increasing, by the processor, the size of the cluster responsive to determining to increase the size of the cluster.” recites a mental process capable of being carried out by a human using pen and paper for example. Therefore, it is also analyzed under prong 1 as a mental process.
The limitation “receiving, by a processor, a plurality of metrics of a plurality of metric types for the cluster of computing devices and a second identification of a second version of a second application;” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Thus, similar to claim 1, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Claim 14:
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “calculating, by the processor, an average of the plurality of metrics; determining, by the processor, the average of the plurality of metrics is less than a second threshold for the first metric type or the second metric type; and responsive to determining the average exceeds the threshold, decreasing, by the processor, the size of the cluster of computing devices.” recites a mental process capable of being carried out by a human using pen and paper for example. Therefore, it is also analyzed under prong 1 as a mental process.
The limitation “receiving, by the processor, a plurality of metrics of the first metric type or a second metric type for the cluster of computing devices;” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Thus, similar to claim 1, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Independent claim 15:
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “determine a third metric as a function of a second metric of the first metric type for the version of the application and the first metric for the cluster of computing devices;”, “determining the third metric exceeds a threshold for the first metric type for the cluster of computing devices, the threshold proportional to a capacity of the cluster of computing devices for the first metric type;” and “and responsive to the determination, increasing a size of the cluster of computing devices.” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. For instance, a person can mentally, through observation, determine a third metric as a function of a second metric, determine if the third metric exceed a threshold and increase a size of the cluster of computing devices. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements “A system, comprising: a computing device comprising a processor coupled to memory and a network interface, the processor configured to:” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The additional element “receiving a first metric of a first metric type for a cluster of computing devices and an identification of a version of an application;” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements 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 of “A system, comprising: a computing device comprising a processor coupled to memory and a network interface, the processor configured to:” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, The generic recitation of use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and mere data transmission do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional element “receiving a first metric of a first metric type for a cluster of computing devices and an identification of a version of an application;” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data. The courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 16:
Regarding claim 16, The additional element “calculating a difference between the third metric and the threshold; and calculating a number of computing devices to add to the cluster of computing devices based on the difference, wherein the processor is configured to increase the size of the cluster comprises adding the calculated number of computing devices to the cluster.” recite mental processes. Therefore, it is also analyzed under prong 1 as a mental process. Thus, similar to claim 1, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Independent claim 17:
Regarding claim 17, the limitations “determining,… a first metric as a function of the plurality of metrics;”; “determining,… the first metric exceeds a threshold for the metric type;” and “and responsive to determining the first metric exceeds the threshold, adjusting,… a configuration of the application at each computing device of the cluster of computing devices;” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. For instance, a person can mentally, through observation, determine a metric as a function of a second metric, determine if the metric exceed a threshold and increase a size of the cluster of computing devices. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element “by a processor” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). The additional element “receiving,… a plurality of metrics of a metric type corresponding to an application executing on a cluster of computing devices;” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements 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 of “by a processor” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, The generic recitation of use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and mere data transmission do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional element receiving, by a processor, a plurality of metrics of a metric type corresponding to an application executing on a cluster of computing devices;” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data. The courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim 18:
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “wherein adjusting the configuration of the application comprises increasing or decreasing, by the processor, a driver or executor memory allocation for the application at each computing device of the cluster of computing devices.” merely further recites the “increasing,… a size of the cluster of computing devices” of claim 1, a mental process capable of being carried out by a human using pen and paper for example. Thus, similar to claim 1, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Claim 19:
Regarding claim 19, the limitation “wherein adjusting the configuration of the application comprises increasing or decreasing, by the processor, a driver or executor memory allocation of the application at each computing device of the cluster of computing devices.” merely further recites the “increasing,… a size of the cluster of computing devices” of claim 1, a mental process capable of being carried out by a human using pen and paper for example. Thus, similar to claim 1, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Claim 14:
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “calculating, by the processor, an average of the plurality of metrics; determining, by the processor, the average of the plurality of metrics is less than a second threshold for the first metric type or the second metric type; and responsive to determining the average exceeds the threshold, decreasing, by the processor, the size of the cluster of computing devices.” recites a mental process capable of being carried out by a human using pen and paper for example. Therefore, it is also analyzed under prong 1 as a mental process.
