DETAILED ACTION
This Action is in response to Application Number 18183578 received on 3/14/2023.
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
This application claims priority to provisional application 63331345, filed 4/15/2022.
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 Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites the limitation, “determining, using a cost function includes a cost”, which include a minor grammatical error. For examination purposes, the limitation will be interpreted to recite, “determining, using a cost function that includes a cost”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “further comprising splitting, based on the obtained carbon neutralization calculation parameter, the received service task into a number of subtasks, wherein the selecting step further comprises selecting, based on the obtained carbon neutralization calculation parameter, a target entity from the plurality of candidate targets and the user equipment, for each of the number of subtasks, and the sending step further comprises sending, each of the number of subtasks to a correspondingly selected target entity”, which is indefinite as to the scope of the claim when considering the limitations of claim 1. The limitations of claim 11 recite that the “selecting” step “further comprises” selecting a target entity…. for each of the number of subtasks, and the “sending” step “further comprises “sending, each of the number of subtasks to a correspondingly selected target entity”. The scope of claim 11 is indefinite as it is not clear whether the intentions are for claim 11 to require both sending the entire service task to a single target entity (as is required by claim 1) and sending subtasks to a correspondingly selected target entity (as required by claim 11). Applicant’s specification does not appear to include an embodiment where both occur. For examination purposes, the limitations of claim 11 will be interpreted in accordance with the specification. Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons by virtue of its dependency to claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 8, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ignatius (US 20160055556) in view of Hur (US 20120240113).
Regarding claim 1, Ignatius disclosed a method for performing carbon neutralization in a communication network, comprising:
receiving a service task from a user equipment (Ignatius, [0015], “At 150, the requester 102 sends a “request for estimates” (i.e., a query) to the service broker 104. The request includes parameters (mandatory, preferred, or both) including details of the requested service”);
obtaining a carbon neutralization calculation parameter related to performing the received service task (Ignatius, [0017], “Examples of parameters include service-level-agreement parameters (e.g., time, performance, reliability, etc.), …, power requirements (e.g., moderation of carbon footprint to perform the service, performed using renewable energy, etc.), safe-harbor regulations, storage-container type, etc.”; [0029], “a requester can have three mandatory parameters and two preferred parameters (e.g., execution time, carbon footprint, ecological impact, monetary cost, etc.). However, the requester may request that the service broker order the responses based on the second preferred parameter and third mandatory parameter (in that order), and the service provider will order the responses accordingly.”; The broker obtains the carbon neutralization calculation parameters from both the requester and each vendor and provides an order of vendors according to the carbon footprint moderation parameter);
the user selecting, based on the obtained carbon neutralization calculation parameter, a target entity from a plurality of candidate targets at which the received service task can be performed (Ignatius, Fig. 2, 254, “Identify set of vendors that are capable of performing service”, 260, “Determine confidence level that vendor can meet estimation of parameters based on service history of service provided by associated vendor”; [0029], “As such, the filtering and ordering may be based on simple minimal factor decisions or may be a complex selection rule based on various preferred and mandatory parameters, which may be evaluated by heuristics or a real optimal-value assessment”; [0031] “The confidence level can be applied on a service-by-service basis, a parameter-by-parameter basis, etc., and can be associated with mandatory parameters, preferred parameters, or both”; Ignatius therefore identifies vendors that can meet the requirements of the service request, which is based on the provided carbon footprint parameter, as noted above; Fig. 2, 262 and 274 and [0032]-[0033], Ignatius disclosed the selection of the particular vendor by the user via the broker which is based on the carbon footprint parameters; See [0054], Selection of a vendor amounts to selection of a processing entity such as a server, for executing the vendor); and
sending the received service task to the selected target entity (Ignatius, [0033], “In some embodiments, the requester 102 then contacts the vendor 106 directly for the service. However, in other embodiments, the requester 102 sends the selection to the service broker 104 at 164, and the service broker 104 may set up a service level agreement between the requester 102 and the vendor (i.e., an execution request) at 166 and charge the requester 102. In some of these embodiments where the broker sets up the service level agreement, the terms of the service level agreement may be affected by the confidence level.”).
While Ignatius disclosed the broker providing an ordered list, which may be ordered based on carbon footprint, Ignatius disclosed the user selecting the target entity from a plurality of candidate targets. Ignatius did not explicitly disclose the broker itself making the selection.
