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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs and/or columns and lines in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06.
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 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.
Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application
Applicant is encouraged to file an Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application form (http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) along with the response to this office action to facilitate and expedite future communication between Applicant and the examiner. If the form is submitted then Applicant is requested to provide a contact email address in the signature block at the conclusion of the official reply.
Claim Objections
As per claim 1, in ll. 7, “associate” should be “associated”.
As per claim 8, in ll. 5, “associate” should be “associated”.
As per claim 15, in ll. 7, “associate” should be “associated”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim is a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter: Claim 1. A computer apparatus comprising.
Step 2A Prong One: The claim recites an abstract idea because it includes limitations that can be considered mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind or via pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea:
schedule a resource allocation for the first user (abstract idea mental process);
determine if the second user is associate with one or more resource allocation metrics below a predefined threshold (abstract idea mental process);
rescind the resource allocation for the first user (abstract idea mental process); and
schedule a resource allocation for the second user (abstract idea mental process).
Step 2A Prong Two: The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is recited but for generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. data storage, processor, memory, computer readable medium, etc.) which do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea amounting to simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer using generic computing hardware and/or software (e.g. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the recited generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea:
at least one processor in data communication with a memory storing processor (generic computing components);
executable code for configuring the at least one processor (generic computing components) to:
receive a resource allocation request from a first user;
receive a resource allocation request from a second user.
Step 2B: The claim includes limitations which can be considered extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) insufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional limitations only perform at least one of collecting, gathering, displaying, generating, modifying, updating, storing, retrieving, sending, and receiving data/information data which are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)II. The claim further includes limitations that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they merely recite the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim, and its limitations when considered separately and in combination, is directed to patent ineligible subject matter:
at least one processor in data communication with a memory storing processor;
executable code for configuring the at least one processor to:
receive a resource allocation request from a first user (extra-solution activity of receiving data/information);
receive a resource allocation request from a second user (extra-solution activity of receiving data/information).
Claim 2. The computer apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to record resource allocation metrics for each of the first user and second user over time (extra-solution activity of saving/storing/recording data/information).
Claim 3. The computer apparatus of Claim 2, wherein the resource allocation metrics comprise total usage time of the resource (extra-solution activity of saving/storing/recording data/information).
Claim 4. The computer apparatus of Claim 2, wherein the resource allocation metrics comprise a ratio of successful allocations to total allocation requests (extra-solution activity of saving/storing/recording data/information).
Claim 5. The computer apparatus of Claim 2, wherein the resource allocation metrics comprise a disparity of a time of request and an allocated time (extra-solution activity of saving/storing/recording data/information).
Claim 6. The computer apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to apply a randomizer to decide if the resource allocation should be rescinded (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 7. The computer apparatus of Claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to reschedule the resource allocation for the first user (abstract idea mental process).
As per claim 8, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 9, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 10, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 11, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 12, it has similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 13, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 14, it has similar limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 16, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 17, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 18, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 19, it has similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 20, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
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 1-2, 8-9, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2023/0008396) (hereinafter Wang) in view of Gabbiti et al. (US 11,972,302) (hereinafter Gabbiti).
As per claim 1, Wang primarily teaches the invention as claimed comprising:
at least one processor in data communication with a memory storing processor (Wang fig. 11, blocks 1130-1140);
executable code for configuring the at least one processor (Wang fig. 11, block 1135) to:
schedule a resource allocation for the first user (Wang [0052] allocate resources to schedule low priority transmissions; [0078] multiple user equipment associated with users; and [0108] resources previously scheduled and allocated for sidelink communications);
rescind the resource allocation for the first user (Wang [0052] cancel or alter previously scheduled low-priority transmissions to expedite higher priority message transmissions using the allocated resources for the low-priority transmissions and [0108] cancel sidelink communications previously scheduled and allocated on resources and instead use those resources for high priority communications); and
schedule a resource allocation for the second user (Wang [0116]; [0128]; [0136] schedule transmitting high priority data using resources previously allocated to lower priority data).
Wang does not explicitly teach:
receive a resource allocation request from a first user;
receive a resource allocation request from a second user;
determine if the second user is associate with one or more resource allocation metrics below a predefined threshold.
