DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant's submission filed on 07/27/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-17 have been examined.
Response to Arguments
With regards to 112 rejection, Applicant ‘amendment overcome the rejection. Therefore, the rejection is withdrawn.
With regards to 101 rejection:
The Applicant relied on his argument is that the claim is not an abstract and it goes to a technical improvement in how computers operate– See Remarks – Page 8.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites obtaining an indication of a failure…; obtaining a plurality of parameters to resolve the failure …the plurality of parameters are structured in an hierarchy …. wherein the tasks higher in the hierarchy are attempted….generating plan by taking an aimed server level into account as well as the obtained plurality of parameters; executing one or more operations using the generated plan.
The generating limitation and the executing limitation as drafted are processes that under their broadest reasonable interpretation , cover performance of the limitations which can be practically performed in the human mind. These limitations encompass mental observation and evaluations ( e.g. computer programmer’s observing the data, generating a plan and executing operation such as negotiating SLA with user – See Published Specification –¶0080 – “re-negotiating SLA with the user”). Thus, These limitations recite a concept that falls into the “mental process group” of abstract ideas and “certain methods of Organizing Human activity” of abstract ideas. The obtaining limitations represent mere data gathering. These limitation does not impose any meaningful limits on the claims. The limitations amount to necessary data gathering. The hierarchy limitation only shows that the parameters are organized in hierarchical manner and that the user can start with tasks in higher hierarchy first.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recite additional elements–“ the network node for handling operations in communication network comprising computing devices. These additional elements recited as shown above at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components.
Also Applicant relied on his argument is that the specification explains that “there is no integrated solution that provides an integrated solution for SLA driven cloud robotic collaboration that also considers failures handling across the distributed cloud and edge, A unified model to integrate sensing robot actuation, computing, data transmission and SLA decomposition is needed” “"provide a scalable architecture, planning strategies and built in reliability for multi-robot tasking" and "thus provide manners and apparatuses to improve coordination of multi-computing device operations in a dynamical and efficient manner." which integrate the idea into practical application that adds significantly more than the abstract idea itself – See Remarks – Pages 8&9.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. This improvement is not reflected in the claim language. Therefore, the 101 rejection is maintained.
With regards to 103 rejection:
Applicant’s argument #1
Applicant argues that that the cited art fails to teach “after obtaining the indication of the failure of the operation in the communication network, obtaining a plurality of parameters to resolve the failure, wherein the plurality of parameters relate to resources of the plurality of computing devices and the communications network. Where the plurality of parameters are structured in an hierarchic manner resulting in a hierarchy of the plurality parameters and each of the plurality of parameters is defined by a task of capability, a resource used for the task, and service level of the task”.
Response to Applicant’s argument #1
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Harper teaches obtaining a plurality of parameters including resource metrics, SLA parameters and priority information to allocate failover resources and recover workloads upon failure. The resource metrics include hardware computing resources (CPU, Memory, and network bandwidth). Harper’s invention teaches that the management server may take into account a number of resource metrics to determine a set of one or more target location for migrating the effected virtual machines to. The illustrative embodiments may utilize a service level agreement-based resource reduction for the migrated virtual machines. This service level agreement-based resource reduction process may take into account information, such as available resource capacity in a failover environment. The available resources represent set of resources such as CPU resources, memory resources, storages resources, storage/network bandwidth capacity (See ¶0071, ¶ 0072, ¶0041, ¶ 0078).
Harper further teaches that these parameters are organized based on priority level or SLA level. Harper’s invention teaches that the server allocate resources within target failover computing environment based on service level agreement which include a hierarchy of multiple tier levels correspond to client workload. Harper’s invention teaches that the tier priority level represent hierarchy of priority tiers corresponding to client workload, This tier priority level may include critical priority level tier, an essential priority tier ..etc. (¶0045, ¶0080).
Applicant relied on his argument is that Harper does not show that each of the plurality of parameters is defined by a task of capability, resource used for the task, and a service level for the task – See Remarks – Page 10.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Harper teaches that these parameters are defined by a task capability, resource used for the task, and a service level of the task.
Harper teaches that the collected parameters are mapped to specific business functions, applications or workloads that need to be performed within the computing environment. Harper’s invention teaches a service level agreement tier classifies client business functions in different service level agreement tier (See ¶0080, ¶0033)
Harper also teaches that the collected parameters are mapped to resources used for the task/workload as the set of virtual machines (VMs) and hardware capacity such as CPU memory, storage and bandwidth that are provisioned to execute workload/task to keep it running. Harper’s invention teaches that each particular service level agreement tier in a set of service level agreement tiers has a corresponding set of one or more virtual machines that execute a particular portion of client workload (¶0046, ¶0043) .
Harper also teaches that the collected parameters are mapped to service level (SLA) for the task/workload through maximum acceptable outage, recovery time objective assigned to the tier hosting that task/workload. Harper’s invention teaches that each tier is associated with recovery time objective, with each more critical tier having a recovery time objective that is smaller than the less critical tier (¶ 0031, ¶0045).
Therefore, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, Examiner interprets “after obtaining the indication of the failure of the operation in the communication network, obtaining a plurality of parameters to resolve the failure, wherein the plurality of parameters relate to resources of the plurality of computing devices and the communications network. Where the plurality of parameters are structured in an hierarchic manner resulting in a hierarchy of the plurality parameters and each of the plurality of parameters is defined by a task of capability, a resource used for the task, and service level of the task” as equivalent to obtaining a plurality of parameters including resource metrics, SLA parameters and priority information to allocate failover resources and recover workloads upon failures. These parameters are structured hierarchically into SLA priority levels ranging from critical to non-essential. Within this hierarchy, each parameter is mapped to specific business function or application being performed (Capability), allocated VM or CPU used to run it (resources used by task) and service level through RTO and maximum acceptable outage (service level of task).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3,5-10,12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims 1, 8,16,17 recite “ (1) obtaining an indication of a failure…; (2) obtaining a plurality of parameters to resolve the failure …3) the plurality of parameters are structured in an hierarchy …. wherein the tasks higher in the hierarchy are attempted….(4) generating plan by taking an aimed server level into account as well as the obtained plurality of parameters; (5) executing one or more operations using the generated plan.
