DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 1-5, 16-25 are pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-5, 16-25 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 language in the following claims is not clearly understood:
As per claim 1, line 3, it is unclear whether “hardware state” and “battery state” are referring to the states of the “cooperative computing terminal” (i.e. are the states related to the cooperative computing terminal or other terminal/devices?)
Line 8-9, it is unclear what it meant by “a total workload” and “a remaining workload” of the cooperative computing terminal (i.e. is the total workload indicating all the workloads or workloads that are being executed in the cooperative computing terminal? Is the remaining workload indicating workloads that are assigned but not being executed? Is the remaining workload part of the total workload?)
As per claims 16 and 17, they have the same deficiency as claim 1 above. Appropriate correction is required.
As per claims 2-5, 18-25, they depend from rejected claims and do not resolve the deficiencies thereof and are therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
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 1-5, 16-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
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 1-5 are methods and thus fall within the statutory category of processes. Claims 16, 18-21 are non-transitory storage media which fall within the statutory category of manufacture, and claims 17, 22-25 are terminal devices which fall within the statutory category of machines. 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 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, 16 and 17: The limitation of “detecting a current hardware state and a current battery state”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “detecting” in the context of this claim encompasses a person acknowledging the state of the hardware and battery by making observations, evaluations, judgements and opinions regarding the hardware state and battery state, as thought of mentally above, to observe how the states are indicated.
Similarly, the limitation of “determines a total workload assigned to the cooperative computing terminal and a remaining workload of the cooperative computing terminal”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses simple determinations that may be performed within the mind such as making observations, evaluations, judgements and opinions regarding the total workload and remaining workload of the cooperative computing terminal, as thought of mentally above, to observe types of the workloads assigned.
Similarly, the limitation of “determines, based on the exception and the remaining workload, to reassign the remaining workload or the total workload”, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of this claim encompasses simple determinations that may be performed within the mind such as making observations, evaluations, judgements and opinions regarding reassigning the total workload and remaining workload of the cooperative computing terminal, as thought of mentally above, to evaluate whether to reassign the remaining workload or the total workload, based on the workloads information (exception and remining workload).
Additional elements are evaluated below.
Claims 2-4, 18-20, 22-24: Additional elements are evaluated below.
Claims 5, 21 and 25: Similarly, the limitation of “the hardware state comprises at least one of a CPU utilization, an NPU utilization, a GPU utilization, or a memory utilization, and the battery state comprises a battery level”, as drafted, is further limiting the “detecting” process, that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, “detecting” in the context of this claim encompasses a person acknowledging the state of the hardware and battery by making observations, evaluations, judgements and opinions regarding the hardware state and battery state, as thought of mentally above, to observe how the states are indicated.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Therefore, “Do the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1, 16, 17: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In
particular, the claim 1 only recites one additional element – reporting an exception to a network unit, in a case that the hardware state or the battery state reaches a preset exception threshold, or in a case that a change of the hardware state or a change of the battery state reaches a preset reporting threshold, claim 16 recites additional elements – non-transitory storage medium storing a computer program, a processor, report an exception to a network unit…, and claim 17 recites additional elements – a terminal device, memory, processor, report an exception to a network unit. “non-transitory storage medium storing a computer program, a processor”, “terminal device”, “memory” are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. “Reporting an exception to a network unit” is merely insignificant pre-solution data gathering activity by the user/machine wherein data is provided to a machine when the hardware and battery states reaches certain conditions and does not impose meaningful limitation on the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Claims 2, 18, 22: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In
particular, the claim only recites one additional elements – reporting a type of the exception to the network unit, wherein the type of the exception is selected from a hardware exception and a battery exception. “reporting a type of the exception to the network unit” is merely insignificant pre-solution data gathering activity by the user/machine wherein data is provided to a machine when the hardware and battery states reaches certain conditions and does not impose meaningful limitation on the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Claims 3, 19, 23: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In
particular, the claim only recites one additional elements – reporting a detail of the exception to the network unit, wherein the detail of the exception is selected from the hardware state and the battery state. “reporting a detail of the exception to the network unit” is merely insignificant pre-solution data gathering activity by the user/machine wherein data is provided to a machine when the hardware and battery states reaches certain conditions and does not impose meaningful limitation on the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Claims 4, 20, 24: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In
particular, the claim only recites one additional elements – reporting a cause of the exception to the network unit, wherein the cause of the exception is selected from a cause of a hardware exception and a cause of a battery exception. “reporting a cause of the exception to the network unit” is merely insignificant pre-solution data gathering activity by the user/machine wherein data is provided to a machine when the hardware and battery states reaches certain conditions and does not impose meaningful limitation on the abstract idea, see MPEP § 2106.05(g).
Claims 5, 21 and 25: does not recite any additional elements.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that the claims not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 16, 17: The claim does 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 generic computing components and function (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and reporting an exception to a network unit amount to no more than insignificant pre-solution data gathering (as evidenced by court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2103.05(g) and 2103.05(d)(II) and in accordance with the Office guidance in the memorandum addressing the decision in Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.) and field of use/technological environment without imposing meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and thus cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claims 2, 18, 22: The claim does 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 reporting a type of the exception to a network unit amount to no more than insignificant pre-solution data gathering (as evidenced by court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2103.05(g) and 2103.05(d)(II) and in accordance with the Office guidance in the memorandum addressing the decision in Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.) and field of use/technological environment without imposing meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and thus cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claims 3, 19, 23: The claim does 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 reporting a detail of the exception to a network unit amount to no more than insignificant pre-solution data gathering (as evidenced by court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2103.05(g) and 2103.05(d)(II) and in accordance with the Office guidance in the memorandum addressing the decision in Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.) and field of use/technological environment without imposing meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and thus cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claims 4, 20, 24: The claim does 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 reporting a cause of the exception to a network unit amount to no more than insignificant pre-solution data gathering (as evidenced by court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2103.05(g) and 2103.05(d)(II) and in accordance with the Office guidance in the memorandum addressing the decision in Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.) and field of use/technological environment without imposing meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and thus cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claims 5, 21 and 25: They do not recite any additional elements.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, Claims 1-5, 16-25 are not
eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-5, 16-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chifor et al. US Pub 2021/0409444 (hereafter Chifor) in view of Nordin US Pub 2018/0232255 (hereafter Nordin).
As per claim 1, Chifor teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a method for reporting an exception in computing power sharing, applied to a cooperative computing terminal, wherein the method comprises: detecting a current hardware state and a current battery state (para[0035-0038], FIG. 3, IoT device monitors its hardware state (processor, memory, bandwidth utilization) and battery state (drain));
and reporting an exception to a network unit, in a case that the hardware state or the battery state reaches a preset exception threshold, or in a case that a change of the hardware state or a change of the battery state reaches a preset reporting threshold (para[0035-0038], FIG. 3, the IoT device reports to the edge device that the IoT device is exceeding the thresholds of processor utilization, memory utilization, bandwidth utilization and battery drain, where reporting indicates DoS attach is in progress, thus reporting an exception to the edge device).
Chifor does not explicitly teach wherein the network unit determines a total workload assigned to the cooperative computing terminal and a remaining workload of the cooperative computing terminal, and determines, based on the exception and the remaining workload, to reassign the remaining workload or the total workload.
However, Nordin teaches determines a total workload assigned to the cooperative computing terminal and a remaining workload of the cooperative computing terminal, and determines, based on the exception and the remaining workload, to reassign the remaining workload or the total workload (para[0044], when a worker instance fails (exception occurs), the controller runs a script to migrate all jobs from that worker instance to other job queues of the other worker instance, where unfinished jobs as well as any pending jobs in the work queue for that instance are identified to be migrated, thus reassigning the total (including remaining) workload).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention Nordin’s teaching to Chifor’s invention in order to provide a technique for managing and scheduling tasks in a distributed, dynamic environment, such as a cloud computing environment, where outstanding/incomplete work for a failed node of the cloud system is redistributed to other node, which improves the reliability and flexibility in handling large scale and variable processing problems in a cloud computing context (para[0005-0006, 0061-0062]).
As per claim 2, Chifor and Nordin teach the method according to claim 1, Chifor teaches wherein the reporting an exception to a network unit comprises: reporting a type of the exception to the network unit, wherein the type of the exception is selected from a hardware exception and a battery exception (para[0035-0038], FIG. 3, the IoT device reports to the edge device that the IoT device is exceeding the thresholds of processor utilization, memory utilization, bandwidth utilization and battery drain, thus the reporting includes hardware (processor/memory) or battery (battery drain) exception, when exceeding the thresholds).
As per claim 3, Chifor teaches wherein the reporting an exception to a network unit comprises: reporting a detail of the exception to the network unit, wherein the detail of the exception is selected from the hardware state and the battery state (para[0035-0038], FIG. 3, the IoT device reports to the edge device that the IoT device is exceeding the thresholds of processor utilization, memory utilization, bandwidth utilization and battery drain, thus the reporting includes hardware (processor/memory utilization) or battery (battery drain) state, such that they exceed its thresholds).
As per claim 4, Chifor teaches wherein the reporting an exception to a network unit comprises: reporting a cause of the exception to the network unit, wherein the cause of the exception is selected from a cause of a hardware exception and a cause of a battery exception (para[0035-0038], FIG. 3, the IoT device reports to the edge device that the IoT device is exceeding the thresholds of processor utilization, memory utilization, bandwidth utilization and battery drain, where the IoT device determines the cause of those exceptions including malicious traffic has been injected into the subscription or identifies an application specific threat in the incoming traffic (DoS attack), and send message to the edge device regarding the attack).
As per claim 5, Chifor teaches wherein the hardware state comprises at least one of a CPU utilization, an NPU utilization, a GPU utilization, or a memory utilization, and the battery state comprises a battery level (para[0035-0038], FIG. 3, the IoT device reports to the edge device that the IoT device is exceeding the thresholds of processor utilization, memory utilization, bandwidth utilization and battery drain (level)).
As per claim 16, it is a non-transitory storage medium claim of claim 1 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 17, it is a terminal device claim of claim 1 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 18, it is a non-transitory storage medium claim of claim 2 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 19, it is a non-transitory storage medium claim of claim 3 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 20, it is a non-transitory storage medium claim of claim 4 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 21, it is a non-transitory storage medium claim of claim 5 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 22, it is a terminal device claim of claim 2 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 23, it is a terminal device claim of claim 3 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 24, it is a terminal device claim of claim 4 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 25, it is a terminal device claim of claim 5 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ji et al. US Pub 2021/0319281 teaches techniques for subtask assignment for an artificial intelligence (AI) task are described, and may be implemented to leverage a local set of devices to distribute portions of an AI task between the devices. Generally, the described techniques enable AI task allocation/reallocation based on a variety of factors, such as device capabilities, device availability, task complexity, and so forth.
Kim et al US Pub 2019/0108066 teaches task scheduling method including migrating tasks allocated to a high-performance processor to a low-performance processor, based on the importance of the tasks, whereby the efficiency of an electronic device may increase. The migration of tasks are triggered when heat is generated in the electronic device is greater than or equal to a predetermined level, or when the amount of charge in the battery of the electronic device is insufficient (e.g., the battery level of the electronic device is greater than or equal to a predetermined level)).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMMY EUNHYE LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7773. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thur 9PM-4PM.
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, Meng-Ai An can be reached at (571)272-3756. 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.
/TAMMY E LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195