However, Gabbiti teaches:
receive a resource allocation request from a first user (Gabbiti col. 6, ll. 51-67 compute resource access metrics may be measured and monitored on a per-user basis so that requests generated by users can be processed appropriately including a number of requests received from a user within a time window);
receive a resource allocation request from a second user (Gabbiti col. 6, ll. 51-67 compute resource access metrics may be measured and monitored on a per-user basis so that requests generated by users can be processed appropriately including a number of requests received from a user within a time window);
determine if the second user is associate with one or more resource allocation metrics below a predefined threshold (Gabbiti col. 7, ll. 3-8 determine whether compute resource access metrics are less than a threshold value and then appropriately queue requests for a user and col.7, ll. 40-47 determine whether current compute resource access metrics have fallen below the threshold value associated with the user; and col. 9, ll. 13-19 determining whether measured computing resource access metrics have fallen below the threshold associated with a user).
Gabbiti and Wang are both concerned with resource allocation in a computing environment and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang in view of Gabbiti because it would provide for techniques for user-aware load management in computing systems. An application service can monitor per-user access metrics for accessing remote services through the application service. When these access metrics exceed a threshold, indicating that the user is generating a significant amount of traffic that may result in a remote service throttling or otherwise delaying the processing of requests generated by the application service, requests to access compute resources generated by the user can be migrated to a rate-controlled queue for dispatch to a compute resource (e.g., a remote service, such as a storage service or processing service which processes requests for the application service). Doing so may perform load management (e.g., throttle the rate at which requests to access compute resources are processed) on a per-user basis, affecting users who are responsible for generating a significant amount of traffic while allowing for real-time, or near-real-time, processing of requests generated by other users of the application service. Thus, the performance impacts of throttling the processing of requests generated by an application service may be isolated to a subset of users of the software application, which may improve the availability and responsiveness of the application service and reduce request processing latency for users of an application service.
As per claim 2, Gabbiti teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to record resource allocation metrics for each of the first user and second user over time (col. 6, ll. 51-67 compute resource access metrics may be measured and monitored on a per-user basis so that requests generated by users can be processed appropriately including a number of requests received from a user within a time window).
As per claim 8, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 9, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 16, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Gabbiti, and further in view of Martin et al. (US 2021/0125128) (hereinafter Martin).
As per claim 3, Wang in view of Gabbiti do not explicitly teach wherein the resource allocation metrics comprise total usage time of the resource.
However, Martin teaches wherein the resource allocation metrics comprise total usage time of the resource ([0081] generate a single usage value that is representative of the total resource usage over a period of time).
Martin and Wang are both concerned with resource allocation in a computing environment and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang in view of Gabbiti in view of Martin because it would provide a way for measuring physical resource usage in computing and quantifying the usage as a single unit of measure. For example, disparate computing resources may be measured, normalized (e.g., converted) to a common unit of measure, and each of the normalized measurements may be summed such that the total usage may be represented as a single value. By representing disparate computing resources as a single unit, resource usage (or consumption) can be monitored in real-time, workloads can be optimized to improve usage of available resources, and/or waste can be reduced. By measuring physical resources (as opposed to virtual resources) a more accurate measure of actual usage may be obtained.
As per claim 10, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 17, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Gabbiti, and further in view of Brandwine et al. (US 8,495,648) (hereinafter Brandwine).
As per claim 4, Wang in view of Gabbiti do not explicitly teach wherein the resource allocation metrics comprise a ratio of successful allocations to total allocation requests.
However, Brandwine teaches wherein the resource allocation metrics comprise a ratio of successful allocations to total allocation requests (Brandwine col. 4, ll. 42-61 ratio of allocated resources to total resources and a probability that a particular request is granted).
Brandwine and Wang are both concerned with resource allocation in a computing environment and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang in view of Gabbiti in view of Brandwine because it would provide a way of managing requests for computing capacity from a provider of computing resources. The computing resources may include program execution capabilities, data storage or management capabilities, network bandwidth, etc. In some implementations, user requests are probabilistically denied or granted while some computing resources are still available. By denying some requests or granting only some, the rate of computing resource usage can be reduced, thus preserving some capacity for a longer period of time.