The (4) generating limitation and (5) executing limitation as drafted are processes that under their broadest reasonable interpretation , cover performance of the limitations which can be practically performed in the human mind. These limitations encompass mental observation and evaluations ( e.g. computer programmer’s observing the data, generating a plan and executing operation such as negotiating SLA with user – See Published Specification –¶0080). Thus, These limitations recite a concept that falls into the “mental process group” of abstract ideas and “certain methods of Organizing Human activity” of abstract ideas.
The (1) & (2) obtaining limitations represent mere data gathering. These limitation does not impose any meaningful limits on the claims. The limitations amount to necessary data gathering.
The (3) hierarchy limitation only shows that the data (tasks and parameters ) are organized in hierarchical manner and that the user can start with tasks in higher hierarchy first.
Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 1,8,16,17 recite additional elements–“ the network node for handling operations in communication network comprising computing devices as recited in claim 1&8. A network comprising at least one processor and at least one memory as recited in claim 8 and non transitory and at least one processor as recited in claim 16,17.
These additional elements recited as shown above at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a 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. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
With regards to claims 2,9, the claims recite “the generated plan comprising .. operation goals”. This limitation just defines what the generated plan includes.
Thus, This limitation recites a concept that falls into the “mental process group” of abstract ideas. Therefore, the claims recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim does not recite additional element , The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With regards to claims 3,10, the claims recite “ modelling the plurality of parameters in a tree architecture..”. This limitation only shows that the parameters are organized in a tree architecture. Thus, This limitation recites a concept that falls into the “mental process group” of abstract ideas. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 10 recites additional elements–“ the network node”.
This additional element recited as shown above at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
With regards to claims 5,12, the claims recite “determining a type of failure … “. This limitation as drafted is process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation , covers performance of the limitation which can be practically performed in the human mind. This limitation encompasses mental observation and evaluations ( e.g. computer programmer’s observing the data, making a determination). Thus, This limitations recites a concept that falls into the “mental process group” of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim 12 recites additional element – “network node”.
This additional element recited as shown above at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
With regards to claims 6,13, the claims recite “where the plurality of parameters are retrieved from database … “.
The retrieving limitation represents mere data gathering. This limitation does not impose any meaningful limits on the claims. The limitation amounts to necessary data gathering.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims 6,13 recites additional elements such database and network node as recited in claim 13.
These additional elements recited as shown above at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a 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. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
With regards to claims 7,14, the claims recite “wherein the plurality parameter are structured in hierarchy manner using machine learning model … “. This limitation only shows that the parameters are organized in a hierarchy. Thus, This limitation recites a concept that falls into the “mental process group” of abstract ideas. Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim does not recite additional element.
With regards to claim 15, the claim recites “wherein the network node is configured as distributed node with a controller node and a database .. “. This limitation only define what the network device comprises. The claim recites the addition element of a network node is configured as distributed node with a controller node and database.
These additional elements recited as shown above at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a 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. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
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 1,2,8,9,16,17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper et al. Publication No. US 2017/0168907 A1 ( Harper hereinafter) in view of Kipp et al. Publication No. US 2015/0135183 A1 (Kipp hereinafter)
Regarding claim 1,
Harper teaches a method performed by a network node for handling one or more operations in a communications network comprising a plurality of computing devices performing one or more tasks (Abstract, Figs.4-6, ¶0020-¶0021), the method comprising:
obtaining an indication of a failure of an operation in the communications network( ¶0040 -¶0041 - Resource allocation manage 218 monitors computing environments for failure and in response to detecting a failure, determines which client workloads need to be migrated to a set of one or more target failover computing environments. ¶0071- -utilize a management server to check the "heartbeat" of all servers in a virtual machine environment processing a set of one or more client workloads. At a loss of "heartbeat", the management server may restart virtual machines associated with the failed server on a set of one or more failover servers).
after obtaining the indication of the failure of the operation in the communications network, obtain a plurality of parameters to resolve the failure, wherein the plurality of parameters relate to resources of the plurality of computing devices and the communications network (¶0040 – ¶Para 0043 - Resource allocation manager 218 determines which client workloads need to be migrated to a set of one or more target failover computing environments. After determining which client workloads require migration, resource allocation manager 218 migrates the client workloads to the set of one or more target failover computing environments based on service level agreements corresponding to each respective client workload that needs to be migrated – See Also ¶ 0072 ¶ ¶0078).
wherein the plurality of parameters are structured in an hierarchic manner resulting in a hierarchy of the plurality of parameters and each of the plurality of parameters is defined by a task of a capability, a resource used for the task, and a service level for the task (¶ 0033 –computing environment includes physical resources used to host an execute operating system instances to perform a set of one or more workloads or tasks for service consumers – ¶ 0030- ¶ 0031 -Server 104 or server 106 also may allocate resources within the target failover computing environment based on a service level agreement, which may include a hierarchy of multiple tier levels, corresponding to the client workload. The service level agreement defines the level of service expected by the service consumer from the service provider. This is specified as the maximum acceptable outage -¶ 0042- ¶ 0043 & ¶ 0072 -failover environment 226 includes available resources 228. Available resources 228 represent a set of one or more resources, such as, for example, central processor unit resources, memory resources, storage resources, network bandwidth resources, and/or storage bandwidth resources, which is available in failover environment 226 to recover client workload 222 on failover environment 226- Recovery 230 represents a set of one or more recovery resources that failover environment 226 requires to recover client workload on failover environment 226 above a number of resources that may be required to process client workload ¶ 0044 -client workload 222 includes service level agreement 234. Service level agreement 234 represents the level of service that virtual machine environment 220 are to provide to client workload 222. Service level agreement 234 includes set of service level agreement tiers 236 and service level agreement-based resource reduction rate per tier 238. Set of service level agreement tiers 236 represents a set of one or more tiers of service that virtual machine environments 220 provide to client workload 222 – See Also ¶0045 – ¶0047, ¶0080) and
generating a plan by taking an aimed service level into account as well as the obtained plurality of parameters (¶0071 - ¶0072 - The management server may generate a plan to migrate the virtual machines needing recovery to a set of one or more target virtual machine environments based on available resources of the different environments in order to meet service level agreement recovery time – Claim 1, ¶ 0030 – Server 104 or server 106 may manage recovery of the client workload by migrating the client workload to a target failover computing environment, such as another server or set of servers in the same data center or cloud or a different data center or cloud. Server 104 or server 106 also may allocate resources within the target failover computing environment based on a service level agreement, which may include a hierarchy of multiple tier levels, corresponding to the client workload);
executing one or more operations using the generated plan (¶0078 - During client workload migration process 500, resource allocation management server 502 performs client workload migration 504 from failed source virtual environment 506 to target failover virtual environment 508).
