DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-16, and 18-22 are pending.
Claim 22 has been added.
Claims 1, 8, 15, and 21 have been amended.
Claims 4, 11, and 17 are canceled.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-16, and 18-22 are rejected.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 3/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s following arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections (Remarks pp. 8-18) have been fully considered and are unpersuasive.
1. Applicant states the following:
a. Applicant states that the cited references not only do not teach or suggest determining a prorated share based on the two recited bases of: (1) entity consumption level AND (2) organization consumption level, but also do not teach or suggest that the prorated share for each entity is determined based on (1) relative to (2) (“entity consumption level of the entity relative to the organizational consumption level…” recited in independent claim 1).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The combination of the cited references does indeed teach determining a prorated share for each entity based on the entity consumption level and the organization consumption level. Whether or not the combination of the cited references teaches that “the prorated share for each entity is determined based on entity consumption level relative to organization consumption level” is moot in view of the Examiner adding secondary reference Sangle (US 20230353495 A1), previously used in the now-canceled claim 4, to address this limitation. Sangle teaches determining a prorated share of the first computing resource consumption threshold for each entity based on the entity consumption level of each entity relative to the organization consumption level at the first time (
Sangle teaches entity consumption levels relative to an organization consumption level, stating, “Continuing this example, the threshold share(s) 418 may indicate that the first service be allocated X% of the cluster resource threshold 406 and indicate that the second service be allocated Y%, and so on for each other service, where a sum of the portions may be equal to the cluster resource threshold 406,” ¶ 0294.
After Ye in view of Yang is combined with Sangle, the determined prorated share of the first computing resource consumption threshold for each entity is now determined based on each entity consumption level relative to the total organization consumption level.).
Ye teaches a prorated share for each entity based on the entity consumption level and the organization consumption level, stating, “As a preference, the resource quota control module in the step S3.1 analyzes and processes the reported resource utilization rate data, comprising comparing the set expected utilization rate and the actual resource utilization rate, re-calculating the reasonable resource quota based on the expected utilization rate when exceeding the expected utilization rate of the adjusting threshold value [Examiner’s Notes: this recalculation happens in a current resource quota adjusting period after a cluster expansion in a previous resource quota adjusting period],” Page 3.
The claimed “prorated share of the first computing resource consumption threshold for each entity” is mapped to the disclosed “reasonable resource quota” for each of the tenants. The disclosed “reasonable resource quota” for each tenant is calculated based on a “resource utilization one period of each tenant” and the “cluster resource pool”, representing all of the resources that all tenants are using. During the current resource quota adjusting period, said reasonable resource quota is recalculated after a cluster expansion from a previous resource quota adjusting period.
After the addition of Sangle, the resource quota could be represented by Sangle’s percentage.
2. Applicant also states that “The combination of Ye, Aronovich, and Goodsitt does not teach or suggest instructing a particular entity consumption manager corresponding to a particular entity of the entities to execute an operation to remit the prorated share assigned to the particular entity.” In particular, the Applicant states that “Goodsitt does not teach or suggest instructing a particular entity consumption manager corresponding to a particular entity of the entities to execute an operation to remit the prorated share assigned to the particular entity, as recited in the Applicant's independent claim 1 as amended herein.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Primary reference Ye already teaches remitting prorated shares assigned to particular entities.
Ye discloses, “S1: the resource quota control module based on the private cloud cluster resource amount and the principle of distribution, setting the initial resource quota of each tenant,” Page 1. In other words, Ye is granting prorated shares in the form of resource quotas to each tenant.
Goodsitt was not added to teach remitting a prorated share, but instead to teach instructing a particular entity manager corresponding to a particular entity of the entities to execute an operation. Regarding Goodsitt, the claimed “execute an operation” is mapped to the disclosed “displaying, at the device associated with the recipient, a first message to the recipient requesting that the recipient accept the first one of the plurality of portions”. After the combination of Ye with Goodsitt, the request for acceptance or confirmation, originally associated with legal terms, would be modified to instead be a request for acceptance or confirmation of Ye’s prorated share of computation resources assigned to a particular entity, mapped to Ye’s tenant. Furthermore, the display operation allows the recipient to accept a prorated share, which is then remitted to the recipient from the manager.
