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 1-6,8-16,18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind and mathematical concepts.
Regarding claim 1, with the exception of the recitation of the limitation ‘by a profiler at the node of the DCF’, concepts performed in the human mind and mathematical concepts.
The limitation ‘monitoring resource consumption of one or more resources by the node in connection with operations performed by the node’ is a mental process - concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. The limitation ‘performing a check to determine if resource consumption by the node is within a specified range and based on an outcome of the check, assigning, or adjusting, a confidence score for the resource consumption; in a case where the confidence score for the resource consumption indicates that the resource consumption of one or more resources of the node is out of the specified range’ is a mathematical concept.
Step 2A: Prong two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitation ‘receiving data, wherein the data is caused to flow through nodes of the DCF, including said node, prior to the data being consumed by an application; accessing trust metadata associated with the data, wherein the trust metadata is structured to accumulate annotations made by the nodes of the DCF while the data flows through the DCF, and wherein the annotations include node-generated information descriptive of the data as the data is processed by the nodes of the DCF; annotating the trust metadata by adding the confidence score to the trust metadata, resulting in the trust metadata further accumulating the confidence score, which is provided by the node; transmitting the data to a subsequent node in the DCF’ are merely adding insignificant extra-solution of data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitation ‘by a profiler at the node of the DCF’ are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and in this case generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitation ‘steering workload away from the node or replacing the one or more resources of the node’ are simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, MPEP 2106.05(d). USPN 20200097348 – paragraphs 0021-0022 -discloses Resource failures generally have behavioral patterns which ultimately lead to total failure in some cases. These failure patterns can be learned by applying known techniques like time-series analysis or from independent tests performed by others for each resource type… Because of the unpracticality, in traditional servers, of performing these deep diagnostics to proactively identify the potential resource failure and take an appropriate remediation action, such as replacing the server or the affected resources in a timely manner, these unforeseen behavior patterns may lead to catastrophic scenarios. Furthermore, traditional servers cannot allow replacement of certain resources while the workloads are running, with minimal disruption. For example, in a traditional (fixed) server, typically to replace memory or processors, the server needs to be shut down and the workload(s) executing thereon need to be migrated to other servers or a hot standby redundant server needs to be employed to take over the function of the primary server while the primary server is under maintenance. This increases the expense to provide reliable execution for those workloads. USPN 20140108775 – discloses in paragraphs 0004-0005,0077 - When seeking access to a hosted resource, a user may connect to a server farm or a machine using, for example, a user device, such as a personal computer, laptop or mobile device. While the machines or server farms are deployed, it may be desirable to perform various maintenance operations. A few examples of when a maintenance operation may be needed include when a database has become corrupt; when one or more of the machines have been selected for upgrade or replacement; when one or more of the machines are to be rebooted; and when a server farm's workload is to be transferred to a different workload. Performing a maintenance operation, however, can cause adverse effects such as a connection or service outage. For example, to perform a maintenance operation a server farm or machine may need to be disconnected or otherwise disabled. Any user attempting to access one of the resources hosted by the affected server farms or machines may, as a result of the connection or service outage, be unable to access the desired hosted resource. Providers may wish to avoid or minimize the impact of a maintenance operation on a user's ability to access a hosted application, desktop or other resource. USPN 20150006951 – paragraph 0004 – discloses In a data center, the blade servers are characterized by machine type, network addresses and storage addresses which are virtual addresses. In case of a blade server (sometimes herein simply referred to as a "server") failure, another blade server is picked up from the spare pool of standby servers, to replace the failing server. In existing solutions for the fail over: (i) the failing server is powered off: (ii) the addresses (network and storage) of the failing blade server are applied to the new replacing server; (iii) the replacing server is switched on to the power ON mode; (iv) the replacing server is booted to an operating system (OS); (v) the replacing server takes over the failing server workload.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation ‘wherein the one or more resources comprise one or more of memory, storage, processing, and power’ is a mental process of choosing the resources to monitor.