However, Harper does not explicitly teach
wherein tasks higher in the hierarchy of the plurality of parameters are attempted before tasks lower in the hierarchy of the plurality of parameters;
Kipp teaches
wherein tasks higher in the hierarchy of the plurality of parameters are attempted before tasks lower in the hierarchy of the plurality of parameters (Abstract - A hierarchy of task group queues is established based on priority levels of the assigned. The tasks of the task groups are executed via the worker threads according to the order in the hierarchy. ¶0027, ¶ 0049 - in the case of N task group queues, where N is the number of task group queues, the priorities could range from highest to lowest with the N task group queues being assigned to discrete high, medium, and low priority task group queues – ¶0055 - The task group hierarchy then acquires a task group queue that in this example is the highest priority task group queue. After the task group queue 430 is acquired, a task group in the task group queue is acquired such as the task group 410. The scheduler logic then assigns an available worker thread from the worker pool to perform the acquired task from the acquired task group. After completion of assigning the task groups of the first task group queue to worker threads, the hierarchy of the scheduler 108 then acquires the second task group queue - a worker thread may move to another associated queue. Instead of different priority levels to arrange the task group queues, other criteria such as immediate, frame, and background status—may be used for the task group queue breakdown. In this case, tasks having the immediate status could always be checked, tasks having frame status are inspected once per frame, and tasks having background status are inspected once every second. ¶ 0051 - The task group queue hierarchy is the last level of ordering and organization utilized that allows the user and the task Scheduler 108 to reduce contention when assigning task group queues to the available worker threads. When a task group is added, its priority level is considered and the task group is then assigned an appropriate task group queue based on that priority. – Note; the factors acts as parameters that establish the levels (high/medium/low or immediate, frame, background), and dictate the execution order from top to the bottom).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Harper to include the teachings of Kipp. The motivation for doing so is to allow system to efficiently execute tasks based on their priorities ( Kipp – ¶ 0013).
Regarding claim 2,
Harper further teaches
wherein the generated plan comprises communication paths, movement paths, operation goals, and/or computational usage in the communications network ((¶0071 - ¶0072 - The management server may generate a plan to migrate the virtual machines needing recovery to a set of one or more target virtual machine environments based on available resources of the different environments in order to meet service level agreement recovery time – Claim 1, ¶ 0030 – Server 104 or server 106 may manage recovery of the client workload by migrating the client workload to a target failover computing environment, such as another server or set of servers in the same data center or cloud or a different data center or cloud. Server 104 or server 106 also may allocate resources within the target failover computing environment based on a service level agreement, which may include a hierarchy of multiple tier levels, corresponding to the client workload - ¶ 0031 - The service level agreement defines the level of service expected by the service consumer from the service provider. This is specified as the maximum acceptable outage ( equivalent to the maximum Recovery Time) allowable for that tier – Claim 12 - wherein the recovery resources include at least one of central processor unit capacity, memory capacity, storage capacity, network bandwidth capacity, and storage bandwidth capacity ).
Regarding claim 8,
Harper teaches a network node for handling one or more operations in a communications network comprising a plurality of computing devices performing one or more tasks, the network node comprising at least one processor and at least one memory, storing instructions which, when executed on the at least one processor (Abstract, Figs.4-6, ¶0020-¶0021), cause the network node to:
obtain an indication of a failure of an operation in the communications network( ¶0040 -0041 Resource allocation manage 218 monitors computing environments for failure and in response to detecting a failure, determines which client workloads need to be migrated to a set of one or more target failover computing environments. ¶0072 -utilize a management server to check the "heartbeat" of all servers in a virtual machine environment processing a set of one or more client workloads. At a loss of "heartbeat", the management server may restart virtual machines associated with the failed server on a set of one or more failover servers).
obtaining a plurality of parameters to resolve the failure, wherein the plurality of parameters relate to resources of the plurality of computing devices and the communications network (¶0040 – ¶Para 0043 - Resource allocation manager 218 determines which client workloads need to be migrated to a set of one or more target failover computing environments. After determining which client workloads require migration, resource allocation manager 218 migrates the client workloads to the set of one or more target failover computing environments based on service level agreements corresponding to each respective client workload that needs to be migrated – See Also ¶ 0072, ¶0078).
wherein the plurality of parameters are structured in an hierarchic manner resulting in a hierarchy of the plurality of parameters and each of the plurality of parameters is defined by a task of a capability, a resource used for the task, and a service level for the task (¶ 0033 –computing environment includes physical resources used to host an execute operating system instances to perform a set of one or more workloads or tasks for service consumers – ¶ 0030- ¶ 0031 -Server 104 or server 106 also may allocate resources within the target failover computing environment based on a service level agreement, which may include a hierarchy of multiple tier levels, corresponding to the client workload. The service level agreement defines the level of service expected by the service consumer from the service provider. This is specified as the maximum acceptable outage -¶ 0042- ¶ 0043 & ¶ 0072 -failover environment 226 includes available resources 228. Available resources 228 represent a set of one or more resources, such as, for example, central processor unit resources, memory resources, storage resources, network bandwidth resources, and/or storage bandwidth resources, which is available in failover environment 226 to recover client workload 222 on failover environment 226- Recovery 230 represents a set of one or more recovery resources that failover environment 226 requires to recover client workload on failover environment 226 above a number of resources that may be required to process client workload ¶ 0044 -client workload 222 includes service level agreement 234. Service level agreement 234 represents the level of service that virtual machine environment 220 are to provide to client workload 222. Service level agreement 234 includes set of service level agreement tiers 236 and service level agreement-based resource reduction rate per tier 238. Set of service level agreement tiers 236 represents a set of one or more tiers of service that virtual machine environments 220 provide to client workload 222 – See Also ¶0045 – ¶0047, ¶0080) and
generate a plan by taking an aimed service level into account as well as the obtained plurality of parameters (¶0071 - ¶0072 - The management server may generate a plan to migrate the virtual machines needing recovery to a set of one or more target virtual machine environments based on available resources of the different environments in order to meet service level agreement recovery time – Claim 1, ¶ 0030 – Server 104 or server 106 may manage recovery of the client workload by migrating the client workload to a target failover computing environment, such as another server or set of servers in the same data center or cloud or a different data center or cloud. Server 104 or server 106 also may allocate resources within the target failover computing environment based on a service level agreement, which may include a hierarchy of multiple tier levels, corresponding to the client workload);
execute one or more operations using the generated plan (¶0078 - During client workload migration process 500, resource allocation management server 502 performs client workload migration 504 from failed source virtual environment 506 to target failover virtual environment 508).