The mapping is consistent with the specification, in particular specification paragraph 26: “In an implementation, the consumption monitor service 106 receives data representing that remitting has occurred consistent with the prorated share assignments to the entities 108A-N. For example, in implementations, the consumption monitor service 106 uses different remitting methods for the different entities to remit from the remitting method of each entity 108A-N, the prorated share of the first computing resource consumption threshold associated with the entity 108A-N. In an implementation, entity consumption managers receive data representing the remitting amounts and methods. In an implementation, the received confirmation of acceptance of the prorated share assigned to each entity 108A-N is received from the entity consumption managers.” Because Ye already teaches remitting prorated shares to entities, and it is combined with Goodsitt and Aronovich so that after the combination, a particular entity consumption manager is used for said remitting, the combination of references teaches the claimed “instructing a particular entity consumption manager corresponding to a particular entity of the entities to execute an operation to remit the prorated share assigned to the particular entity”. As demonstrated by the above analysis, the combination of references teaches “transmitting a prorated share to a particular consumption manager of a particular entity and receiving confirmation of acceptance of the prorated share from the particular consumption manager.”
3. a. Applicant also states that “The combination of Ye, Goodsitt, and Aronovich does not teach or suggest assigning a consumption threshold for an organization including entities, and monitoring consumption levels for the entities that sum to an organization consumption level.”
This argument is moot in view of the Examiner adding secondary reference Sangle (US 20230353495 A1), previously used in the now-canceled claim 4, to address this argument. Ye already teaches assigning a first computing resource consumption threshold to an organization including entities and monitoring entity consumption levels of computing resources for each of the entities, and Sangle teaches wherein the entity consumption levels of computing resources for all of the entities sum to an organization consumption level for the organization (
Sangle discloses, “Continuing this example, the threshold share(s) 418 may indicate that the first service be allocated X% of the cluster resource threshold 406 and indicate that the second service be allocated Y%, and so on for each other service, where a sum of the portions may be equal to the cluster resource threshold 406,” ¶ 0294.
After Ye in view of Yang is combined with Sangle, the entity consumption levels for all entities sum to an organization consumption level (cluster resource threshold) as specified by Sangle.).
b. Applicant states: “The Office Action mapped Ye's expansion-free threshold value and non-expansion threshold value to the ‘first computing resource consumption threshold’ and recited in the Applicant's independent claim 1. Office Action at 6-7. The Applicant respectfully disagrees with this mapping. Ye teaches an expansion-free threshold value for tenants of a computing cluster, where the expansion-free threshold value determines whether cluster expansion should be triggered based on aggregate resource usage across tenants. Ye at pages 2-3 and claims 3-4. Ye is silent regarding any organizational relationship among tenants.”
This argument is moot in view of the Examiner adding secondary reference Yang (CN 111400033 A), to address the organizational relationship among tenants.
c. Applicant also states:
PNG
media_image1.png
212
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
An official notice or inherency argument was never made in any previous office action or the Advisory Action. The Examiner did not make an Official Notice. If there is any concern, newly added reference Yang (CN 111400033 A) already addresses that tenants correspond to entities of an organization, and that a cluster corresponds to the organization (
Yang discloses, “obtaining the number of server in each cluster according to the number of the server allocation coefficient and each cluster obtained in each platform tenant sharing server number; obtaining the resource allocation of each platform tenant according to all platform tenant sharing server number ratio, obtaining the total server cost; obtaining platform resource allocation cost of each platform tenant. cost allocation by the invention realizes each department in the enterprise platform resource,” Page 1, and “Specifically, platform tenant enterprise sharing each department of platform server resources, namely, in the data table, big data platform or in the private cloud environment to support enterprise multiple departments, multiple team, the user collectively a plurality of personal user, etc. using the platform service,” Page 5.
Here, the enterprise platform has operational control over its subcomponents, or tenants, by maintaining the resource environment that the tenants may request resources from. A tenant corresponds to a department of platform server resources, and the enterprise supports multiple departments.)