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation ‘wherein when the resource consumption is within the specified range, a first confidence score is applied to the resource consumption, and when the resource consumption is out of the specified range, a second confidence score is applied to the resource consumption, and the second confidence score is different from the first confidence score’ is a mathematical concept.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation ‘wherein when the resource consumption is out of the specified range’ is a mathematical concept; ‘a workload of the node is adjusted’ are simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, MPEP 2106.05(d). USPN 20200097348 – paragraphs 0021-0022 -discloses Resource failures generally have behavioral patterns which ultimately lead to total failure in some cases. These failure patterns can be learned by applying known techniques like time-series analysis or from independent tests performed by others for each resource type… Because of the unpracticality, in traditional servers, of performing these deep diagnostics to proactively identify the potential resource failure and take an appropriate remediation action, such as replacing the server or the affected resources in a timely manner, these unforeseen behavior patterns may lead to catastrophic scenarios. Furthermore, traditional servers cannot allow replacement of certain resources while the workloads are running, with minimal disruption. For example, in a traditional (fixed) server, typically to replace memory or processors, the server needs to be shut down and the workload(s) executing thereon need to be migrated to other servers or a hot standby redundant server needs to be employed to take over the function of the primary server while the primary server is under maintenance. This increases the expense to provide reliable execution for those workloads. USPN 20140108775 – discloses in paragraphs 0004-0005,0077 - When seeking access to a hosted resource, a user may connect to a server farm or a machine using, for example, a user device, such as a personal computer, laptop or mobile device. While the machines or server farms are deployed, it may be desirable to perform various maintenance operations. A few examples of when a maintenance operation may be needed include when a database has become corrupt; when one or more of the machines have been selected for upgrade or replacement; when one or more of the machines are to be rebooted; and when a server farm's workload is to be transferred to a different workload. Performing a maintenance operation, however, can cause adverse effects such as a connection or service outage. For example, to perform a maintenance operation a server farm or machine may need to be disconnected or otherwise disabled. Any user attempting to access one of the resources hosted by the affected server farms or machines may, as a result of the connection or service outage, be unable to access the desired hosted resource. Providers may wish to avoid or minimize the impact of a maintenance operation on a user's ability to access a hosted application, desktop or other resource. USPN 20150006951 – paragraph 0004 – discloses In a data center, the blade servers are characterized by machine type, network addresses and storage addresses which are virtual addresses. In case of a blade server (sometimes herein simply referred to as a "server") failure, another blade server is picked up from the spare pool of standby servers, to replace the failing server. In existing solutions for the fail over: (i) the failing server is powered off: (ii) the addresses (network and storage) of the failing blade server are applied to the new replacing server; (iii) the replacing server is switched on to the power ON mode; (iv) the replacing server is booted to an operating system (OS); (v) the replacing server takes over the failing server workload.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation ‘wherein after the confidence score for the resource consumption is assigned or adjusted, an overall confidence score for the node is assigned or adjusted’ is a mathematical concept.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation ‘wherein when the resource consumption is out of the specified range, the confidence score indicates that the node is oversubscribed and may not be able to perform a current or future workload’ is a mathematical concept.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation ‘wherein performing a check comprises measuring consumption of a particular resource by the node’ are merely adding insignificant extra-solution of data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 9, the limitation ‘wherein when the resource consumption is out of the specified range’ is a mathematic concept; ‘a check is performed to determine if the node is functioning correctly’ is a mental process - concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation ‘wherein performing a check comprises measuring consumption of a particular resource by the node’ is merely adding insignificant extra-solution of data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and ‘measurements of the consumption of that particular resource are stored at the node’ are simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, MPEP 2106.05(d) iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Regarding claim 11, with the exception of the recitation of the limitations ‘A non-transitory storage medium having stored therein instructions that are executable by one or more hardware processors to perform operations; by a profiler at the node of the DCF’, concepts performed in the human mind and mathematical concepts.