However, Harper does not explicitly teach
wherein tasks higher in the hierarchy of the plurality of parameters are attempted before tasks lower in the hierarchy of the plurality of parameters;
Kipp teaches
wherein tasks higher in the hierarchy of the plurality of parameters are attempted before tasks lower in the hierarchy of the plurality of parameters (Abstract - A hierarchy of task group queues is established based on priority levels of the assigned. The tasks of the task groups are executed via the worker threads according to the order in the hierarchy. ¶0027, ¶ 0049 - in the case of N task group queues, where N is the number of task group queues, the priorities could range from highest to lowest with the N task group queues being assigned to discrete high, medium, and low priority task group queues – ¶0055 - The task group hierarchy then acquires a task group queue that in this example is the highest priority task group queue. After the task group queue 430 is acquired, a task group in the task group queue is acquired such as the task group 410. The scheduler logic then assigns an available worker thread from the worker pool to perform the acquired task from the acquired task group. After completion of assigning the task groups of the first task group queue to worker threads, the hierarchy of the scheduler 108 then acquires the second task group queue - a worker thread may move to another associated queue. Instead of different priority levels to arrange the task group queues, other criteria such as immediate, frame, and background status—may be used for the task group queue breakdown. In this case, tasks having the immediate status could always be checked, tasks having frame status are inspected once per frame, and tasks having background status are inspected once every second. ¶ 0051 - The task group queue hierarchy is the last level of ordering and organization utilized that allows the user and the task Scheduler 108 to reduce contention when assigning task group queues to the available worker threads. When a task group is added, its priority level is considered and the task group is then assigned an appropriate task group queue based on that priority. – Note; the factors acts as parameters that establish the levels (high/medium/low or immediate, frame, background), and dictate the execution order from top to the bottom).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Harper to include the teachings of Kipp. The motivation for doing so is to allow system to efficiently execute tasks based on their priorities ( Kipp – ¶0013).
Regarding claim 9,
Harper further teaches
wherein the generated plan comprises communication paths, movement paths, operation goals, and/or computational usage in the communications network ((¶0071 - ¶0072 - The management server may generate a plan to migrate the virtual machines needing recovery to a set of one or more target virtual machine environments based on available resources of the different environments in order to meet service level agreement recovery time – Claim 1, ¶ 0030 – Server 104 or server 106 may manage recovery of the client workload by migrating the client workload to a target failover computing environment, such as another server or set of servers in the same data center or cloud or a different data center or cloud. Server 104 or server 106 also may allocate resources within the target failover computing environment based on a service level agreement, which may include a hierarchy of multiple tier levels, corresponding to the client workload - ¶ 0031 - The service level agreement defines the level of service expected by the service consumer from the service provider. This is specified as the maximum acceptable outage ( equivalent to the maximum Recovery Time) allowable for that tier – Claim 12 - wherein the recovery resources include at least one of central processor unit capacity, memory capacity, storage capacity, network bandwidth capacity, and storage bandwidth capacity ).
Regarding claim 16,
Harper teaches a computer program product comprising instructions on a non- transitory computer readable storage medium, which, when executed on at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to carry out the method according to claim 1, as performed by the network node. (Abstract, Figs.4-6, ¶0020-¶0021)
obtaining an indication of a failure of an operation in the communications network( ¶0040 - Resource allocation manage 218 monitors computing environments for failure and in response to detecting a failure, determines which client workloads need to be migrated to a set of one or more target failover computing environments. ¶0072 -utilize a management server to check the "heartbeat" of all servers in a virtual machine environment processing a set of one or more client workloads. At a loss of "heartbeat", the management server may restart virtual machines associated with the failed server on a set of one or more failover servers).
after obtaining the indication of the failure of the operation in the communications network, obtaining a plurality of parameters to resolve the failure, wherein the plurality of parameters relate to resources of the plurality of computing devices and the communications network (¶0040 – ¶Para 0043 - Resource allocation manager 218 determines which client workloads need to be migrated to a set of one or more target failover computing environments. After determining which client workloads require migration, resource allocation manager 218 migrates the client workloads to the set of one or more target failover computing environments based on service level agreements corresponding to each respective client workload that needs to be migrated – See Also ¶ 0072).
wherein the plurality of parameters are structured in an hierarchic manner resulting in a hierarchy of the plurality of parameters and each of the plurality of parameters is defined by a task of a capability, a resource used for the task, and a service level for the task (¶ 0033 –computing environment includes physical resources used to host an execute operating system instances to perform a set of one or more workloads or tasks for service consumers – ¶ 0030- ¶ 0031 -Server 104 or server 106 also may allocate resources within the target failover computing environment based on a service level agreement, which may include a hierarchy of multiple tier levels, corresponding to the client workload. The service level agreement defines the level of service expected by the service consumer from the service provider. This is specified as the maximum acceptable outage -¶ 0042- ¶ 0043 & ¶ 0072 -failover environment 226 includes available resources 228. Available resources 228 represent a set of one or more resources, such as, for example, central processor unit resources, memory resources, storage resources, network bandwidth resources, and/or storage bandwidth resources, which is available in failover environment 226 to recover client workload 222 on failover environment 226- Recovery 230 represents a set of one or more recovery resources that failover environment 226 requires to recover client workload on failover environment 226 above a number of resources that may be required to process client workload ¶ 0044 -client workload 222 includes service level agreement 234. Service level agreement 234 represents the level of service that virtual machine environment 220 are to provide to client workload 222. Service level agreement 234 includes set of service level agreement tiers 236 and service level agreement-based resource reduction rate per tier 238. Set of service level agreement tiers 236 represents a set of one or more tiers of service that virtual machine environments 220 provide to client workload 222 – See Also ¶0045 – ¶0047, ¶0080) and
generating a plan by taking an aimed service level into account as well as the obtained plurality of parameters (¶0071 - ¶0072 - The management server may generate a plan to migrate the virtual machines needing recovery to a set of one or more target virtual machine environments based on available resources of the different environments in order to meet service level agreement recovery time – Claim 1, ¶ 0030 – Server 104 or server 106 may manage recovery of the client workload by migrating the client workload to a target failover computing environment, such as another server or set of servers in the same data center or cloud or a different data center or cloud. Server 104 or server 106 also may allocate resources within the target failover computing environment based on a service level agreement, which may include a hierarchy of multiple tier levels, corresponding to the client workload);
executing one or more operations using the generated plan (¶0078 - During client workload migration process 500, resource allocation management server 502 performs client workload migration 504 from failed source virtual environment 506 to target failover virtual environment 508).