In an analogous art, Hur disclosed a controlling server selecting the target entity from a plurality of candidate targets based on a carbon neutralization calculation parameter (Hur, [0049], “a cloud center controlling server may select at least one cloud center from a global cloud center network based on a service level agreement, an electricity cost, and a carbon emission cost of a cloud center”; [0013]-[0017], “The selecting the target cloud center may include calculating selection weights of the plurality of cloud centers by combining an electricity cost and a carbon emission cost of each cloud center, selecting a cloud center having a lowest selection weight from the plurality of cloud centers as the target cloud center”; [0024], “carbon emission cost calculator”, [0025], “The cloud center selector may select a cloud center having a lowest electricity cost and a lowest carbon emission cost from the plurality of cloud centers as the target cloud center”; [0019], “selecting a cloud center having a service capability level satisfying the service level of the client from the plurality of cloud centers as the candidate cloud center “; See [0038] defining a cloud center to be computing resources for providing service to clients; See also [0048]).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Ignatius and Hur as they both relate to utilizing cost functions in consideration of carbon footprints for selecting an entity to provide a service to a client, and as such, they are within similar environments.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate Hur’s cost function within the teachings of Ignatius in order to select the entity that provide the lowest carbon emission cost as such would provide for selection of an entity that can perform the service within the constraints of the user’s needs, while at the same time reducing carbon emissions such as a carbon-dioxide and a carbon monoxide gases (Hur, [0005]).
Claim 19 recites an apparatus for performing carbon neutralization in a communication network, comprising circuitry configured to perform limitations that are substantially similar to the limitations of claim 1.
Claim 20 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium including computer readable instructions, which when executed by at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to perform a method for performing carbon neutralization in a communication network, the method comprising limitations that are substantially similar to the limitations of claim 1.
Ignatius and Hur disclosed an apparatus and medium as claimed, performing such limitations (Ignatius, [0048]-[0049], Hur, [0077]).
Therefore claims 19-20 are rejected under the same rationale applied above.
Regarding claim 2, Ignatius and Hur disclosed the method of claim 1, wherein the selecting step further comprises: determining, using a cost function includes a cost based on the obtained carbon neutralization calculation parameter, the selected target entity (Ignatius, Fig. 2, 254, “Identify set of vendors that are capable of performing service”, 260, “Determine confidence level that vendor can meet estimation of parameters based on service history of service provided by associated vendor”; [0029], “As such, the filtering and ordering may be based on simple minimal factor decisions or may be a complex selection rule based on various preferred and mandatory parameters, which may be evaluated by heuristics or a real optimal-value assessment”; [0031] “The confidence level can be applied on a service-by-service basis, a parameter-by-parameter basis, etc., and can be associated with mandatory parameters, preferred parameters, or both”; Ignatius therefore identifies vendors that can meet the requirements of the service request, which may be based on a particular carbon footprint parameter, as noted above; Fig. 2, 262 and 274 and [0032]-[0033], Ignatius disclosed the selection of the particular vendor which is based on the requested carbon footprint parameter; See [0054], Selection of a vendor amounts to selection of a processing entity such as a server, for executing the vendor), such that the cost function with respect to the selected target entity is minimized (Hur, [0013]-[0017], “The selecting the target cloud center may include calculating selection weights of the plurality of cloud centers by combining an electricity cost and a carbon emission cost of each cloud center, selecting a cloud center having a lowest selection weight from the plurality of cloud centers as the target cloud center”; [0024], “carbon emission cost calculator”, [0025], “The cloud center selector may select a cloud center having a lowest electricity cost and a lowest carbon emission cost from the plurality of cloud centers as the target cloud center”). See motivation to combine above.
Regarding claim 6, Ignatius and Hur disclosed the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of candidate targets are a plurality of candidate application servers coupled to the communication network, the selecting step further comprises selecting, from the plurality of candidate application servers, an application server, as the selected target entity, and the sending step further comprises routing the received service task to the selected application server (Ignatius [0054], Selection of a vendor amounts to selection of a processing entity such as a server; [0033], “In some embodiments, the requester 102 then contacts the vendor 106 directly for the service. However, in other embodiments, the requester 102 sends the selection to the service broker 104 at 164, and the service broker 104 may set up a service level agreement between the requester 102 and the vendor (i.e., an execution request) at 166 and charge the requester 102”; See also Hur, [0059] service task of creating the virtual machine to the selected cloud center to provide the service to the client). See motivation to combine above.