The limitation ‘monitoring resource consumption of one or more resources by the node in connection with operations performed by the node’ is a mental process - concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion. The limitation ‘performing a check to determine if resource consumption by the node is within a specified range and based on an outcome of the check, assigning, or adjusting, a confidence score for the resource consumption; in a case where the confidence score for the resource consumption indicates that the resource consumption of one or more resources of the node is out of the specified range’ is a mathematical concept.
Step 2A: Prong two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the limitation ‘receiving data, wherein the data is caused to flow through nodes of the DCF, including said node, prior to the data being consumed by an application; accessing trust metadata associated with the data, wherein the trust metadata is structured to accumulate annotations made by the nodes of the DCF while the data flows through the DCF, and wherein the annotations include node-generated information descriptive of the data as the data is processed by the nodes of the DCF; annotating the trust metadata by adding the confidence score to the trust metadata, resulting in the trust metadata further accumulating the confidence score, which is provided by the node; transmitting the data to a subsequent node in the DCF’ are merely adding insignificant extra-solution of data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitation ‘A non-transitory storage medium having stored therein instructions that are executable by one or more hardware processors to perform operations; by a profiler at the node of the DCF’ are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and in this case generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitation ‘steering workload away from the node or replacing the one or more resources of the node’ are simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, MPEP 2106.05(d). USPN 20200097348 – paragraphs 0021-0022 -discloses Resource failures generally have behavioral patterns which ultimately lead to total failure in some cases. These failure patterns can be learned by applying known techniques like time-series analysis or from independent tests performed by others for each resource type… Because of the unpracticality, in traditional servers, of performing these deep diagnostics to proactively identify the potential resource failure and take an appropriate remediation action, such as replacing the server or the affected resources in a timely manner, these unforeseen behavior patterns may lead to catastrophic scenarios. Furthermore, traditional servers cannot allow replacement of certain resources while the workloads are running, with minimal disruption. For example, in a traditional (fixed) server, typically to replace memory or processors, the server needs to be shut down and the workload(s) executing thereon need to be migrated to other servers or a hot standby redundant server needs to be employed to take over the function of the primary server while the primary server is under maintenance. This increases the expense to provide reliable execution for those workloads. USPN 20140108775 – discloses in paragraphs 0004-0005,0077 - When seeking access to a hosted resource, a user may connect to a server farm or a machine using, for example, a user device, such as a personal computer, laptop or mobile device. While the machines or server farms are deployed, it may be desirable to perform various maintenance operations. A few examples of when a maintenance operation may be needed include when a database has become corrupt; when one or more of the machines have been selected for upgrade or replacement; when one or more of the machines are to be rebooted; and when a server farm's workload is to be transferred to a different workload. Performing a maintenance operation, however, can cause adverse effects such as a connection or service outage. For example, to perform a maintenance operation a server farm or machine may need to be disconnected or otherwise disabled. Any user attempting to access one of the resources hosted by the affected server farms or machines may, as a result of the connection or service outage, be unable to access the desired hosted resource. Providers may wish to avoid or minimize the impact of a maintenance operation on a user's ability to access a hosted application, desktop or other resource. USPN 20150006951 – paragraph 0004 – discloses In a data center, the blade servers are characterized by machine type, network addresses and storage addresses which are virtual addresses. In case of a blade server (sometimes herein simply referred to as a "server") failure, another blade server is picked up from the spare pool of standby servers, to replace the failing server. In existing solutions for the fail over: (i) the failing server is powered off: (ii) the addresses (network and storage) of the failing blade server are applied to the new replacing server; (iii) the replacing server is switched on to the power ON mode; (iv) the replacing server is booted to an operating system (OS); (v) the replacing server takes over the failing server workload.
