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 1-25 are pending.
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, 3-7, 9, 12, 14-18, 20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register on 01/07/2019 and has provided an analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 1-11 are directed to methods and fall within the statutory category of processes; Claims 12-22 are directed to system claims and falls within the statutory category of machines; Claims 23-25 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable media and falls within the statutory category of articles of manufacture. 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, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further at Step 2A Prong 2, whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1, 12 and 23: The limitations of “performing an analysis of network conditions for a predicted execution of the workload, based on the workload information, to analyze network availability among the distributed computing entities”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate network conditions based on workload information. If workload information indicates thresholds are exceeded, a person can mentally read the information to determine whether there is network availability among computing entities.
Further, the limitations “performing an analysis of compute conditions for the predicted execution of the workload, based on the workload information, to analyze processing availability among the distributed computing entities” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and analyze the processing availability based on the workload information. One can mentally make the analysis given metrics and forecast data.
Further, the limitations “identifying locations of the distributed computing entities to deploy the workload, based on the analysis of network conditions and the analysis of compute conditions” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate different location of computing entities by reading a location map and metric data of the computing entities as well as reading network conditions to determine which locations would be ideal to deploy workloads. The claim does not say that workloads are deployed.
Therefore, yes, claims 1, 12, and 23 recite judicial exceptions.
The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions. Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1, 12 and 23: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional elements – “network processing unit”, “a storage medium including instructions embodied thereon, wherein the instructions, which when executed by the network processing unit, configure the network processor to” and “A non transitory machine readable storage medium comprising information representative of instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by a network processing unit, cause the networked processing unit to” which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. The additional elements “receiving, from a networked processing unit, workload information for a workload, the workload including respective tasks to be processed among distributed computing entities” are also merely data gathering activities.
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 claims 1, 12, and 23 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claim is directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 12, and 23: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, 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 amount to no more than generic computing components and field of use/technological environment which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements “receiving, from a networked processing unit, workload information for a workload, the workload including respective tasks to be processed among distributed computing entities” are mere data gathering activities which the courts have held to be well understood, routine, and conventional.
”
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 12, and 23 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regard to claims 3 and 14, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein the network availability relates to a measurement of congestion, priority, and latency of network connections used among the distributed computing entities.” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and read measurements of congestion, priority, and latency information to determine network availability and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 3 and 14 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more.
With regard to claims 4 and 15, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein the processing availability relates to a measurement of compute resources located among the distributed computing entities” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and read measurements of compute resources and their metrics to determine processing availability and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 4 and 15 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more.
With regard to claims 5 and 16, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein the compute resources include: at least a first plurality of central processing unit (CPU) cores located at a first computing node and at least a second plurality of CPU cores located at a second computing node” as drafted, are merely additional elements that recite generic computing components that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to claims 6 and 17, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein the compute resources include: at least a first plurality of accelerators located at a first computing node and at least a second plurality of accelerators located at a second computing node.” as drafted, are merely additional elements that recite generic computing components that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to claims 7 and 18, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “performing an analysis of power usage and power availability among the distributed computing entities; wherein identifying the locations in the distributed computing entities to deploy the workload is further based on the analysis of power usage and power availability” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and read measurements of compute resources and their metrics to determine power usage and availability to determine where to deploy the workload and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 7 and 18 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more.
With regard to claims 9 and 20, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein the analysis of network conditions and the analysis of compute conditions each include evaluation of at least one priority of the workload and evaluation of at least one characteristic of a service level agreement for the workload” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and read the priority of the workload and read the service level agreement to determine whether thresholds of network bandwidth are exceeded or sufficient and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 9 and 20 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more.
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) 1-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bernat et al. (US 2020/0285523).
With respect to claim 1, Bernat discloses: receiving, from a networked processing unit, workload information for a workload, the workload including respective tasks to be processed among distributed computing entities (Fig. 10, 1002, Fig. 3, [0106]);
performing an analysis of network conditions for a predicted execution of the workload, based on the workload information, to analyze network availability among the distributed computing entities (Fig. 3, 324, 326);
performing an analysis of compute conditions for the predicted execution of the workload, based on the workload information, to analyze processing availability among the distributed computing entities (Fig. 4, 348, 350); and
identifying locations of the distributed computing entities to deploy the workload, based on the analysis of network conditions and the analysis of compute conditions (Fig. 5).
With respect to claim 2, Bernat discloses: causing activation of the identified locations of the distributed computing entities to enable execution of the workload (Figs. 3-5, if nodes need to be augmented the orchestrator provides connection data usable to couple to other resources, therefore, they must be activated prior to communication).
With respect to claim 3, Bernat discloses: wherein the network availability relates to a measurement of congestion, priority, and latency of network connections used among the distributed computing entities (Fig. 3, 324, 326).
With respect to claim 4, Bernat discloses: wherein the processing availability relates to a measurement of compute resources located among the distributed computing entities (Fig. 3, 310, 312, 314, 316).
With respect to claim 5, Bernat discloses: wherein the compute resources include: at least a first plurality of central processing unit (CPU) cores located at a first computing node and at least a second plurality of CPU cores located at a second computing node (Fig. 5, 366, 368, Fig. 7, 702, 704).
With respect to claim 6, Bernat discloses: wherein the compute resources include: at least a first plurality of accelerators located at a first computing node and at least a second plurality of accelerators located at a second computing node (id.).
With respect to claim 7, Bernat discloses: performing an analysis of power usage and power availability among the distributed computing entities; wherein identifying the locations in the distributed computing entities to deploy the workload is further based on the analysis of power usage and power availability (Figs. 3-5).
With respect to claim 8, Bernat discloses: causing a change to at least one power state at the identified locations of the distributed computing entities during deployment of the workload ([0129],[0130]).
With respect to claim 9, Bernat discloses: wherein the analysis of network conditions and the analysis of compute conditions each include evaluation of at least one priority of the workload and evaluation of at least one characteristic of a service level agreement for the workload ([0022], [0051], [0084]).
With respect to claim 10, Bernat discloses: wherein the method is performed by a networked processing unit in a network interface of a computing system, and wherein the workload information is received via the network interface from another networked processing unit located at a base station, on-premises server, or data center server (Fig. 3-5).
With respect to claim 11, Bernat discloses: providing commands to cause a network switch or gateway to control network traffic to the identified locations of the distributed computing entities during deployment of the workload (Fig. 3-5, [0136]).
With respect to the remaining claims, they recite similar limitations as claims 1-11, and are therefore rejected under the same citations and rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WISSAM RASHID whose telephone number is (571)270-3758. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am-5:00 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, 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.
/WISSAM RASHID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195