Regarding claim 8, Ignatius and Hur disclosed the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of candidate targets are a plurality of candidate service entities in the communication network (Ignatius, [0053]), the selecting step further comprises selecting, from the plurality of candidate service entities, a service entity, as the selected target entity (Ignatius, Fig. 2, 254, “Identify set of vendors that are capable of performing service”, 260, “Determine confidence level that vendor can meet estimation of parameters based on service history of service provided by associated vendor”; [0029], “As such, the filtering and ordering may be based on simple minimal factor decisions or may be a complex selection rule based on various preferred and mandatory parameters, which may be evaluated by heuristics or a real optimal-value assessment”; [0031] “The confidence level can be applied on a service-by-service basis, a parameter-by-parameter basis, etc., and can be associated with mandatory parameters, preferred parameters, or both”; Ignatius therefore identifies vendors that can meet the requirements of the service request, which is based on the provided carbon footprint parameter, as noted above; Fig. 2, 262 and 274 and [0032]-[0033], Ignatius disclosed the selection of the particular vendor by the user via the broker which is based on the carbon footprint parameter; See [0054], Selection of a vendor amounts to selection of a processing/service entity such as a server, for executing the vendor), and the sending step further comprises forwarding the received service task to the selected service entity (Ignatius, [0033], “In some embodiments, the requester 102 then contacts the vendor 106 directly for the service. However, in other embodiments, the requester 102 sends the selection to the service broker 104 at 164, and the service broker 104 may set up a service level agreement between the requester 102 and the vendor (i.e., an execution request) at 166 and charge the requester 102. In some of these embodiments where the broker sets up the service level agreement, the terms of the service level agreement may be affected by the confidence level.”; See also Hur, [0059] “At step S207, the selected target cloud center may be controlled to create a virtual machine. For example, controller 116 may control the selected cloud center to create a virtual machine to provide a service to a client”; Service task implementation is forwarded by the intermediate device in both Ignatius and Hur to the selected server to provide the service).
Claim(s) 3-5, 13-14, 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ignatius (US 20160055556) in view of Hur (US 20120240113) and further in view of Hadar et al. (US 20220308939).
Regarding claim 3, Ignatius and Hur disclosed the method of claim 1, but did not explicitly disclose wherein the obtained carbon neutralization calculation parameter includes a green power related parameter with respect to each of the plurality of candidate targets.
In an analogous art, Hadar disclosed wherein the obtained carbon neutralization calculation parameter includes a green power related parameter with respect to each of the plurality of candidate targets (Hadar, [0051], server system accept requests for services; [0053]-[0056], Hadar disclosed attributes provided by the client including attributes that are green power related such as those listed in [0054], to which the server system utilizes to select a solution over cloud environments to handle the service based on catalogs; For example see Fig. 3 and [0080] and [0083]-[0084]; The server determines each entity that complies with the requirements, i.e. obtains their metrics and determines they comply with those requested, i.e. complies with the green power parameters).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Ignatius and Hur with Hadar as they both relate to utilizing cost functions in consideration of carbon footprints for selecting an entity to provide a service to a client, and as such, they are within similar environments.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate Hadar’s cost function within the teachings of Ignatius and Hur in order to select the entity that provide the lowest carbon emission cost as such would provide for selection of an entity that can perform the service within the constraints of the user’s needs, while at the same time reducing carbon emissions debt (Hur, [0005] and Hadar, [0004]).
Regarding claim 4, Ignatius Hur and Hadar disclosed the method of claim 3, wherein the obtained carbon neutralization calculation parameter further includes a KPI related parameter with respect to each of the plurality of candidate targets (Hur, [0042], “Real-time service level manager 112 may monitor and manage a service capable level of each cloud center. For example, real-time service level manage 112 may monitor cloud centers 120 and 130 in real time and determine a real time service capability level of each cloud center 120 and 130. The real-time service capability level may denote a level of service that a cloud center can provide to a client in real time. Such a real-time service capability level may differ according to a processing load and a communication environment of a cloud center. The real-time capability level of service may be used to determine whether or not a respective cloud center is a proper candidate”; the real time service capability level amounts to a quantifiable metric used to track progress over time and therefore amounts to a KPI related parameter; See also Hur, [0048], “Cloud center selector 115 may select one of cloud centers 120 and 130 based on the real-time service capable levels, the electricity costs, and the carbon emission costs of cloud centers 120 and 130.”; Such attributes amount to KPI related parameters; See also Hadar [0089]). See motivation to combine above.
