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 1-7, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to (an)
abstract idea(s) without significantly more.
A resource allocation device, comprising a processor coupled to a receiver and configured to perform operations comprising: receiving, using the receiver, a request to allocate the processor for sharing a state for each group composed of a plurality of user terminals within a group, to any of a plurality of data centers deployed in a distributed cloud environment; and calculating an allocation cost of allocating the processor state management unit to each of the data centers by using an allocation index corresponding to a requirement requested by the group, and determines a data.
The device of claim 1, which recites the limitations of “calculating an allocation cost of allocating the processor state management unit to each of the data centers by using an allocation index”, as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements of “receiving, using the receiver, a request to allocate the processor for sharing a state for each group composed of a plurality of user terminals within a group, to any of a plurality of data centers deployed in a distributed cloud environment” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computers, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f), and thus, does nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of apply it OR insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering and data transmission that the Courts have indicated is WURC. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Prong 2B, 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 element “receiving, using the receiver, a request to allocate the processor for sharing a state for each group composed of a plurality of user terminals within a group, to any of a plurality of data centers deployed in a distributed cloud environment” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception, See MPEP 2106.05(d) and (f). The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and mere data gathering / data transmission do not amount to significantly more as the Courts have identified such as WURC, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
The resource allocation device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to obtain a delay time between each user terminal constituting a group and the data center, and uses an average delay of the obtained delay time as an allocation index of the processor.
The device of claim 2, which recites the limitation of “uses an average delay of the obtained delay time as an allocation index of the processor”. This amounts to no more than mere data gathering, which the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity, See MPEP 2106.05(g). The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and mere data gathering do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional element itself or in combination with the elements of parent claims would not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea or amount to significantly more than such. See MPEP 2106.05(d); 2106.05(f) for prong 2 analysis and 2106.05(d) for 2B analysis.
The resource allocation device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to obtain a delay time between each user terminal constituting a group and the data center, and uses a maximum delay of the obtained delay time as an allocation index of the processor.
The device of claim 3, which recites the limitation of “uses an maximum delay of the obtained delay time as an allocation index of the processor”. This amounts to no more than mere data gathering, which the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity, See MPEP 2106.05(g). The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and mere data gathering do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional element itself or in combination with the elements of parent claims would not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea or amount to significantly more than such. See MPEP 2106.05(d); 2106.05(f) for prong 2 analysis and 2106.05(d) for 2B analysis.
The resource allocation device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to obtain delay times between each user terminal constituting a group and the data center, and uses a dispersion or standard deviation of the obtained delay time as an allocation index of the processor.
The device of claim 4, which recites the limitation of “uses a dispersion or standard deviation of the obtained delay time as an allocation index of the processor”. This amounts to no more than mere data gathering, which the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity, See MPEP 2106.05(g). The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and mere data gathering do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. The additional element itself or in combination with the elements of parent claims would not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea or amount to significantly more than such. See MPEP 2106.05(d); 2106.05(f) for prong 2 analysis and 2106.05(d) for 2B analysis.
The resource allocation device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to calculate an allocation destination of each group by an approximate algorithm using a greedy method, for a combination optimization problem minimizing a sum of allocation costs of each group for a request received by the receiver.
The device of claim 5, which recites the limitation of “calculate an allocation destination of each group by an approximate algorithm using a greedy method” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a Mathematical Concept. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1. See MPEP 2106.05(d); 2106.05(f) for prong 2 analysis and 2106.05(d) for 2B analysis.
The resource allocation device according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to calculate an allocation destination of each group by an approximation algorithm using a greedy method and a local search method, for a combination optimization problem minimizing a sum of allocation costs of each group for a request received by the receiver
The device of claim 6, which recites the limitation of “wherein the processor is configured to calculate an allocation destination of each group by an approximation algorithm using a greedy method and a local search method, for a combination optimization problem minimizing a sum of allocation costs of each group for a request received by the receiver” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a Mathematical Concept. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1. See MPEP 2106.05(d); 2106.05(f) for prong 2 analysis and 2106.05(d) for 2B analysis.
With regards to Claim 7 and 9, they recite the same limitations as claims 1, and thus are likewise rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 20120005342 A1 (Deng et. al).
Regarding claim 1, Deng teaches, A resource allocation device, comprising a processor coupled to a receiver and configured to perform operations comprising: receiving, using the receiver, a request to allocate the processor for sharing a state for each group composed of a plurality of user terminals within a group, to any of a plurality of data centers deployed in a distributed cloud environment; and calculating an allocation cost of allocating the processor state management unit to each of the data centers by using an allocation index corresponding to a requirement requested by the group, and determines a data center to which the processor is allocated, in accordance with the allocation cost (paragraph 4, 38, 51, allocating a task for processing to one of a variety of data centers in a cloud network, and selecting said data center according to the requirement of the allocation cost, selecting a location according to the requirements of the customers, see paragraph 34, and thus selecting a user terminal to run it at).
Regarding claim 7, Deng teaches, A resource allocation method, comprising: receiving a request to allocate a processor for sharing a state for each group composed of a plurality of user terminals within a group, to any of a plurality of data centers deployed in a distributed cloud environment; and calculating an allocation cost of allocating the processor to each of the data centers by using an allocation index corresponding to a requirement requested by the group, and determines a data center to which the processor is allocated, in accordance with the allocation cost (paragraph 4, 38, 51, allocating a task for processing to one of a variety of data centers in a cloud network, and selecting said data center according to the requirement of the allocation cost, selecting a location according to the requirements of the customers, see paragraph 34, and thus selecting a user terminal to run it at).