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 1-3, 7-10, 14-16, 18, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye (CN 115248734 A) in view of Yang (CN 111400033 A), Sangle (US 20230353495 A1), Goodsitt (US 20210192073 A1), and Aronovich (US 20230176918 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ye teaches a method, comprising:
assigning a first computing resource consumption threshold to an organization including entities(
Ye discloses, “As a preference, the expansion-free threshold value comprises a positive value and a negative value, if it is set to positive value, allowing the resource in the cluster to be in the reserved state, the reserved state that the resource quota allocated by the cluster is always less than the actual total resource amount; if it is set to be negative value, the resource in the cluster is in the super-configuration state, the super-configuration state that the resource quota allocated by the cluster can exceed the actual total resource amount.,” Page 2.
The claimed “first computing resource consumption threshold” is mapped to the disclosed “expansion-free threshold value” of the cluster. Said threshold value is also referred to in the reference as the “non-expansion threshold value”.);
monitoring entity consumption levels of computing resources for each of the entities, (
Ye discloses, “FIG. 4 shows the basic k8s implementation of the resource allocation pool adaptive adjustment result picture, assuming the total resource of the k8s cluster are respectively 98 core CPU, memory 6 T and 88 card GPU. the distribution of the current resource quota pool is as follows: belonging to the name space a of the tenant 1, the resource quota object attribute of the k8s comprises: the CPU quota is 64, the memory quota is 2T, the quota 32 of the GPU; Similarly, belonging to the tenant 2 of the named space b, resource quota object attribute comprises, CPU quota is 32, memory quota is 2T, and the GPU quota is 64. In addition, the size of the idle quota pool comprises a 2-core CPU, a 2T memory and a -8 - card GPU,” Page 6.
For the CPU quota, given that the total resources of the cluster are 98 core CPUs, a memory of 6 terabytes, and an 88-card GPU: tenant 1’s 64 CPU cores, 2 terabytes of memory and 32 GPU quota added with tenant 2’s 32 CPU cores, 2 terabytes of memory and 64 GPU quota, added with the idle quota pool’s 2 CPU cores, 2 terabytes of memory, and -8 GPU quota, indeed equals 98 core CPUSs, 6 terabytes of memory and 88 GPU quota.);
detecting, at a first time, that the organization consumption level exceeds the first computing resource consumption threshold assigned to the organization (
Ye discloses, “wherein the step S4 exceeds the capacity expansion threshold value after the cluster expansion process comprises comparing the resource quota and pre-set free expansion threshold value, if there is a certain resource type of the current resource quota exceeds the cluster resource portion is greater than the expansion threshold value, then the resource quota adjustment is not sufficient satisfy the current tenant requirement, further triggering the cluster expansion capacity module to perform cluster expansion to the resource quota pool.,” Page 5.
The claimed “first time” is mapped to the disclosed time when the total resource quota exceeds the non-expansion threshold value.
The claimed “organization consumption level” is mapped to the disclosed “total resource quota”.);
determining a prorated share of the first computing resource consumption threshold for each entity based on the entity consumption level of each entity and the organization consumption level at the first time (
Ye teaches “resource quota adjusting” after “cluster expansion”, stating “S4: entering the next resource quota adjusting period or exceeding the non-expansion threshold value and performing the cluster expansion; S5: controlled by the timing task, entering the next resource quota adjusting period, repeating step S1 to step S4,” Page 2.
Ye teaches “prorated share” during the “resource quota adjusting”, stating “S3: the resource quota control module adaptively adjusts the resource quota of each tenant periodically according to the resource utilization rate data in the last period and the adjustment threshold value of the expected utilization rate,” Page 2, “As a preference, the resource quota control module in the step S3.1 analyzes and processes the reported resource utilization rate data, comprising comparing the set expected utilization rate and the actual resource utilization rate, re-calculating the reasonable resource quota based on the expected utilization rate when exceeding the expected utilization rate of the adjusting threshold value [Examiner’s Notes: this recalculation happens in a current resource quota adjusting period after a cluster expansion in a previous resource quota adjusting period],” Page 3, “S3.1: the resource quota management module analyzes and processes the reported resource utilization rate data, obtaining the resource utilization rate result in one period of each tenant, the result is used as the input of the resource quota adjusting algorithm,” Page 3, “S3.3: comparing the expected resource quota and actual resource quota of each tenant, when the difference exceeds the adjusting threshold, the resource quota setting interface re-divides the quota pool of the cluster resource pool,” Page 3, and “The adjusted CPU quota is 3, the memory quota is 170G, and the GPU quota is 3. and the resource utilization rate of the tenant 2 is between 75 % and 90 %, so as to maintain the current situation is not adjusted,” Page 6.
The disclosed “CPU quota” being adjusted is analogous to the example of consumption units from paragraph 28 of the present application, which states “The consumption monitor service 106 determines that the proportional prorated shares assigned to the first entity and the second entity of the first computing resource consumption threshold are 33 consumption units (e.g., about 5.4%) and 567 consumption units (e.g., about 94.6%), respectively, based on the proportional relative consumption of the computing resource by the first entity and the second entity.”
The claimed “prorated share of the first computing resource consumption threshold for each entity” is mapped to the disclosed “reasonable resource quota” for each of the tenants. During the current resource quota adjusting period, said reasonable resource quota is recalculated after a cluster expansion from a previous resource quota adjusting period. The present application’s specification’s paragraph 28 shows that the prorated share does not necessarily need to be a relative proportion, and can also be an absolute value.
The claimed “the entity consumption level of each entity” is mapped to the disclosed resource utilization one period of each tenant.
The claimed “organization consumption level” is mapped to the disclosed total and undivided quota “cluster resource pool”, representing all of the resources that all tenants are using. The “reasonable resource quota” for each tenant is based on and limited by all the resources for the organization.
The “first time” when the total resource quota exceeds the non-expansion threshold value that occurred during the previous period, during which the resource utilization rate data and capacity expansion are based upon.
);
assigning each prorated share of the first computing resources consumption threshold to the corresponding entity (
Ye discloses, “S3.3: comparing the expected resource quota and actual resource quota of each tenant, when the difference exceeds the adjusting threshold, the resource quota setting interface re-divides the quota pool of the cluster resource pool,” Page 3, and “as a preference, the resource quota control module in the step S3.1 analyzes and processes the reported resource utilization rate data, comprising comparing the set expected utilization rate and the actual resource utilization rate, re-calculating the reasonable resource quota based on the expected utilization rate when exceeding the expected utilization rate of the adjusting threshold value,” Page 3.);
remit[ting] the prorated share assigned to the particular entity (
Ye discloses, “S1: the resource quota control module based on the private cloud cluster resource amount and the principle of distribution, setting the initial resource quota of each tenant,” Page 1.);
Ye does not teach
the organization being an enterprise and the entities being subcomponents of the enterprise over which the enterprise has operational control;
wherein the entity consumption levels of computing resources for all of the entities sum to an organization consumption level for the organization;
determining a prorated share of the first computing resource consumption threshold for each entity based on the entity consumption level of each entity relative to the organization consumption level at the first time;
instructing a particular entity consumption manager corresponding to a particular entity of the entities to execute an operation to remit the prorated share assigned to the particular entity; and
receiving, from the particular entity consumption manager, confirmation of acceptance of the prorated share assigned to the particular entity.
However, Yang teaches the organization being an enterprise and the entities being subcomponents of the enterprise over which the enterprise has operational control (
Yang discloses, “obtaining the number of server in each cluster according to the number of the server allocation coefficient and each cluster obtained in each platform tenant sharing server number; obtaining the resource allocation of each platform tenant according to all platform tenant sharing server number ratio, obtaining the total server cost; obtaining platform resource allocation cost of each platform tenant. cost allocation by the invention realizes each department in the enterprise platform resource,” Page 1, and “Specifically, platform tenant enterprise sharing each department of platform server resources, namely, in the data table, big data platform or in the private cloud environment to support enterprise multiple departments, multiple team, the user collectively a plurality of personal user, etc. using the platform service,” Page 5.
Here, the enterprise platform has operational control over its subcomponents, or tenants, by maintaining the resource environment that the tenants may request resources from. A tenant corresponds to a department of platform server resources, and the enterprise supports multiple departments.).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ye to incorporate the teachings of Yang and provide the organization being an enterprise and the entities being subcomponents of the enterprise over which the enterprise has operational control. Doing so would help allow for improved data security and data access (“private cloud (Private Clouds) is used alone as a client, thereby providing the most effective control of the data, security and quality of service,” Pages 9-10, and “data access can be realized by flume + kafka from data source real-time data collection or to realize offline data collection using Kettle,” Page 11.).