Regarding claim 5, Ignatius Hur and Hadar disclosed the method of claim 3, wherein the obtained carbon neutralization calculation parameter further includes a user equipment related parameter received from the user equipment (Ignatius, [0015]-[0017]). See motivation to combine above.
Regarding claim 13, Ignatius Hur and Hadar disclosed the method of claim 3, wherein the green power related parameter includes carbon intensity and/or power consumption involved in performing the received service task at each of the plurality of candidate targets (Ignatius, [0017], “Examples of parameters include… power requirements (e.g., moderation of carbon footprint to perform the service”; See also claim 3, “maximum carbon footprint of the server while the server is executing the requested service” and claims 4-5 in determining if each vendor can meet the required parameters). See motivation to combine above.
Regarding claim 14, Ignatius Hur and Hadar disclosed the method of claim 3, wherein the green power related parameter includes a parameter representing a currently measured status of each of the plurality of candidate targets and/or a plurality of communication network components to be involved in performing the received service task (Ignatius, [0023]-[0026] each vendor provides parameters representing their statuses including performance status; See also Hur, [0042], “Real-time service level manager 112 may monitor and manage a service capable level of each cloud center. For example, real-time service level manage 112 may monitor cloud centers 120 and 130 in real time and determine a real time service capability level of each cloud center 120 and 130. The real-time service capability level may denote a level of service that a cloud center can provide to a client in real time. Such a real-time service capability level may differ according to a processing load and a communication environment of a cloud center. The real-time capability level of service may be used to determine whether or not a respective cloud center is a proper candidate to create a virtual machine for providing a requested service.”). See motivation to combine above.
Regarding claim 17, Ignatius Hur and Hadar disclosed the method of claim 4, wherein the KPI related parameter includes a queue length and/or service loading of each of the plurality of candidate targets and/or a plurality of communication network components to be involved in performing of the received service task (Hur, [0042], “Real-time service level manager 112 may monitor and manage a service capable level of each cloud center. For example, real-time service level manage 112 may monitor cloud centers 120 and 130 in real time and determine a real time service capability level of each cloud center 120 and 130. The real-time service capability level may denote a level of service that a cloud center can provide to a client in real time” service capability level amounts to the claimed service loading since it represents a level of service that each cloud center can provide). See motivation to combine above.
Regarding claim 18, Ignatius Hur and Hadar disclosed the method of claim 5, wherein the user equipment related parameter includes green power related information, configuration related information, working condition related information, and/or a timing requirement of the user equipment (Ignatius, [0015]-[0017]). See motivation to combine above.
Claim(s) 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ignatius (US 20160055556) in view of Hur (US 20120240113) and further in view of Joshi et al. (US 20220021646).
Regarding claim 7, Ignatius and Hur disclosed the method of claim 6, wherein the routing step further comprises the utilization of TCP/IP for communication between devices involving connections using one or more intranets, extranets, local area networks (LAN), wide area networks (WAN), wireless networks (WIFI), the Internet, including the world wide web, and/or other arrangements for enabling communication between the processing devices 402 (Ignatius, [0053]).
Ignatius and Hur did not explicitly disclose performing IP address translation to derive an IP address of the selected application server; and routing, based on the derived IP address, the received service task to the selected application server.
Joshi disclosed performing IP address translation to derive an IP address of the selected application server; and routing, based on the derived IP address, the received service task to the selected application server (Joshi, Abstract, [0005], [0057], Joshi disclosed efficient network address translation in cloud networks in which address translation is performed to derive an IP address of one of different servers in order to route service packets to the one of the different servers).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to utilize Joshi’s address translation functionality for the communication aspects of Ignatius Hur and Hadar, as the combined teachings of Ignatius Hur and Hadar explicitly suggest the utilization of TCP/IP protocol across various public and private networks, and Joshi explicitly provides detailed TCP/IP functionality for such communication.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the network address translation aspects of Joshi within the combined teachings of Ignatius Hur and Hadar in order to obtain the predictable results of realizing all that Ignatius Hur and Hadar suggests in utilizing TCP/IP across public and private networks, utilizing well-known teachings without having to reinvent the wheel.