However, Harper does not explicitly teach
wherein tasks higher in the hierarchy of the plurality of parameters are attempted before tasks lower in the hierarchy of the plurality of parameters;
Kipp teaches
wherein tasks higher in the hierarchy of the plurality of parameters are attempted before tasks lower in the hierarchy of the plurality of parameters (Abstract - A hierarchy of task group queues is established based on priority levels of the assigned. The tasks of the task groups are executed via the worker threads according to the order in the hierarchy. ¶0027, ¶ 0049 - in the case of N task group queues, where N is the number of task group queues, the priorities could range from highest to lowest with the N task group queues being assigned to discrete high, medium, and low priority task group queues – ¶0055 - The task group hierarchy then acquires a task group queue that in this example is the highest priority task group queue. After the task group queue 430 is acquired, a task group in the task group queue is acquired such as the task group 410. The scheduler logic then assigns an available worker thread from the worker pool to perform the acquired task from the acquired task group. After completion of assigning the task groups of the first task group queue to worker threads, the hierarchy of the scheduler 108 then acquires the second task group queue - a worker thread may move to another associated queue. Instead of different priority levels to arrange the task group queues, other criteria such as immediate, frame, and background status—may be used for the task group queue breakdown. In this case, tasks having the immediate status could always be checked, tasks having frame status are inspected once per frame, and tasks having background status are inspected once every second. ¶ 0051 - The task group queue hierarchy is the last level of ordering and organization utilized that allows the user and the task Scheduler 108 to reduce contention when assigning task group queues to the available worker threads. When a task group is added, its priority level is considered and the task group is then assigned an appropriate task group queue based on that priority. – Note; the factors acts as parameters that establish the levels (high/medium/low or immediate, frame, background), and dictate the execution order from top to the bottom).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Harper to include the teachings of Kipp. The motivation for doing so is to allow system to efficiently execute tasks based on their priorities ( Kipp – Para 0013).
Regarding claim 17,
Harper teaches a non- transitory computer readable storage medium comprising instructions which when executed on at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to carry out the method according to claim 1, as performed by the network node. (Abstract, Figs.4-6, ¶0020-¶0021)
obtaining an indication of a failure of an operation in the communications network( ¶0040 -¶0041 Resource allocation manage 218 monitors computing environments for failure and in response to detecting a failure, determines which client workloads need to be migrated to a set of one or more target failover computing environments. ¶0072 -utilize a management server to check the "heartbeat" of all servers in a virtual machine environment processing a set of one or more client workloads. At a loss of "heartbeat", the management server may restart virtual machines associated with the failed server on a set of one or more failover servers).
after obtaining the indication of the failure of the operation in the communications network, obtaining a plurality of parameters to resolve the failure, wherein the plurality of parameters relate to resources of the plurality of computing devices and the communications network (¶0040 – ¶Para 0043 - Resource allocation manager 218 determines which client workloads need to be migrated to a set of one or more target failover computing environments. After determining which client workloads require migration, resource allocation manager 218 migrates the client workloads to the set of one or more target failover computing environments based on service level agreements corresponding to each respective client workload that needs to be migrated – See Also ¶ 0072).
wherein the plurality of parameters are structured in an hierarchic manner resulting in a hierarchy of plurality of parameters and each of the plurality of parameters is defined by a task of a capability, a resource used for the task, and a service level for the task (¶ 0033 –computing environment includes physical resources used to host an execute operating system instances to perform a set of one or more workloads or tasks for service consumers – ¶ 0030- ¶ 0031 -Server 104 or server 106 also may allocate resources within the target failover computing environment based on a service level agreement, which may include a hierarchy of multiple tier levels, corresponding to the client workload. The service level agreement defines the level of service expected by the service consumer from the service provider. This is specified as the maximum acceptable outage -¶ 0042- ¶ 0043 & ¶ 0072 -failover environment 226 includes available resources 228. Available resources 228 represent a set of one or more resources, such as, for example, central processor unit resources, memory resources, storage resources, network bandwidth resources, and/or storage bandwidth resources, which is available in failover environment 226 to recover client workload 222 on failover environment 226- Recovery 230 represents a set of one or more recovery resources that failover environment 226 requires to recover client workload on failover environment 226 above a number of resources that may be required to process client workload ¶ 0044 -client workload 222 includes service level agreement 234. Service level agreement 234 represents the level of service that virtual machine environment 220 are to provide to client workload 222. Service level agreement 234 includes set of service level agreement tiers 236 and service level agreement-based resource reduction rate per tier 238. Set of service level agreement tiers 236 represents a set of one or more tiers of service that virtual machine environments 220 provide to client workload 222 – See Also ¶0045 – ¶0047. ¶0080) and
generating a plan by taking an aimed service level into account as well as the obtained plurality of parameters (¶0071 - ¶0072 - The management server may generate a plan to migrate the virtual machines needing recovery to a set of one or more target virtual machine environments based on available resources of the different environments in order to meet service level agreement recovery time – Claim 1, ¶ 0030 – Server 104 or server 106 may manage recovery of the client workload by migrating the client workload to a target failover computing environment, such as another server or set of servers in the same data center or cloud or a different data center or cloud. Server 104 or server 106 also may allocate resources within the target failover computing environment based on a service level agreement, which may include a hierarchy of multiple tier levels, corresponding to the client workload);
executing one or more operations using the generated plan (¶0078 - During client workload migration process 500, resource allocation management server 502 performs client workload migration 504 from failed source virtual environment 506 to target failover virtual environment 508).