Ye in view of Yang does not teach wherein the entity consumption levels of computing resources for all of the entities sum to an organization consumption level for the organization;
determining a prorated share of the first computing resource consumption threshold for each entity based on the entity consumption level of each entity relative to the organization consumption level at the first time;
instructing a particular entity consumption manager corresponding to a particular entity of the entities to execute an operation to remit the prorated share assigned to the particular entity; and
receiving, from the particular entity consumption manager, confirmation of acceptance of the prorated share assigned to the particular entity.
However, Sangle teaches wherein the entity consumption levels of computing resources for all of the entities sum to an organization consumption level for the organization (
Sangle discloses, “Continuing this example, the threshold share(s) 418 may indicate that the first service be allocated X% of the cluster resource threshold 406 and indicate that the second service be allocated Y%, and so on for each other service, where a sum of the portions may be equal to the cluster resource threshold 406,” ¶ 0294.
After Ye in view of Yang is combined with Sangle, the entity consumption levels for all entities sum to an organization consumption level (cluster resource threshold) as specified by Sangle.), and
determining a prorated share of the first computing resource consumption threshold for each entity based on the entity consumption level of each entity relative to the organization consumption level at the first time (
Sangle discloses, “Continuing this example, the threshold share(s) 418 may indicate that the first service be allocated X% of the cluster resource threshold 406 and indicate that the second service be allocated Y%, and so on for each other service, where a sum of the portions may be equal to the cluster resource threshold 406,” ¶ 0294.
After Ye in view of Yang is combined with Sangle, the determined prorated share of the first computing resource consumption threshold for each entity is now determined based on each entity consumption level relative to the total organization consumption level.).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ye in view of Yang to incorporate the teachings of Sangle and provide wherein the entity consumption levels of computing resources for all of the entities sum to an organization consumption level for the organization, and wherein the determined prorated share of the first computing resource consumption threshold for each entity is determined based on each entity consumption level relative to the organization consumption level. Doing so would ensure that each entity gets a share that is not out of proportion.
Ye in view of Yang and Sangle does not teach instructing a particular entity consumption manager corresponding to a particular entity of the entities to execute an operation to remit the prorated share assigned to the particular entity; and
receiving, from the particular entity consumption manager, confirmation of acceptance of the prorated share assigned to the particular entity.
However, Goodsitt teaches instructing a particular entityto remit the prorated share assigned to the particular entity; and receiving, from the particular entity(
Goodsitt discloses, “At block 315, one or more embodiments of the logic flow 300 may include at least one component as described in the present disclosure displaying, at the device associated with the recipient, a first message to the recipient requesting that the recipient accept the first one of the plurality of portions of the plurality of the terms of service. For example, the first critical term of the terms of service can be presented to the user for acceptance via the display of the mobile device, and subsequent decryption or access of additional message segments can be contingent on the user affirmatively accepting that first critical term of service on the display,” ¶ 0041, and “At block 320, one or more embodiments of the logic flow 300 may include at least one component as described in the present disclosure, upon receiving confirmation of the acceptance of the first one of the plurality of portions of the plurality of the terms of service, transmitting the first confirmation and/or identifying a second one of the plurality of portions of the plurality of terms of service, e.g. once the user performs the affirmative act on the display, an application of the mobile device communicates the same to the server, and the server can indicate that a second portion of the terms of service is critical and must be accepted, e.g. the other of the limitation of liability and/or monetary term,” ¶ 0042.
The software component/system on the recipient device instructed to request for confirmation and receives from a user confirmation is mapped to particular entity
The claimed “execute an operation” is mapped to the disclosed “displaying, at the device associated with the recipient, a first message to the recipient requesting that the recipient accept the first one of the plurality of portions”.
After Ye in view of Yang and Sangle is combined with Goodsitt, the request for acceptance or confirmation would be Ye in view of Yang and Sangle’s prorated share of computation resources assigned to a particular entity, mapped to Ye in view of Yang and Sangle’s tenant:
Ye discloses, “FIG. 4 shows the basic k8s implementation of the resource allocation pool adaptive adjustment result picture, assuming the total resource of the k8s cluster are respectively 98 core CPU, memory 6 T and 88 card GPU. the distribution of the current resource quota pool is as follows: belonging to the name space a of the tenant 1, the resource quota object attribute of the k8s comprises: the CPU quota is 64, the memory quota is 2T, the quota 32 of the GPU; Similarly, belonging to the tenant 2 of the named space b, resource quota object attribute comprises, CPU quota is 32, memory quota is 2T, and the GPU quota is 64. In addition, the size of the idle quota pool comprises a 2-core CPU, a 2T memory and a -8 - card GPU,” Page 6.).