Claim(s) 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ignatius (US 20160055556) in view of Hur (US 20120240113) and further in view of Htay et al. (US 20160057039).
Regarding claim 9, Ignatius and Hur disclosed the method of claim 1, but did not explicitly disclose obtaining an updated carbon neutralization calculation parameter; reselecting, based on the updated carbon neutralization calculation parameter, an updated target entity; and relocating, when the updated target entity is different from the originally selected target entity, the received service task to the updated target entity.
In an analogous art, Htay disclosed obtaining an updated carbon neutralization calculation parameter; reselecting, based on the updated carbon neutralization calculation parameter, an updated target entity; and relocating, when the updated target entity is different from the originally selected target entity, the received service task to the updated target entity (Htay, Abstract, “determine carbon footprint of a network service”; [0020], Htay disclosed the teachings “tracking” power usages through the SDN network in the data centers and through the access technologies such that carbon footprint can be computed, and based on the carbon footprint, [0032]-[0034] carbon footprint utilized to move VMs to areas with lower carbon footprint; Moving the VMs to areas with lower carbon footprint amounts to relocating the service task to an updated target entity).
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Ignatius Hur and Htay as they involve teachings for reducing the carbon footprint for network services, and as such, they are within similar environments.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate Htay’s dynaminc carbon footprint migration techniques within the teachings of Ignatius and Hur in order to expand on their intended benefits of providing the lowest carbon emission cost, reducing carbon emissions (Hur, [0005]).
Claim(s) 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ignatius (US 20160055556) in view of Hur (US 20120240113) and Htay et al. (US 20160057039) and further in view of Gupta et al. (US 20190310881).
Regarding claim 10, Ignatius Hur and Htay disclosed the method of claim 9.
While Ignatius Hur and Htay explicitly disclose migration of services to providers with lower carbon footprint (Htay, [0020]), the combination of Ignatius Hur and Htay did not explicitly disclose wherein the relocating step further comprises: resending, upon the originally sent service task being returned by the originally selected target entity, the returned service task to the updated target entity, or requesting the originally selected target entity to forward the originally sent service task to the updated target entity.
In an analogous art, Gupta disclosed wherein the relocating step further comprises: resending, upon the originally sent service task being returned by the originally selected target entity, the returned service task to the updated target entity, or requesting the originally selected target entity to forward the originally sent service task to the updated target entity (Gupta, [0039]. Gupta disclosed migration to include
“one or more commands 106 that may be sent from the migration manager 104”, in which the “commands to copy the memory and/or state from the original VM instance 114 to a new VM instance 116, commands to deactivate the original VM instance 114, commands to activate the new VM instance 116, commands to lock either the original VM instance 114 or the new VM instance 116, commands to pause either the original VM instance 114 or the new VM instance 116, commands to unpause either the original VM instance 114 or the new VM instance 116, commands to forward memory and/or state information from the original VM instance 114 to the new VM instance 116, commands to tear down the original VM instance 114, commands to terminate a migration between the source location 110 and the target location 112, and other such commands associated with the migration 118 of the original VM instance 114 from the source location 110 to the target location 112.”; See Fig. 1, migration 118 amounting to direct migration between source and location upon such commands/requests; See also [0048] for additional specifics with regards to the commands for migration).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Ignatius Hur and Htay with Gupta since Ignatius Hur and Htay explicitly suggests the utilization of migration to migrate the services, and Gupta explicitly provides a technique to achieve such migration, involving particular commands, and as such, the motivation to combine is found within the references.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate the migration techniques of Gupta within the combined teachings of Ignatius Hur and Htay as doing so amounts to applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results, specifically, applying a well-known form of migration to a device ready to perform such migration, as disclosed by Htay, thereby allowing for better management of resources in a distributed environment (Gupta, [0038]).
Claim(s) 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ignatius (US 20160055556) in view of Hur (US 20120240113) and further in view of Herb et al. (US 20230017632, provisional application No. 63/220845 filed Jul. 12, 2021).
Regarding claim 11, Ignatius and Hur disclosed the method of claim 1, but did not explicitly disclose further comprising splitting, based on the obtained carbon neutralization calculation parameter, the received service task into a number of subtasks, wherein the selecting step further comprises selecting, based on the obtained carbon neutralization calculation parameter, a target entity from the plurality of candidate targets and the user equipment, for each of the number of subtasks, and the sending step further comprises sending, each of the number of subtasks to a correspondingly selected target entity.