The limitation “receiving, by the processor, a plurality of metrics of the first metric type or a second metric type for the cluster of computing devices;” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Thus, similar to claim 1, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Claim 20:
Regarding claim 20, the limitation “determining, by the processor, to adjust the configuration of the application instead of adjusting the size of the cluster of computing devices based on the second metric type.” recites a mental process capable of being carried out by a human using pen and paper for example. Thus, similar to claim 1, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 10 and 13 – 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McClory et al (USPAT 10514967, hereinafter McClory).
As per claim 1, McClory discloses: A method, comprising:
receiving, by a processor, a first metric of a first metric type for a cluster of computing devices and an identification of a version of an application; (McClory col 23, lines 15 – 20: “the deployment workflow may be configured to deploy to one or more slave cluster nodes a telemetry application configured to collect metrics and logs generated by or associated with one or more applications, an overlay network application 242 configured to provide an overlay network to facilitate secure communications between and among one or more applications.”; col 15, lines 51 – 58: “The information may include, without limitation, location of endpoints of an application and/or associated components for retrieval of telemetry information, mappings for retrieval of configuration information, deployment versions and identifier of the application and/or associated components, endpoints of the application and/or component to facilitate interaction with other applications and/or components.”)
determining, by the processor, a third metric as a function of a second metric of the first metric type for the version of the application and the first metric for the cluster of computing devices; (McClory col 28, lines 24 – 45: “the metrics component 414-2 may be configured to process and index the collected or aggregated metrics information that may be generated from various container applications 136 and/or native applications 138 in a cluster node (e.g., cluster node 220-1, etc.). In an embodiment, the collected metrics information for one or more container applications 136 and/or native applications 138 may include, without limitation, application performance information such as application CPU usage information (e.g., average amount of CPU time or average percent CPU utilization that the application is using for a given period of time), application memory usage information (e.g., amount of memory such as heap memory or paged memory used by an application, etc.), application network utilization, application network latency information (e.g., delay associated with communications between various devices and one or more container applications 136 and/or native applications 138), application memory consumption information (e.g., memory usage, swap memory usage, etc.), and/or any other application performance information that an application developer may request to collect from their deployed applications.”.)
determining, by the processor, the third metric exceeds a threshold for the first metric type for the cluster of computing devices, the threshold proportional to a capacity of the cluster of computing devices for the first metric type; and responsive to the determination, increasing, by the processor, a size of the cluster of computing devices. (McClory col 23, line 55 – col 24, line 2: “the infrastructure management component 318-1 may also configure one or more master cluster nodes with automatic horizontal scaling capable of scaling up the number of slave cluster nodes up to a maximum number and/or scaling down the number of slave cluster nodes to a minimum number. In such embodiments, the master cluster node may be configured to scale up the number of cluster nodes by automatically deploying additional container application images and/or native application packages to additional slave cluster nodes up to a maximum number of slave cluster nodes for the cluster, upon determining that one or more metrics of existing slave cluster nodes have exceeded a specific threshold limit (e.g., CPU utilization of all existing slave cluster nodes have exceed fifty (50) percent, seventy (70) percent, etc.).”)
As per claim 2, McClory further discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein increasing the size of the cluster comprises increasing, by the processor, the size of the cluster such that the threshold of the cluster of computing devices is at least equal to the third metric. (McClory col 23, line 55 – col 24, line 2: “the infrastructure management component 318-1 may also configure one or more master cluster nodes with automatic horizontal scaling capable of scaling up the number of slave cluster nodes up to a maximum number and/or scaling down the number of slave cluster nodes to a minimum number. In such embodiments, the master cluster node may be configured to scale up the number of cluster nodes by automatically deploying additional container application images and/or native application packages to additional slave cluster nodes up to a maximum number of slave cluster nodes for the cluster, upon determining that one or more metrics of existing slave cluster nodes have exceeded a specific threshold limit (e.g., CPU utilization of all existing slave cluster nodes have exceed fifty (50) percent, seventy (70) percent, etc.).”)
As per claim 3, McClory further discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: calculating, by the processor, a difference between the third metric and the threshold; and calculating, by the processor, a number of computing devices to add to the cluster of computing devices based on the difference, wherein increasing the size of the cluster comprises adding, by the processor, the calculated number of computing devices to the cluster. (McClory col 23, line 55 – col 24, line 2.)
As per claim 4, McClory further discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: responsive to increasing the size of the cluster, deploying, by the processor, the version of the application to each computing device of the cluster of computing devices, receipt of the version of the application causing each computing device of the cluster to download the version of the application. (McClory col 23, line 55 – col 24, line 2.)