However, Harper does not explicitly teach
wherein tasks higher in the hierarchy of the plurality of parameters are attempted before tasks lower in the hierarchy of the plurality of
parameters;
Kipp teaches
wherein tasks higher in the hierarchy of the plurality of parameters are attempted before tasks lower in the hierarchy of the plurality of parameters; (Abstract - A hierarchy of task group queues is established based on priority levels of the assigned. The tasks of the task groups are executed via the worker threads according to the order in the hierarchy. ¶0027, ¶ 0049 - in the case of N task group queues, where N is the number of task group queues, the priorities could range from highest to lowest with the N task group queues being assigned to discrete high, medium, and low priority task group queues – ¶0055 - The task group hierarchy then acquires a task group queue that in this example is the highest priority task group queue. After the task group queue 430 is acquired, a task group in the task group queue is acquired such as the task group 410. The scheduler logic then assigns an available worker thread from the worker pool to perform the acquired task from the acquired task group. After completion of assigning the task groups of the first task group queue to worker threads, the hierarchy of the scheduler 108 then acquires the second task group queue - a worker thread may move to another associated queue. Instead of different priority levels to arrange the task group queues, other criteria such as immediate, frame, and background status—may be used for the task group queue breakdown. In this case, tasks having the immediate status could always be checked, tasks having frame status are inspected once per frame, and tasks having background status are inspected once every second. ¶ 0051 - The task group queue hierarchy is the last level of ordering and organization utilized that allows the user and the task Scheduler 108 to reduce contention when assigning task group queues to the available worker threads. When a task group is added, its priority level is considered and the task group is then assigned an appropriate task group queue based on that priority. – Note; the factors acts as parameters that establish the levels (high/medium/low or immediate, frame, background), and dictate the execution order from top to the bottom).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Harper to include the teachings of Kipp. The motivation for doing so is to allow system to efficiently execute tasks based on their priorities ( Kipp – Para 0013).
Claims 3,7,10,14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper in view of Kipp further in view of Farahat et al. Publication No. US 2020/0258057 Al (Farahat hereinafter)
Regarding claim 3,
Harper further teaches
modelling the plurality of parameters in a [..] architecture based on the task, the resource, and the service level in a directory of resources(¶ 0033 –computing environment includes physical resources used to host an execute operating system instances to perform a set of one or more workloads or tasks for service consumers – ¶ 0030- ¶ 0031 -Server 104 or server 106 also may allocate resources within the target failover computing environment based on a service level agreement, which may include a hierarchy of multiple tier levels, corresponding to the client workload. The service level agreement defines the level of service expected by the service consumer from the service provider. This is specified as the maximum acceptable outage --¶ 0034 - The type of data stored in storage 108 may be, for example, resource allocation managers, lists of computing environments with corresponding available resources, and lists of client workloads with corresponding operating system instances and service level agreements¶ 0042- ¶ 0047 & ¶ 0072 - Note: the system identify the task or workload that includes a collection of VMs that provide a specific capability, the tasks then are structured in hierarchy (critical, essential, routine or non-essential ). This structure acts a directory for resource allocation manager to determine which tasks (capabilities) receive resources first , the SLA defines the recovery time object for that specific task, the physical assets (CPU, RAM) are distributed to the tiers starting from the highest level of the hierarchy to satisfy the SLA- the model is used to generate) .
However, Harper does not explicitly teach that the architecture is a tree architecture.
Farahat teaches
the architecture is a tree architecture (¶ 0099 FIG. 5 illustrates an example hierarchical data structure 500 and corresponding hierarchy of machine learning
models according to some implementations. The hierarchical data structure 500, such as a tree having a plurality of nodes, may be used to enable the system to process more efficiently the large amounts of possible variables for complex
equipment that may have a large number of different types of repair actions – ¶ 0127 - the computing device may construct a hierarchical data structure for the equipment including a first hierarchy and a second hierarchy, the first hierarchy including a plurality of equipment nodes corresponding to different equipment types, and the second hierarchy including a plurality of repair category nodes corresponding to different repair categories. The computing device may generate a plurality of machine learning models corresponding to the plurality of repair category nodes, respectively. In some cases, the data structure is a tree including a first equipment leaf node having multiple ones of the repair category nodes
branching therefrom, the ).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Harper to include the teachings of Farahat. The motivation for doing so is to allow system to efficiently represent hierarchical relationships within data, allowing for fast searching and retrieval of information.
Regarding claim 7,
Harper further teaches wherein the plurality of parameters are structured in the hierarchic manner (¶0030 – ¶ 0033). However, Harper does not explicitly teach that the parameters are structured using machine learning model
wherein the plurality of parameters are structured in the hierarchic manner using a machine learning model.
However, Farahat teaches
plurality of parameters are structured in the hierarchic manner using a machine learning model (Abstract - computer system may receive historical repair data for equipment and/or domain knowledge related to the equipment. The system may construct a hierarchical data structure for the equipment including a first hierarchy and a second hierarchy, the first hierarchy including a plurality of equipment nodes corresponding to different equipment types, and the second hierarchy including a plurality of repair category nodes corresponding to different repair categories. The system may generate a plurality of machine learning models corresponding to the plurality of repair category nodes - uses the machine learning model associated with the certain repair category node to determine one or more repair actions – See ¶0015, ¶ 0031)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Harper to include the teachings of Farahat. The motivation for doing so is to allow system to employ a hierarchical configuration of machine learning models that may be used for determining one or more repair options and one or more corresponding repair plans (¶ 0015 – Farahat).
Regarding claim 10,
Harper further teaches
Wherein the network node is configured to model the plurality of parameters in a [..] architecture based on the task, the resource, and the service level in a directory of resources(¶ 0033 –computing environment includes physical resources used to host an execute operating system instances to perform a set of one or more workloads or tasks for service consumers – ¶ 0030- ¶ 0031 -Server 104 or server 106 also may allocate resources within the target failover computing environment based on a service level agreement, which may include a hierarchy of multiple tier levels, corresponding to the client workload. The service level agreement defines the level of service expected by the service consumer from the service provider. This is specified as the maximum acceptable outage --¶ 0034 - The type of data stored in storage 108 may be, for example, resource allocation managers, lists of computing environments with corresponding available resources, and lists of client workloads with corresponding operating system instances and service level agreements¶ 0042- ¶ 0047 & ¶ 0072 - Note: the system identify the task or workload that includes a collection of VMs that provide a specific capability, the tasks then are structured in hierarchy (critical, essential, routine or non-essential ). This structure acts a directory for resource allocation manager to determine which tasks (capabilities) receive resources first , the SLA defines the recovery time object for that specific task, the physical assets (CPU, RAM) are distributed to the tiers starting from the highest level of the hierarchy to satisfy the SLA- the model is used to generate) .