In an analogous art, Herb disclosed further comprising splitting, based on the obtained carbon neutralization calculation parameter, the received service task into a number of subtasks, wherein the selecting step further comprises selecting, based on the obtained carbon neutralization calculation parameter, a target entity from the plurality of candidate targets and the user equipment, for each of the number of subtasks, and the sending step further comprises sending, each of the number of subtasks to a correspondingly selected target entity (Herb, [0044]-[0045] and [0052-[0054], Herb disclosed selecting multiple entities for execution of an application workload, and distributing the application workload across the multiple entities for execution; [0056], “some embodiments may select a set of candidate computing resources to use to execute an application workload by the least sum carbon footprint amount (e.g., a least sum carbon emission amount)”; See [0057] a workload is distributed into a plurality of workload tasks (i.e. splitting into sub-tasks) amongst a set of candidate computing resources).
Regarding claim 12, Ignatius Hur and Herb disclosed the method of claim 11, further comprising: obtaining an updated carbon neutralization calculation parameter (Herb, [0058] “Computer resources may be re-allocated upon a detected update to a score correlated with an environmental impact score in some embodiments.); and
merging, based on the updated carbon neutralization calculation parameter, at least two of the number of subtasks, to generate a merged subtask, wherein the selecting step further comprises selecting, based on the updated carbon neutralization calculation parameter, a collective target entity from the plurality of candidate targets and the user equipment, for the merged subtask, and the sending step further comprises sending the merged subtask to the collective target entity (Herb, [0057], “determine, based on data traffic telemetry, that a first computing threshold has been satisfied and, in response, replicate a container image at a first data center to increase the amount of computing resources being used at the first data center. Similarly, some embodiments may reduce the amount of computing resource being used by a data center by removing containers from the data center. Alternatively, or in addition, some embodiments may scale the computing resources assigned to performing a set of workload tasks using a VM instance”; Herb therefore disclosed re-allocation upon an updated carbon neutralization parameter, and an example of re-allocation to include having a single VM instance (a single entity), handling multiple workload tasks (merged subtask)). See motivation to combine above.
Claim(s) 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ignatius (US 20160055556) in view of Hur (US 20120240113) and Hadar et al. (US 20220308939) and further in view of Herb et al. (US 20230017632, provisional application No. 63/220845 filed Jul. 12, 2021).
Regarding claim 15, Ignatius, Hur, and Hadar disclosed the method of claim 3, including obtaining both the responses from the vendors and objective service history to obtain a confidence level parameter that represents an estimated status of each vendor, the confidence level representing a level of predictability as to meeting their timing estimates (Ignatius, [0030]-[0031]).
However Ignatius, Hur, and Hadar did not explicitly disclose wherein the green power related parameter includes a parameter representing a predicted status of each of the plurality of candidate targets and/or a plurality of communication network components to be involved in performing the received service task.
In an analogous art, Herb disclosed wherein the green power related parameter includes a parameter representing a predicted status of each of the plurality of candidate targets and/or a plurality of communication network components to be involved in performing the received service task (Herb, [0005]. Herb disclosed obtaining a workload of a distributed application and a set of candidate computing resources and predicting amounts of carbon emissions attributable to executing the workload on different members of the set of candidate computing resources and measures of computing performance in executing the workload of the different members of the set of candidate computing resources; The step predicting amounts of carbon emissions attributable to executing the workload amounts to obtaining a parameter representing a predicted status of each).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Ignatius, Hur, and Hadar with Herb as they involve teachings for reducing the carbon footprint for network services, and as such, they are within similar environments.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to incorporate Herb’s techniques for reducing environmental impact within the teachings of Ignatius and Hur in order to expand on their intended benefits of providing the lowest carbon emission cost, reducing carbon emissions (Hur, [0005]).
Regarding claim 16, Ignatius, Hur, and Hadar and Herb disclosed the method of claim 15, wherein the green power related parameter is generated through machine learning on historic data with respect to each of the plurality of the candidate targets and/or the plurality of communication network components (Herb, [0044]). See motivation to combine above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERRY B DENNISON whose telephone number is (571)272-3910. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:50.
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, Hadi Armouche can be reached on 571-270-3618. 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.
/JERRY B DENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights