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 1-6, 8-13, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to (an) abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
A computer-based method of energy efficient scaling of multi-zone cluster containers, the method comprising: establishing a connection between an upper layer container orchestration controller associated with multiple container cluster zones and lower layer resource manager controllers corresponding to multiple datacenters; determining additional workers are needed to perform a task; requesting worker offers from the lower layer resource manager controllers by sending signals from the upper layer container orchestration controller; receiving the worker offers including worker profile data at the upper layer container orchestration controller; utilizing the upper layer container orchestration controller to determine estimated expected utilization and corresponding incremental power consumption for each of the received worker offers; utilizing the upper layer container orchestration controller to accept the received worker offer corresponding to a most energy efficient worker; and adding the most energy efficient worker to a target cluster.
The method of claim 1, which recites the limitations of “determining additional workers are needed to perform a task”, “adding the most energy efficient worker to a target cluster”, , 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 function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls 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 of “establishing a connection between an upper layer container orchestration controller associated with multiple container cluster zones and lower layer resource manager controllers corresponding to multiple datacenters”, “requesting worker offers from the lower layer resource manager controllers by sending signals from the upper layer container orchestration controller”, and “utilizing the upper layer container orchestration controller to determine estimated expected utilization and corresponding incremental power consumption for each of the received worker offers” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computers, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f), and thus, does nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of apply it OR insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and data transmission that the Courts have indicated is WURC. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d). 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. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Prong 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 element “establishing a connection between an upper layer container orchestration controller associated with multiple container cluster zones and lower layer resource manager controllers corresponding to multiple datacenters”, “requesting worker offers from the lower layer resource manager controllers by sending signals from the upper layer container orchestration controller”, and “utilizing the upper layer container orchestration controller to determine estimated expected utilization and corresponding incremental power consumption for each of the received worker offers” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception, See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (g). The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and mere data gathering / data transmission do not amount to significantly more as the Courts have identified such as WURC, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The computer-based method of claim 1, wherein the upper layer container orchestration controller comprises a cluster autoscaler.
The method of claim 2, which recites the limitation of “wherein the upper layer container orchestration controller comprises a cluster autoscaler” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception, See MPEP 2106.05(f). The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception would not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea or amount to significantly more than such. See MPEP 2106.05(d); 2106.05(f) for prong 2 analysis and 2106.05(d) for 2B analysis.
The computer-based method of claim 1, wherein the additional workers are selected from one of bare-metal workers or virtual machine workers.
The method of claim 3, which recites the limitation of “wherein the additional workers are selected from one of bare-metal workers or virtual machine workers” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception, See MPEP 2106.05(f). The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception would not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea or amount to significantly more than such. See MPEP 2106.05(d); 2106.05(f) for prong 2 analysis and 2106.05(d) for 2B analysis.
The computer-based method of claim 1, wherein the lower layer resource manager controllers comprise infrastructure as a service (IaaS) schedulers.
The device of claim 4, which recites the limitation of “uses a dispersion or standard deviation of the obtained delay time as an allocation index of the processor” amount to a further abstract idea that is mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception, See MPEP 2106.05(f). The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception would not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea or amount to significantly more than such. See MPEP 2106.05(d); 2106.05(f) for prong 2 analysis and 2106.05(d) for 2B analysis.
The computer-based method of claim 1, wherein the worker profile data includes worker power profiles, the worker power profiles including expected power consumption at a given utilization value.
The method of claim 5, which recites the limitation of “the worker power profiles including expected power consumption at a given utilization value”. This amounts to no more than mere data gathering, which the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity, See MPEP 2106.05(g). The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and mere data gathering do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional element itself or in combination with the elements of parent claims would not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea or amount to significantly more than such. See MPEP 2106.05(d); 2106.05(f) for prong 2 analysis and 2106.05(d) for 2B analysis.
6. The computer-based method of claim 1, further comprising: determining presence of an excess number of workers needed to perform a task at the target cluster; and in response to determining presence of an excess number of workers needed to perform a task, utilizing the upper layer container orchestration controller to determine estimated expected utilization and corresponding incremental decreases in power consumption associated with removal of any given one of a series of currently utilized worker.
a. The method of claim 6, which recites the limitations of “determining presence of an excess number of workers needed to perform a task at the target cluster; and in response to determining presence of an excess number of workers needed to perform a task, determine estimated expected utilization and corresponding incremental decreases in power consumption associated with removal of any given one of a series of currently utilized worker”, 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 function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
With regards to Claims 8-13, 15-19, they recite the same limitations as claims 1-6, and thus are likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over US 20140006534 A1 (Jain et. al) and further in view of US 20230222006 A1 (Zhu et. al).
Regarding claim 1, Jain teaches, A computer-based method of energy efficient scaling of multi-zone cluster containers, the method comprising: establishing a connection between an upper layer container orchestration controller associated with multiple container cluster zones and lower layer resource manager controllers corresponding to multiple datacenters (paragraph 15, 17, 19, 38, 52, slave nodes separated on separate nodes, served on a cloud environment); receiving the worker offers including worker profile data at the upper layer container (paragraph 38, 45, 50, the master node receives information about the energy efficiency of slave nodes); utilizing the upper layer container orchestration controller to determine estimated expected utilization and corresponding incremental power consumption for each of the received worker offers (paragraph 23, the master node server takes into account expected utilization and current energy trends); utilizing the upper layer container orchestration controller to accept the received worker offer corresponding to a most energy efficient worker; and adding the most energy efficient worker to a target cluster (paragraph 38, 48, selecting the most energy efficient worker to a task).
However, Jain fails to teach, determining additional workers are needed to perform a task; requesting worker offers from the lower layer resource manager controllers by sending signals from the upper layer container orchestration controller; utilizing the upper layer container orchestration controller.
However, Zhu teaches, determining additional workers are needed to perform a task; requesting worker offers from the lower layer resource manager controllers by sending signals from the upper layer container orchestration (paragraph 57—94, worker information passed to the upper layer container, according to if additional workers are needed).
It would be obvious before the filing date of this application to combine the energy efficient job scheduling taught by Jain with the node autoscaling on a cloud deployment taught by Zhu, as it would allow the upstream job manager to select the most efficient nodes for a task, and minimize energy usage.
Regarding claim 2, Jain and further in view of Zhu teaches, The computer-based method of claim 1, wherein the upper layer container orchestration controller comprises a cluster autoscaler (paragraph 64, 71, 78, and 85, a vertical autoscaler that allocates more resources to a pod, which autoscales the cluster).
It would be obvious before the filing date of this application to combine the energy efficient job scheduling taught by Jain with the node autoscaling on a cloud deployment taught by Zhu, as it would allow the upstream job manager to select the most efficient nodes for a task, and minimize energy usage.
Regarding claim 3, Zhu teaches, The computer-based method of claim 1, wherein the additional workers are selected from one of bare-metal workers or virtual machine workers (paragraph 4 and 48, worker nodes are set up as virtual machines or hardware workers).
It would be obvious before the filing date of this application to combine the energy efficient job scheduling taught by Jain with the node autoscaling on a cloud deployment taught by Zhu, as it would allow the upstream job manager to select the most efficient nodes for a task, and minimize energy usage.
Regarding claim 4, Zhu teaches, The computer-based method of claim 1, wherein the lower layer resource manager controllers comprise infrastructure as a service (IaaS) schedulers (paragraph 27, 46, OECP platform is used for managing resource between groups).
It would be obvious before the filing date of this application to combine the energy efficient job scheduling taught by Jain with the node autoscaling on a cloud deployment taught by Zhu, as it would allow the upstream job manager to select the most efficient nodes for a task, and minimize energy usage.
Regarding claim 5, Jain teaches, the computer-based method of claim 1, wherein the worker profile data includes worker power profiles, the worker power profiles including expected power consumption at a given utilization value (paragraph 38, 45, 50, the master node receives information about the energy efficiency of slave nodes for a specific utilization).
Regarding claim 6, Jain teaches, The computer-based method of claim 1, further comprising: determining presence of an excess number of workers needed to perform a task at the target cluster; and in response to determining presence of an excess number of workers needed to perform a task, utilizing the upper layer container orchestration controller to determine estimated expected utilization and corresponding incremental decreases in power consumption associated with removal of any given one of a series of currently utilized worker (paragraph 38, 39, if the node is no longer efficient enough, it removes the node from the cluster of nodes for a task).
Regarding claim 7, Jain teaches, The computer-based method of claim 6, further comprising: utilizing the upper laycer container orchestration controller to select a least energy efficient worker to be removed from the target cluster; and automatically removing the least energy efficient worker and returning the least energy efficient worker to an associated lower layer resource manager controller (paragraph 46, 143, the IaaS provider is used to measure efficiency of worker nodes, and is able to add and remove works at will, see paragraph 89, 91, 93).
With regards to Claim 8-20, Jain and further in view of Zhu teaches the method of Claim 1-7 as referenced above. Therefore, claims 8-20 are rejected with the same rationale as applied to claims 1-7 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN BAKHIT whose telephone number is (571)272-4314. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 6:30-5 PM.
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, LEWIS BULLOCK can be reached at (571) 272-3759. 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.
/C.M.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2199
/LEWIS A BULLOCK JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2199