As per claim 5, McClory further discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein obtaining the first metric of the first metric type for the cluster of computing devices comprises receiving, by the processor, a value of memory utilization or a value of central processing unit (CPU) utilization of the cluster of computing devices. (McClory col 28, lines 24 – 45)
As per claim 6, McClory further discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprises: receiving, by the processor, a plurality of metrics of the first metric type or a second metric type for the cluster of computing devices; calculating, by the processor, an average of the plurality of metrics; determining, by the processor, the average of the plurality of metrics exceeds a second threshold for the first metric type or the second metric type; and responsive to determining the average exceeds the second threshold, increasing, by the processor, the size of the cluster of computing devices. (McClory col 28, lines 24 – 45)
As per claim 7, McClory further discloses:
The method of claim 6, further comprising: receiving, by the processor, a second plurality of metrics for the first metric type or the second metric type for the cluster of computing devices for a second time period prior to a time period associated with the plurality of metrics; and calculating, by the processor, the second threshold based on the metrics of the second plurality of metrics. (McClory col 27, line 52 – col 28, line 23.)
As per claim 8, McClory further discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the processor, a plurality of metrics of a second metric type corresponding to the application executing on the cluster of computing devices; calculating, by the processor, an average of the plurality of metrics; determining, by the processor, the average exceeds a second threshold for the second metric type; and responsive to determining the average exceeds the second threshold, increasing, by the processor, the size of the cluster of computing devices. (McClory col 28, lines 24 – 45)
As per claim 9, McClory further discloses:
The method of claim 8, wherein receiving the plurality of metrics of the second metric type corresponding to the application comprises receiving, by the processor, metrics for one of start-up delays, failures, timeouts, or out of speed triggers of the application executing on the cluster of computing devices. (McClory col 28, lines 24 – 45)
As per claim 10, McClory further discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the processor, a plurality of metrics of a second metric type corresponding to the application executing on the cluster of computing devices; calculating, by the processor, an average of the plurality of metrics; determining, by the processor, the average exceeds a second threshold for the second metric type; and responsive to determining the average exceeds the second threshold, adjusting, by the processor, a configuration of the application. (McClory col 23, line 55 – col 24, line 2.)
As per claim 13, McClory further discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by a processor, a plurality of metrics of a plurality of metric types for the cluster of computing devices and a second identification of a second version of a second application; applying, by the processor, one or more rules to the plurality of metrics; determining, by the processor, to increase the size of the cluster of computing devices based on the plurality of metrics satisfying at least one rule of the one or more rules; and increasing, by the processor, the size of the cluster responsive to determining to increase the size of the cluster. (McClory col 23, line 55 – col 24, line 2.)
As per claim 14, McClory further discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, by the processor, a plurality of metrics of the first metric type or a second metric type for the cluster of computing devices; calculating, by the processor, an average of the plurality of metrics; determining, by the processor, the average of the plurality of metrics is less than a second threshold for the first metric type or the second metric type; and responsive to determining the average exceeds the threshold, decreasing, by the processor, the size of the cluster of computing devices. (McClory col 23, line 55 – col 24, line 2.)
As per claim 15, it is the system variant of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 16, it is the system variant of claim 3 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 17, McClory discloses: A method, comprising:
receiving, by a processor, a plurality of metrics of a metric type corresponding to an application executing on a cluster of computing devices; (McClory col 23, lines 15 – 20: “the deployment workflow may be configured to deploy to one or more slave cluster nodes a telemetry application configured to collect metrics and logs generated by or associated with one or more applications, an overlay network application 242 configured to provide an overlay network to facilitate secure communications between and among one or more applications.”.”)
determining, by the processor, a first metric as a function of the plurality of metrics; (McClory col 28, lines 24 – 45: “the metrics component 414-2 may be configured to process and index the collected or aggregated metrics information that may be generated from various container applications 136 and/or native applications 138 in a cluster node (e.g., cluster node 220-1, etc.). In an embodiment, the collected metrics information for one or more container applications 136 and/or native applications 138 may include, without limitation, application performance information such as application CPU usage information (e.g., average amount of CPU time or average percent CPU utilization that the application is using for a given period of time), application memory usage information (e.g., amount of memory such as heap memory or paged memory used by an application, etc.), application network utilization, application network latency information (e.g., delay associated with communications between various devices and one or more container applications 136 and/or native applications 138), application memory consumption information (e.g., memory usage, swap memory usage, etc.), and/or any other application performance information that an application developer may request to collect from their deployed applications.”.)
determining, by the processor, the first metric exceeds a threshold for the metric type; and responsive to determining the first metric exceeds the threshold, adjusting, by the processor, a configuration of the application at each computing device of the cluster of computing devices. (McClory col 23, line 55 – col 24, line 2: “the infrastructure management component 318-1 may also configure one or more master cluster nodes with automatic horizontal scaling capable of scaling up the number of slave cluster nodes up to a maximum number and/or scaling down the number of slave cluster nodes to a minimum number. In such embodiments, the master cluster node may be configured to scale up the number of cluster nodes by automatically deploying additional container application images and/or native application packages to additional slave cluster nodes up to a maximum number of slave cluster nodes for the cluster, upon determining that one or more metrics of existing slave cluster nodes have exceeded a specific threshold limit (e.g., CPU utilization of all existing slave cluster nodes have exceed fifty (50) percent, seventy (70) percent, etc.).”)
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.
Claim(s) 11, 12 and 18 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McClory, in view of Dettori et al (US 20160103717, hereinafter Dettori).
As per claim 11, McClory did not explicitly disclose:
The method of claim 10, wherein adjusting the configuration of the application comprises increasing or decreasing, by the processor, a driver or executor memory allocation of the application at each computing device of the cluster of computing devices.
However, Dettori teaches:
The method of claim 10, wherein adjusting the configuration of the application comprises increasing or decreasing, by the processor, a driver or executor memory allocation of the application at each computing device of the cluster of computing devices. (Dettori [0061])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to adjust the configuration of the application comprises increasing or decreasing, by the processor, a driver or executor memory allocation of the application at each computing device of the cluster of computing devices. McClory col 23, line 55 – col 24 teaches scaling up number of slave nodes in response to determine a metric exceeding a threshold. One of ordinary skill in the art can see that other form of load balancing and optimization techniques can be used here without deviating from the general teaching McClory, such as scaling memory allocation of individual applications as taught by Dettori. Applicants have merely claimed the combination of commonly known parts in the field of load balancing and optimization and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 12, McClory did not explicitly disclose:
The method of claim 10, further comprising determining, by the processor, to adjust the configuration of the application instead of adjusting the size of the cluster of computing devices based on the second metric type.
However, Dettori teaches:
The method of claim 10, further comprising determining, by the processor, to adjust the configuration of the application instead of adjusting the size of the cluster of computing devices based on the second metric type. (Dettori [0061])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to determine to adjust the configuration of the application instead of adjusting the size of the cluster of computing devices based on the second metric type. McClory col 23, line 55 – col 24 teaches scaling up number of slave nodes in response to determine a metric exceeding a threshold. One of ordinary skill in the art can see that other form of load balancing and optimization techniques can be used here without deviating from the general teaching McClory, such as scaling memory allocation of individual applications as taught by Dettori. Applicants have merely claimed the combination of commonly known parts in the field of load balancing and optimization and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 18, McClory did not explicitly disclose:
The method of claim 17, wherein adjusting the configuration of the application comprises increasing or decreasing, by the processor, a driver or executor memory allocation for the application at each computing device of the cluster of computing devices.
However, Dettori teaches:
The method of claim 17, wherein adjusting the configuration of the application comprises increasing or decreasing, by the processor, a driver or executor memory allocation for the application at each computing device of the cluster of computing devices. (Dettori [0061])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to determine to adjust the configuration of the application instead of adjusting the size of the cluster of computing devices based on the second metric type. McClory col 23, line 55 – col 24 teaches scaling up number of slave nodes in response to determine a metric exceeding a threshold. One of ordinary skill in the art can see that other form of load balancing and optimization techniques can be used here without deviating from the general teaching McClory, such as scaling memory allocation of individual applications as taught by Dettori. Applicants have merely claimed the combination of commonly known parts in the field of load balancing and optimization and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 19, McClory did not explicitly disclose:
The method of claim 17, wherein adjusting the configuration of the application comprises increasing or decreasing, by the processor, an executor allocation for the application at each computing device of the cluster of computing devices.
However, Dettori teaches:
The method of claim 17, wherein adjusting the configuration of the application comprises increasing or decreasing, by the processor, an executor allocation for the application at each computing device of the cluster of computing devices. (Dettori [0061])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to determine to adjust the configuration of the application comprises increasing or decreasing, by the processor, an executor allocation for the application at each computing device of the cluster of computing devices. McClory col 23, line 55 – col 24 teaches scaling up number of slave nodes in response to determine a metric exceeding a threshold. One of ordinary skill in the art can see that other form of load balancing and optimization techniques can be used here without deviating from the general teaching McClory, such as scaling memory allocation of individual applications as taught by Dettori. Applicants have merely claimed the combination of commonly known parts in the field of load balancing and optimization and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 20, McClory did not explicitly disclose:
The method of claim 17, further comprising determining, by the processor, to adjust the configuration of the application instead of adjusting a size of the cluster of computing devices based on the metric type.