Regarding claim 12, the limitation ‘wherein the one or more resources comprise one or more of memory, storage, processing, and power’ is a mental process of choosing the resources to monitor.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation ‘wherein when the resource consumption is within the specified range, a first confidence score is applied to the resource consumption, and when the resource consumption is out of the specified range, a second confidence score is applied to the resource consumption, and the second confidence score is different from the first confidence score’ is a mathematical concept.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation ‘wherein when the resource consumption is out of the specified range’ is a mathematical concept; ‘a workload of the node is adjusted’ are simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, MPEP 2106.05(d). USPN 20200097348 – paragraphs 0021-0022 -discloses Resource failures generally have behavioral patterns which ultimately lead to total failure in some cases. These failure patterns can be learned by applying known techniques like time-series analysis or from independent tests performed by others for each resource type… Because of the unpracticality, in traditional servers, of performing these deep diagnostics to proactively identify the potential resource failure and take an appropriate remediation action, such as replacing the server or the affected resources in a timely manner, these unforeseen behavior patterns may lead to catastrophic scenarios. Furthermore, traditional servers cannot allow replacement of certain resources while the workloads are running, with minimal disruption. For example, in a traditional (fixed) server, typically to replace memory or processors, the server needs to be shut down and the workload(s) executing thereon need to be migrated to other servers or a hot standby redundant server needs to be employed to take over the function of the primary server while the primary server is under maintenance. This increases the expense to provide reliable execution for those workloads. USPN 20140108775 – discloses in paragraphs 0004-0005,0077 - When seeking access to a hosted resource, a user may connect to a server farm or a machine using, for example, a user device, such as a personal computer, laptop or mobile device. While the machines or server farms are deployed, it may be desirable to perform various maintenance operations. A few examples of when a maintenance operation may be needed include when a database has become corrupt; when one or more of the machines have been selected for upgrade or replacement; when one or more of the machines are to be rebooted; and when a server farm's workload is to be transferred to a different workload. Performing a maintenance operation, however, can cause adverse effects such as a connection or service outage. For example, to perform a maintenance operation a server farm or machine may need to be disconnected or otherwise disabled. Any user attempting to access one of the resources hosted by the affected server farms or machines may, as a result of the connection or service outage, be unable to access the desired hosted resource. Providers may wish to avoid or minimize the impact of a maintenance operation on a user's ability to access a hosted application, desktop or other resource. USPN 20150006951 – paragraph 0004 – discloses In a data center, the blade servers are characterized by machine type, network addresses and storage addresses which are virtual addresses. In case of a blade server (sometimes herein simply referred to as a "server") failure, another blade server is picked up from the spare pool of standby servers, to replace the failing server. In existing solutions for the fail over: (i) the failing server is powered off: (ii) the addresses (network and storage) of the failing blade server are applied to the new replacing server; (iii) the replacing server is switched on to the power ON mode; (iv) the replacing server is booted to an operating system (OS); (v) the replacing server takes over the failing server workload.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation ‘wherein after the confidence score for the resource consumption is assigned or adjusted, an overall confidence score for the node is assigned or adjusted’ is a mathematical concept.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation ‘wherein when the resource consumption is out of the specified range, the confidence score indicates that the node is oversubscribed and may not be able to perform a current, or future, workload’ is a mathematical concept.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation ‘wherein performing a check comprises measuring consumption of a particular resource by the node’ is merely adding insignificant extra-solution of data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 19, the limitation ‘wherein when the resource consumption is out of the specified range’ is a mathematic concept; ‘a check is performed to determine if the node is functioning correctly’ is a mental process - concept performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 20, the limitation ‘wherein performing a check comprises measuring consumption of a particular resource by the node’ is merely adding insignificant extra-solution of data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)).and ‘measurements of the consumption of that particular resource are stored at the node’ are simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, MPEP 2106.05(d) iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
There is no prior art rejection because of the addition of the new limitations to the independent claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 07/10/2025 have been fully considered. Concerning Applicant’s arguments of the 101 rejection on pages 7-10, the references used to show well-understood routine conventional activities all indicate in response to a failure of a component a workload is migrated. The confidence score being out of range represents a failure.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yolanda L Wilson whose telephone number is (571)272-3653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7:30 am - 4 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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached on 571-272-3655. 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.
/Yolanda L Wilson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113