Ye in view of Yang and Sangle, and Goodsitt are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ye in view of Yang and Sangle to incorporate the teachings of Goodsitt and provide instructing to execute an operation to remit the prorated share assigned to the particular entity; and receiving confirmation of acceptance of the prorated share assigned to the particular entity. Doing so would help provide enhanced security because of the confirmation process between different software components or agents (Goodsitt discloses, “This enhances the security of the overall system by providing an additional confirmation mechanism that the mail has not been misappropriated or lost,” ¶ 0014.).
Ye in view of Yang, Sangle, and Goodsitt does not teach the particular entity manager is a particular entity consumption manager.
However, Aronovich teaches a particular entity manager could be a particular entity consumption manager (
Aronovich teaches resources consumption managers, stating “In some embodiments, scheduler 112 determines an expected resource consumption for each workload based on the tenant and workload profile by determining an average time progress for a resource consumption unit,” ¶ 0053.
Aronovich also teaches additional examples for prorated shares, stating that “Scheduler 112 uses the average time progress for a resource consumption unit to determine remaining resource usage for current workloads that need to prorate resource usage for the remaining time of completion for the workload,” ¶ 0053.).
Ye in view of Yang, Sangle, and Goodsitt, and Aronovich are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer resource management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ye in view of Yang, Sangle, and Goodsitt to incorporate the teachings of Aronovich and provide that the particular entity manager is a particular entity consumption manager. Doing so would help provide improved resource allocation and usage (Aronovich discloses, “By using processor virtualization technologies, the system's processors can be transparently multi-programmed and multi-processed by a virtualization hypervisor to optimize processor sharing by multiple VM instances, thereby increasing processor utilization,” ¶ 0003.).
Claim 8 and Claim 15 are a system claim and a tangible processor-readable storage media device claim, respectively, corresponding to the method Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 8 and Claim 15 are rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, Ye in view of Yang, Sangle, Goodsitt, and Aronovich teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: assigning, at a second time after the first time, a second computing resource consumption threshold to the organization based on a difference between the organization consumption level at the second time and the first computing resource consumption threshold (
Ye discloses, “cluster expansion process comprises comparing the resource quota and pre-set free expansion threshold value, if there is a certain resource type of the current resource quota exceeds the cluster resource portion is greater than the capacity expansion threshold value, triggering the cluster expansion,” Page 3.
The claimed “second computing resource consumption threshold” is mapped to the new threshold value that is set after cluster expansion has completed.
The claimed “difference between the organization consumption level at the second time and the first computing resource consumption threshold” is mapped to the difference between the disclosed “resource quota” and the disclosed “pre-set free expansion threshold value”.).
Claim 9 and Claim 16 are a system claim and a tangible processor-readable storage media device claim, respectively, corresponding to the method Claim 2. Therefore, Claim 9 and Claim 16 are rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 3, Ye in view of Yang, Sangle, Goodsitt, and Aronovich teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: assigning, at a second time after the first time, a second computing resource consumption threshold greater than the first computing resource consumption threshold to the organization based on the operation of detecting (
Ye discloses, “when the total resource quota exceeds the non-expansion threshold value, triggering the cluster expansion capacity module to perform cluster expansion to the resource quota pool,” Page 3.
After the cluster has been expanded, the new threshold value will be set as greater than the original threshold value.).
Claim 10 and Claim 18 are a system claim and a tangible processor-readable storage media device claim, respectively, corresponding to the method Claim 3. Therefore, Claim 10 and Claim 18 are rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 7, Ye in view of Yang, Sangle, Goodsitt, and Aronovich teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: associating each entity with an entity consumption manager (
Aronovich discloses, “In process 210, scheduler 112 determines a resource consumption ratio for each tenant. The resource consumption ratio is a normalized set of resource consumption values across all tenant, which indicates the overall percentage each tenant is utilizing resources of cloud computing environment 50,” ¶ 0062.),
wherein the received confirmation of acceptance of the prorated share assigned to the particular entity is received based on data stored in the entity consumption manager. (
Goodsitt discloses, “At block 315, one or more embodiments of the logic flow 300 may include at least one component as described in the present disclosure displaying, at the device associated with the recipient, a first message to the recipient requesting that the recipient accept the first one of the plurality of portions of the plurality of the terms of service. For example, the first critical term of the terms of service can be presented to the user for acceptance via the display of the mobile device, and subsequent decryption or access of additional message segments can be contingent on the user affirmatively accepting that first critical term of service on the display,” ¶ 0041, and “At block 320, one or more embodiments of the logic flow 300 may include at least one component as described in the present disclosure, upon receiving confirmation of the acceptance of the first one of the plurality of portions of the plurality of the terms of service, transmitting the first confirmation and/or identifying a second one of the plurality of portions of the plurality of terms of service, e.g. once the user performs the affirmative act on the display, an application of the mobile device communicates the same to the server, and the server can indicate that a second portion of the terms of service is critical and must be accepted, e.g. the other of the limitation of liability and/or monetary term,” ¶ 0042.
Aronovich discloses, “In some scenarios, scheduler 112 has access to an electronic version of the SLA agreement between the operator of cloud computing environment 50 and tenants 120a-n. Based on the agreed terms, if a user with a lower priority-adjusted resource consumption ratio and resulting resource quota plans to exceed the quotas with some pending workloads, scheduler 112 may adjust the priority of the tenant in exchange for raising the SLA resource usage tier, instructing metering and pricing 81 of the management layer 80 to record the increased rate,” ¶ 0058, and “In process 202, scheduler 112 retrieves tenant data 114. Tenant data 114 includes identifiers for all tenants that utilize cloud computing environment 50 as well as an assigned priority rating. In process 204, scheduler 112 identifies any active or pending workloads for each tenant,” ¶ 0061.
After the combination of Ye in view of Yang, Sangle, and Goodsitt, with Aronovich, the received confirmation of acceptance of the prorated share assigned to the particular entity according to Claim 1 is now received based on the data retrieved by the scheduler from Aronovich.).
Ye in view of Yang and Sangle, and Goodsitt are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ye in view of Yang and Sangle to incorporate the teachings of Goodsitt and provide instructing to execute an operation with the prorated share assigned to the particular entity; and receiving confirmation of acceptance of the prorated share assigned to the particular entity. Doing so would help provide enhanced security because of the confirmation process between different software components or agents (Goodsitt discloses, “This enhances the security of the overall system by providing an additional confirmation mechanism that the mail has not been misappropriated or lost,” ¶ 0014.).
Ye in view of Yang, Sangle, and Goodsitt, and Aronovich are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer resource management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ye in view of Yang, Sangle, and Goodsitt to incorporate the teachings of Aronovich and provide further comprising: associating each entity with an entity consumption manager, wherein the received confirmation of acceptance of the prorated share assigned to the particular entity is received based on data stored in the entity consumption manager. Doing so would help provide improved resource allocation and usage (Aronovich discloses, “By using processor virtualization technologies, the system's processors can be transparently multi-programmed and multi-processed by a virtualization hypervisor to optimize processor sharing by multiple VM instances, thereby increasing processor utilization,” ¶ 0003.).
Claim 14 and Claim 20 are a system claim and a tangible processor-readable storage media device claim, respectively, corresponding to the method Claim 7. Therefore, Claim 14 and Claim 20 are rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 21, Ye in view of Yang, Sangle, Goodsitt, and Aronovich teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining a second computing resource consumption threshold for the particular entity based on the prorated share assigned to the particular entity, the second resource consumption threshold being for a different period of time from the first computing resource consumption threshold (
Ye discloses, “cluster expansion process comprises comparing the resource quota and pre-set free expansion threshold value, if there is a certain resource type of the current resource quota exceeds the cluster resource portion is greater than the capacity expansion threshold value, triggering the cluster expansion,” Page 3.
The claimed “second computing resource consumption threshold” is mapped to the new threshold value that is set after cluster expansion has completed. This is for a different period of time from the claimed “first computing resource consumption threshold” or disclosed “expansion-free threshold value”/“non-expansion threshold value” of the cluster, which is before cluster expansion has completed.).