However, Dettori teaches:
The method of claim 17, further comprising determining, by the processor, to adjust the configuration of the application instead of adjusting a size of the cluster of computing devices based on the metric type. (Dettori [0061])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in order to determine to adjust the configuration of the application instead of adjusting the size of the cluster of computing devices based on the second metric type. McClory col 23, line 55 – col 24 teaches scaling up number of slave nodes in response to determine a metric exceeding a threshold. One of ordinary skill in the art can see that other form of load balancing and optimization techniques can be used here without deviating from the general teaching McClory, such as scaling memory allocation of individual applications as taught by Dettori. Applicants have merely claimed the combination of commonly known parts in the field of load balancing and optimization and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 USC 101:
Independent claims 1, 15 and 17:
Applicant argued on pages 1 – 5 that 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1 – 20 are improperly applied.
The examiner disagrees, detailed mapping and analysis are provided for each claim in the 35 USC 101 rejection section in this office action.
35 USC 102 and 103 rejections:
Applicant argued on pages 5 – 6 that McClory failed to disclose the claimed limitation “determining, by the processor, a third metric as a function of a second metric of the first metric type for the version of the application and the first metric for the cluster of computing devices;”.
The examiner disagrees. In referencing to prior art rejection section above for more details, McClory col 23, lines 15 – 20 teaches: “the deployment workflow may be configured to deploy to one or more slave cluster nodes a telemetry application configured to collect metrics and logs generated by or associated with one or more applications, an overlay network application 242 configured to provide an overlay network to facilitate secure communications between and among one or more applications.”, examiner notes that McClory teaches the claimed “first metric type for a cluster”. McClory col 15, lines 51 – 58 teaches “The information may include, without limitation, location of endpoints of an application and/or associated components for retrieval of telemetry information, mappings for retrieval of configuration information, deployment versions and identifier of the application and/or associated components, endpoints of the application and/or component to facilitate interaction with other applications and/or components.”, examiner notes that McClory teaches the claimed “an identification of a version of an application”.
Next, McClory col 28, lines 24 – 45 teaches “the metrics component 414-2 may be configured to process and index the collected or aggregated metrics information that may be generated from various container applications 136 and/or native applications 138 in a cluster node (e.g., cluster node 220-1, etc.). In an embodiment, the collected metrics information for one or more container applications 136 and/or native applications 138 may include, without limitation, application performance information such as application CPU usage information (e.g., average amount of CPU time or average percent CPU utilization that the application is using for a given period of time), application memory usage information (e.g., amount of memory such as heap memory or paged memory used by an application, etc.), application network utilization, application network latency information (e.g., delay associated with communications between various devices and one or more container applications 136 and/or native applications 138), application memory consumption information (e.g., memory usage, swap memory usage, etc.), and/or any other application performance information that an application developer may request to collect from their deployed applications.”. Examiner notes that the aggregated metric is mapped to the claimed “a third metric as a function of a second metric of the first metric type for the version of the application and the first metric for the cluster of computing devices”.
Applicant argued on page 6 that McClory failed to disclose the claimed limitation the threshold proportional to a capacity of the cluster of computing devices for the first metric type;”.
The examiner disagrees. McClory col 23, line 55 – col 24, line 2 teaches “the infrastructure management component 318-1 may also configure one or more master cluster nodes with automatic horizontal scaling capable of scaling up the number of slave cluster nodes up to a maximum number and/or scaling down the number of slave cluster nodes to a minimum number. In such embodiments, the master cluster node may be configured to scale up the number of cluster nodes by automatically deploying additional container application images and/or native application packages to additional slave cluster nodes up to a maximum number of slave cluster nodes for the cluster, upon determining that one or more metrics of existing slave cluster nodes have exceeded a specific threshold limit (e.g., CPU utilization of all existing slave cluster nodes have exceed fifty (50) percent, seventy (70) percent, etc.).”, examiner note that threshold if directly proportional to the slave node telemetry data collected, and therefore McClory teaches the limitation in full.
Rest of the claims:
No distinct arguments are presented.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHARLES M SWIFT whose telephone number is (571)270-7756. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 7PM.
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, April Blair can be reached at 5712701014. 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.
/CHARLES M SWIFT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2196