However, Harper does not explicitly teach that the architecture is a tree architecture.
Farahat teaches
the architecture is a tree architecture (¶ 0099 FIG. 5 illustrates an example hierarchical data structure 500 and corresponding hierarchy of machine learning
models according to some implementations. The hierarchical data structure 500, such as a tree having a plurality of nodes, may be used to enable the system to process more efficiently the large amounts of possible variables for complex
equipment that may have a large number of different types of repair actions – ¶ 0127 - the computing device may construct a hierarchical data structure for the equipment including a first hierarchy and a second hierarchy, the first hierarchy including a plurality of equipment nodes corresponding to different equipment types, and the second hierarchy including a plurality of repair category nodes corresponding to different repair categories. The computing device may generate a plurality of machine learning models corresponding to the plurality of repair category nodes, respectively. In some cases, the data structure is a tree including a first equipment leaf node having multiple ones of the repair category nodes
branching therefrom.).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Harper to include the teachings of Farahat. The motivation for doing so is to allow system to efficiently represent hierarchical relationships within data, allowing for fast searching and retrieval of information.
Regarding claim 14,
Harper further teaches wherein the plurality of parameters are structured in the hierarchic manner (¶0030 – ¶ 0033). However, Harper does not explicitly teach that the parameters are structured using machine learning model
wherein the plurality of parameters are structured in the hierarchic manner using a machine learning model.
However, Farahat teaches
plurality of parameters are structured in the hierarchic manner using a machine learning model (Abstract - computer system may receive historical repair data for equipment and/or domain knowledge related to the equipment. The system may construct a hierarchical data structure for the equipment including a first hierarchy and a second hierarchy, the first hierarchy including a plurality of equipment nodes corresponding to different equipment types, and the second hierarchy including a plurality of repair category nodes corresponding to different repair categories. The system may generate a plurality of machine learning models corresponding to the plurality of repair category nodes - uses the machine learning model associated with the certain repair category node to determine one or more repair actions – See Para 0015, Para 0031)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Harper to include the teachings of Farahat. The motivation for doing so is to allow system to employ a hierarchical configuration of machine learning models that may be used for determining one or more repair options and one or more corresponding repair plans (¶ 0015 – Farahat).
Claims 4,11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper in view of Kipp further in view of Cawlfield et al. Publication No. US 2013/0159997 A1 ( Cawlfield hereinafter).
Regarding claim 4,
Harper does not explicitly teach
wherein the generated plan is negotiated with an external network node to match the service level aim
However, Cawlfield teaches
generated plan is negotiated with an external network node to match the service level aim (¶0035 - resource request 106 may request a lease of one or more types and amounts of resources and may specify one or more performance parameter requirements, as illustrated at reference numeral 150. Performance parameters may include, but are not limited to, a lease start time, a lease duration, a desired quality of service (QoS), a resource locality, and a cost- Abstract - hypervisor negotiates to reserve at least one available local resource in a host system that meets a performance parameter for at least one resource specified in a reservation request by a particular logical partition from among one or more logical partitions of virtualized pools of resources managed by the hypervisor in the host system, wherein the at least one performance parameter is specified by a particular application initiating the reservation request. The hypervisor, responsive to determining that the at least one available resource is not available in the host system, negotiates for offers to migrate the particular logical partition to at least one other host system comprising at least one available remote resource that meets the performance parameter).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Harper to include the teachings of Cawlfield. The motivation for doing so is to allow system to enable an application to initiate a negotiation for resources meeting a performance parameter in a computing environment within a virtualized host system and among multiple virtualized remote host systems. (Cawlfield - ¶0005 ).
Regarding claim 11,
Harper does not explicitly teach
wherein the network node is configured to negotiate generated plan with an external network node to match the service level aim
However, Cawlfield teaches
wherein the network node is configured to negotiate generated plan with an external network node to match the service level aim (¶0035 - resource request 106 may request a lease of one or more types and amounts of resources and may specify one or more performance parameter requirements, as illustrated at reference numeral 150. Performance parameters may include, but are not limited to, a lease start time, a lease duration, a desired quality of service (QoS), a resource locality, and a cost- Abstract - hypervisor negotiates to reserve at least one available local resource in a host system that meets a performance parameter for at least one resource specified in a reservation request by a particular logical partition from among one or more logical partitions of virtualized pools of resources managed by the hypervisor in the host system, wherein the at least one performance parameter is specified by a particular application initiating the reservation request. The hypervisor, responsive to determining that the at least one available resource is not available in the host system, negotiates for offers to migrate the particular logical partition to at least one other host system comprising at least one available remote resource that meets the performance parameter).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Harper to include the teachings of Cawlfield. The motivation for doing so is to allow system to enable an application to initiate a negotiation for resources meeting a performance parameter in a computing environment within a virtualized host system and among multiple virtualized remote host systems (Cawlfield - ¶0005 ).
Claims 5-6,12,13,15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harper in view of Kipp further in view of Ravichandran et al. Publication No. US 2020/0186411 A1 ( Ravichandran hereinafter) .
Regarding claim 5,
Harper further teaches
determining type of failure based on the obtained indication and the plurality of parameters are obtained based on the determined type of failure
However, Ravichandran teaches
determining type of failure based on the obtained indication and the plurality of parameters are obtained based on the determined type of failure (¶ 0009 - determine a fault or a performance issue and one or more associated causes, related to a set of network slices in the distributed heterogeneous communication network or a set of services across the set of network slices, using one or more CFs associated with each of the set of services or with each of the set of network slices – ¶0107 - performing tuning of at least one of: a set of pre-defined rules for identifying the resolution, a plurality of assessment parameters for identifying the
resolution, and a set of pre-defined rules for determining optimal network nodes ¶0105 - determining a set of parameters to be monitored to compute the set of KPI's, and determining the one or more CFs based on the set of parameters to be monitored. determining a set of optimal network nodes from among a set of capable network nodes for activating a CF based on at least one of a priority of a service, a priority of a slice, inter-dependencies among the one or more CFs, collaboration among the one or more CFs, a possible fault, or a possible performance issue, and by activating and monitoring the CF in the set of determined optimal nodes – Note: based on determining fault or performance issue, the system tunes a plurality of assessment parameters to identify a resolution that matches the required service level (KPI). ) ).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Harper to include the teachings of Ravichandran. The motivation for doing so is to allow system to provide end-to-end, service agnostic and orchestrated fault handling using cognitive means for effective service SLA maintenance under adverse network conditions. (Ravichandran - ¶0007 ).