As per claim 11, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 18, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Gabbiti, and further in view of Kesselman et al. (US 2009/0232103) (hereinafter Kesselman).
As per claim 5, Wang in view of Gabbiti do not explicitly teach wherein the resource allocation metrics comprise a disparity of a time of request and an allocated time.
However, Kesselman teaches wherein the resource allocation metrics comprise a disparity of a time of request and an allocated time (Kesselman [0020] difference between the requested time and the actually allocated time).
Kesselman and Wang are both concerned with resource allocation in a computing environment and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang in view of Gabbiti in view of Kesselman because it would provide a way to increase bandwidth reservation efficiency by using directional transmission while also further increasing the throughput, decreasing the latency for bursty data traffic, and maintaining high channel utilization when the channel is shared between bursty and isochronous connections. This would also provide efficient spatial reuse, increase the overall throughput of a network and enable power saving for devices since they need to listen to the coordinator only during the fixed announcement slot.
As per claim 12, it has similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 19, it has similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Gabbiti, and further in view of Zhou et al. (US 2024/0187936) (hereinafter Zhou).
As per claim 6, Wang in view of Gabbiti do not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to apply a randomizer to decide if the resource allocation should be rescinded.
However, Zhou teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to apply a randomizer to decide if the resource allocation should be rescinded (Zhou [0129] first resource allocation scheme may be random selection and pre-emption).
Zhou and Wang are both concerned with resource allocation in a computing environment and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang in view of Gabbiti in view of Zhou because it would provide a random selection for an initial transmission to reduce the latency of the initial transmission. In addition, when the priority of a transport block is high (for example, the above threshold range is priority>specific threshold), other user equipment may actively avoid the conflict with the data with higher priority when transmitting data with lower priority, so that the transmission performance of the transport block will not be significantly reduced. For subsequent retransmissions, the user equipment can maintain sensing after starting the resource selection process, so as to provide more sufficient sensing results (compared with the initial transmission) for subsequent retransmissions to determine transmission resource. Therefore, the resource allocation scheme based on sensing has better performance and will not introduce additional latency.
As per claim 13, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 20, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Gabbiti, and further in view of Merril et al. (US 2005/0076339) (hereinafter Merril).
As per claim 7, Wang in view of Gabbiti do not explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to reschedule the resource allocation for the first user.
However, Merril teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to reschedule the resource allocation for the first user (Merril [0060] enable resource allocation to be rescheduled).
Merril and Wang are both concerned with resource allocation in a computing environment and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wang in view of Gabbiti in view of Merril because it would provide for a data transfer scheduling service including the ability to optimize fulfillment of requests and optimize network utilization based on the constraints contained within the requests and policy set on the resource negotiation service. This provides a framework that can be used to support other services, such as priority models, accounting services, and other embellishments. It may include a mechanism, for example, such as an ability to interface with a replica location service, for querying to find the most appropriate source for a requested data set when multiple mirror or replica copies are available.
As per claim 14, it has similar limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Vajda (US 2012/0060170) disclose scheduling processing resources on a multi-core chip.
Sait (US 10,353,745) disclose assessing performance of disparate computing environments.
Raja et al. (US 2008/0225718) disclose providing global server load balancing of heterogeneous devices.
Gupta et al. (US 2020/0196345) disclose scheduling of periodic traffic due to a missed transmission opportunity in unlicensed spectrum.
Doo et al. (US 2016/0277142) disclose optical network unit for low latency packet transmission.
Cutrell et al. (US 2005/0076336) disclose scheduling resources on a switched underlay network.
Chen et al. (US 2016/0234857) disclose parallel low latency awareness.
Boyden et al. (US 2005/0047379) disclose ultra-wide band wireless communication for delivering audio/video content.
Baker et al. (US 2010/0189046) disclose reactive scheduling to enable peer-to-peer communication links in a wireless system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam Lee whose telephone number is (571)270-3369. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 8AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the above noted Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Vital, can be reached at the following telephone number: (571) 272-4215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/Adam Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198 January 5, 2026