Regarding Claim 22, Ye in view of Yang, Sangle, Goodsitt, and Aronovich teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the entities include one or more divisional subcomponents, departmental subcomponents, or subsidiary subcomponents of the enterprise (
Yang discloses, “Specifically, platform tenant enterprise sharing each department of platform server resources, namely, in the data table, big data platform or in the private cloud environment to support enterprise multiple departments, multiple team, the user collectively a plurality of personal user, etc. using the platform service,” Page 5.
Here, a tenant corresponds to a department of platform server resources, and the enterprise supports multiple departments).
Ye in view of Yang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer resource management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ye to incorporate the teachings of Yang and provide wherein the entities include one or more divisional subcomponents, departmental subcomponents, or subsidiary subcomponents of the enterprise. Doing so would help allow for improved data security and data access (“private cloud (Private Clouds) is used alone as a client, thereby providing the most effective control of the data, security and quality of service,” Pages 9-10, and “data access can be realized by flume + kafka from data source real-time data collection or to realize offline data collection using Kettle,” Page 11.).
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye (CN 115248734 A) in view of Yang (CN 111400033 A), Sangle (US 20230353495 A1), Goodsitt (US 20210192073 A1), Aronovich (US 20230176918 A1), and Doerk (US 20160092137 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Ye in view of Yang, Sangle, Goodsitt, and Aronovich teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: assigning, at a second time after the first time, a second computing resource consumption threshold based on the operation of detecting. Ye in view of Yang, Sangle, Goodsitt, and Aronovich does not teach wherein a difference between the second computing resource consumption threshold and the first computing resources consumption threshold includes a predefined threshold increase buffer.
However, Doerk teaches wherein a difference between the second computing resource consumption threshold and the first computing resources consumption threshold includes a predefined threshold increase buffer. (
Doerk discloses, “For example, the rule includes an instruction to increase the threshold by a fixed amount when a new instance is written.” ¶ 0053.
After the combination of Ye in view of Yang, Sangle, Goodsitt, and Aronovich, with Doerk, the resource consumption threshold is increased by a fixed amount, which is predefined. Paragraph 64 of the specification of the present application states that “A predefined increase buffer is a reasonable basis for an increase in the computing resource consumption threshold”.).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ye in view of Yang, Sangle, Goodsitt, and Aronovich to incorporate the teachings of Doerk and provide wherein a difference between the second computing resource consumption threshold and the first computing resources consumption threshold includes a predefined threshold increase buffer. Doing so would ensure there are enough resources that can be allocated when needed.
Claim 12 and Claim 19 are a system claim and a tangible processor-readable storage media device claim, respectively, corresponding to the method Claim 5. Therefore, Claim 12 and Claim 19 are rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 5.
Claims 6 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ye (CN 115248734 A) in view of Yang (CN 111400033 A), Sangle (US 20230353495 A1), Goodsitt (US 20210192073 A1), Aronovich (US 20230176918 A1), and Bansal (US 11799901 B2).
Regarding Claim 6, Ye in view of Yang, Sangle, Goodsitt, and Aronovich teaches the method of claim 1. Ye in view of Yang, Sangle, Goodsitt, and Aronovich does not teach further comprising: transmitting, at the first time, to the organization, data representing that the first computing resource consumption threshold was exceeded.
However, Bansal teaches further comprising: transmitting, at the first time, to the organization, data representing that the first computing resource consumption threshold was exceeded. (
Bansal discloses, “At block 306, if performance of the request by one of services 124-126 would cause the current threshold to be exceeded, then the request is denied at block 310 and an error message is sent back to the requesting client. In an embodiment, the error message includes a ‘HTTP 429—too many requests’ message,” Col 7, Lines 39-44.).
Ye in view of Yang, Sangle, Goodsitt, and Aronovich, and Bansal are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer resource management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ye in view Yang, Sangle, Goodsitt, and Aronovich to incorporate the teachings of Bansal and provide further comprising: transmitting, at the first time, to the organization, data representing that the first computing resource consumption threshold was exceeded. Doing so would ensure that the organization is informed of the threshold being exceeded so that the situation may be monitored and/or remedied based on an error message.
Claim 13 is a system claim corresponding to the method Claim 6. Therefore, Claim 13 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Filachek et al. (US 20170371712 A1): Hierarchical Process Group Management
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-6735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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 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.
/ANDREW NMN SUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2195
/Aimee Li/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2195
Prosecution Insights