Regarding claim 6,
Harper does not explicitly teach
wherein the plurality parameters are retrieved from a database comprising a directory of resources
However, Ravichandran teaches
wherein the plurality parameters are retrieved from a database comprising a directory of resources (¶ 0086 -The MONIM 207 may be responsible for collecting the fault, performance, and event data from various NEs, as well as actual SLA/KPI trends, resource occupancy trends, etc. Additionally, the MONIM 07 may store the collected information in the CDB 211. As will be described in greater detail in conjunction with FIGS. SA and 5B, the MONIM 207 may perform pre-processing of the data using pre-provisioned rules, and then may passes the information to the FPPM 209. The MO NIM 207 may also responsible for housekeeping of the monitored data in CDB 211, for example, only the raw data of last 48 hours and aggregated data of the previous 15 days may be stored in CDB 211. Older data may be cleaned up after sending appropriate information to the OSS/BSS 212, or may be stored in a central database) – ¶0107 - performing tuning of at least one of: a set of pre-defined rules for identifying the resolution, a plurality of assessment parameters for identifying the resolution, and a set of pre-defined rules for determining optimal network nodes) .
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Harper to include the teachings of Ravichandran. The motivation for doing so is to allow system to provide end-to-end, service agnostic and orchestrated fault handling using cognitive means for effective service SLA maintenance under adverse network conditions. (Ravichandran - ¶0007 ).
Regarding claim 12,
Harper further teaches
wherein the network node is configured to determine type of failure based on the obtained indication and the plurality of parameters are obtained based on the determined type of failure
However, Ravichandran teaches
wherein the network node is configured to determine type of failure based on the obtained indication and the plurality of parameters are obtained based on the determined type of failure (¶ 0009 - determine a fault or a performance issue and one or more associated causes, related to a set of network slices in the distributed heterogeneous communication network or a set of services across the set of network slices, using one or more CFs associated with each of the set of services or with each of the set of network slices – ¶0107 - performing tuning of at least one of: a set of pre-defined rules for identifying the resolution, a plurality of assessment parameters for identifying the resolution, and a set of pre-defined rules for determining optimal network nodes ¶0105 - determining a set of parameters to be monitored to compute the set of KPI's, and determining the one or more CFs based on the set of parameters to be monitored. determining a set of optimal network nodes from among a set of capable network nodes for activating a CF based on at least one of a priority of a service, a priority of a slice, inter-dependencies among the one or more CFs, collaboration among the one or more CFs, a possible fault, or a possible performance issue, and by activating and monitoring the CF in the set of determined optimal nodes – Note: based on determining fault or performance issue, the system tunes a plurality of assessment parameters to identify a resolution that matches the required service level (KPI). ).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Harper to include the teachings of Ravichandran. The motivation for doing so is to allow system to provide end-to-end, service agnostic and orchestrated fault handling using cognitive means for effective service SLA maintenance under adverse network conditions. (Ravichandran - ¶0007 ).
Regarding claim 13,
Harper does not explicitly teach
wherein the network node is configured to retrieve the plurality of parameters from a database comprising a directory of resources.
However, Ravichandran teaches
wherein the network node is configured to retrieve the plurality of parameters from a database comprising a directory of resources (¶ 0086 -The MONIM 207 may be responsible for collecting the fault, performance, and event data from various NEs, as well as actual SLA/KPI trends, resource occupancy trends, etc. Additionally, the MONIM 07 may store the collected information in the CDB 211. As will be described in greater detail in conjunction with FIGS. SA and 5B, the MONIM 207 may perform pre-processing of the data using pre-provisioned rules, and then may passes the information to the FPPM 209. The MO NIM 207 may also responsible for housekeeping of the monitored data in CDB 211, for example, only the raw data of last 48 hours and aggregated data of the previous 15 days may be stored in CDB 211. Older data may be cleaned up after sending appropriate information to the OSS/BSS 212, or may be stored in a central database) – Para 0107 - performing tuning of at least one of: a set of pre-defined rules for identifying the resolution, a plurality of assessment parameters for identifying the resolution, and a set of pre-defined rules for determining optimal network nodes) .
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Harper to include the teachings of Ravichandran. The motivation for doing so is to allow system to provide end-to-end, service agnostic and orchestrated fault handling using cognitive means for effective service SLA maintenance under adverse network conditions. (Ravichandran - ¶0007 ).
Regarding claim 15,
Harper does not explicitly teach
wherein the network node is configured as a distributed node with a controller node and a data base with a directory of resources.
However, Ravichandran teaches
wherein the network node is configured as a distributed node with a controller node and a data base with a directory of resources. (Fig.2, ¶0009 -a system for performing orchestration of CFs in a distributed heterogeneous communication network is disclosed. In one example, the system may include an orchestration device, which in turn may include at least one processor configured to execute a set of instructions for providing a fault and performance prediction module (FPPM), a fault and performance issue resolution module (FPIRM), and at least one of a slice orchestration module (SLOM), a service lifecycle handling module (SLHM), or a resource orchestration module (RORM). - ¶0033 -the E2ECO device 200 may implement a common database (CDB) 211 accessible by various modules 201-210) .
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Harper to include the teachings of Ravichandran. The motivation for doing so is to allow system to provide end-to-end, service agnostic and orchestrated fault handling using cognitive means for effective service SLA maintenance under adverse network conditions. (Ravichandran - ¶0007 ).
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 YOUNES NAJI whose telephone number is (571)272-2659. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM -5:30 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, Oscar A Louie can be reached on (571) 270-1684. 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.
/YOUNES NAJI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445
Prosecution Insights