Regarding claim 9, Deng teaches, A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing program instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors to perform operations comprising: receiving a request to allocate the one or more processors for sharing a state for each group composed of a plurality of user terminals within a group, to any of a plurality of data centers deployed in a distributed cloud environment; and calculating an allocation cost of allocating the one or more processors to each of the data centers by using an allocation index corresponding to a requirement requested by the group, and determines a data center to which the one or more processors are allocated, in accordance with the allocation cost (paragraph 4, 38, 51, allocating a task for processing to one of a variety of data centers in a cloud network, and selecting said data center according to the requirement of the allocation cost, selecting a location according to the requirements of the customers, see paragraph 34, and thus selecting a user terminal to run it at).
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.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120005342 A1 (Deng et. al) as applied to claims 1, 7, 9 above, and further in view of US 20130346987 A1 (Raney et. al).
Regarding claim 2, Deng teaches, The resource allocation device according to claim 1.
However, Deng fails to teach, wherein the processor is configured to obtain a delay time between each user terminal constituting a group and the data center, and uses an average delay of the obtained delay time as an allocation index of the processor.
However, Raney teaches, wherein the processor is configured to obtain a delay time between each user terminal constituting a group and the data center, and uses an average delay of the obtained delay time as an allocation index of the processor (paragraph 638, 642, using an average, maximum, and standard/deviation of the delay to calculate the communication between the node and data centers, using said delay to determine thresholds and ordering which processors are best to use, see paragraph 584, 600).
It would be obvious before the filing date of this application to combine the allocation of processes to different data center locations taught by Deng with the latency delay time calculations done by Raney, as it would allow the system to select the best location for processing.
Regarding claim 3, Deng teaches, The resource allocation device according to claim 1.
However, Deng fails to teach, wherein the processor is configured to obtain a delay time between each user terminal constituting a group and the data center, and uses a maximum delay of the obtained delay time as an allocation index of the processor.
However, Raney teaches, wherein the processor is configured to obtain a delay time between each user terminal constituting a group and the data center, and uses a maximum delay of the obtained delay time as an allocation index of the processor (paragraph 638, 642, using an average, maximum, and standard/deviation of the delay to calculate the communication between the node and data centers, using said delay to determine thresholds and ordering which processors are best to use, see paragraph 584, 600).
It would be obvious before the filing date of this application to combine the allocation of processes to different data center locations taught by Deng with the latency delay time calculations done by Raney, as it would allow the system to select the best location for processing.
Regarding claim 4, Deng teaches, The resource allocation device according to claim 1.
However, Deng fails to teach, wherein the processor is configured to obtain delay times between each user terminal constituting a group and the data center, and uses a dispersion or standard deviation of the obtained delay time as an allocation index of the processor.
However, Raney teaches, wherein the processor is configured to obtain delay times between each user terminal constituting a group and the data center, and uses a dispersion or standard deviation of the obtained delay time as an allocation index of the processor (paragraph 638, 642, using an average, maximum, and standard/deviation of the delay to calculate the communication between the node and data centers, using said delay to determine thresholds and ordering which processors are best to use, see paragraph 584, 600).
It would be obvious before the filing date of this application to combine the allocation of processes to different data center locations taught by Deng with the latency delay time calculations done by Raney, as it would allow the system to select the best location for processing.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120005342 A1 (Deng et. al) as applied to claims 1, 7, 9 above, and further in view of US 11200096 B1 (Shenbagam et. al).
Regarding claim 5, Deng teaches, The resource allocation device according to claim 1.
However, Deng fails to teach, wherein the processor is configured to calculate an allocation destination of each group by an approximate algorithm using a greedy method, for a combination optimization problem minimizing a sum of allocation costs of each group for a request received by the receiver.
However, Shenbagam teaches, a known algorithm wherein the processor is configured to calculate an allocation destination of each group by an approximate algorithm using a greedy method, for a combination optimization problem minimizing a sum of allocation costs of each group for a request received by the receiver (page 35, column 19-20, lines 64-10, an optimization problem to find the fastest links to allocate resources, said resources can be between resource nodes of data centers, which can be connected via a cloud, page 31, column 12, lines 45-65).
It would be obvious before the filing date of this application to combine the allocation of processes to different data center locations taught by Deng with the allocation costs done by done by Shenbagam, as it would allow the system to select the best location for processing.
Regarding claim 6, Deng teaches, The resource allocation device according to claim 1.
However, Deng fails to teach, wherein the processor is configured to calculate an allocation destination of each group by an approximation algorithm using a greedy method and a local search method, for a combination optimization problem minimizing a sum of allocation costs of each group for a request received by the receiver.
However, Shenbagam teaches, wherein the processor is configured to calculate an allocation destination of each group by an approximation algorithm using a greedy method and a local search method, for a combination optimization problem minimizing a sum of allocation costs of each group for a request received by the receiver (page 35, column 19-20, lines 64-10, an optimization problem to find the fastest links to allocate resources, said resources can be between resource nodes of data centers, which can be connected via a cloud, page 31, column 12, lines 45-65).
It would be obvious before the filing date of this application to combine the allocation of processes to different data center locations taught by Deng with the allocation costs done by done by Shenbagam, as it would allow the system to select the best location for processing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN BAKHIT whose telephone number is (571)272-4314. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 6:30-5 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, LEWIS BULLOCK can be reached at (571) 272-3759. 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.
/C.M.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2199
/LEWIS A BULLOCK JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2199