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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: Resource Allocation Method and Apparatus, Electronic Device, and Computer- Readable Storage Medium For Test Tasks.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an acquiring module, configured to acquire at least one test resource requirement required by a test task; a managing module, configured to obtain combined resource pools that satisfy the at least one test resource requirement through grouping at least two of all existing test resources; and an allocating module, configured to select a target resource pool from the combined resource pools, and allocate resources of the target resource pool to the test task . . . the managing module is configured to combine at least two of all existing test resources randomly by the number of test resources, to obtain combined resource pools that satisfy the at least one test resource requirement, wherein the number of test resources of each resource pool in the combined resource pools is consistent with the number of test resources required by the test task . . . the managing module is configured to traverse, after combining at least two of all existing test resources randomly by the number of test resources, each initial resource pool obtained through combination by the number of test resources in turn, to detect at least one initial resource pool in which each test resource satisfies the target features, and reserve the at least one initial resource pool, to obtain the combined resource pools that meet the at least one test resource requirement . . . the allocating module is configured to randomly select a resource pool from the combined resource pools as the target resource pool, or select an idle resource pool from the combined resource pools as the target resource pool . . . the managing module is further configured to mark the target resource pool as busy after the allocating module allocates the resources of the target resource pool to the test task . . . the managing module is further configured to mark the target resource pool as idle, after the target resource pool is marked as busy and the test task completes the test based on the resources of the target resource pool, wherein the resources of the resource pool marked as idle are not allocated . . . the managing module is further configured to automatically adjust resources in the combined resource pools when the test resources change . . . the managing module is configured to automatically find resources complying with the at least one test resource requirement from all test resources, to obtain the combined resource pools containing all resources that satisfy the at least one test resource requirement” in claims 9-16.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4, 6-12, 14-16, and 20-21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As per claim 1, “all existing test resources” ll4 should be “all existing test resources from test resources”.
As per claim 2, “all existing test resources” ll5 should be “ all existing test resources from the test resources”.
As per claim 3, “at least two of all existing test resources” ll3 should be “the at least two of all existing test resources”. “each initial resource pool” ll5 should be “each initial resource pool from initial resource pools”. “at least one initial resource pool” ll5-6 should be “at least one initial resource pool from the initial resource pools”.
As pe claim 4, “a target resource pool” ll1 should be “the target resource pool”.
As per claim 6, “ resources” ll4 should be “the resources”.
As claim 7, “test resources” ll3 should be “ the test resources”.
As per claim 8, “resources in the combined resource pools” ll2 should be “the resources in the combined resource pools”. “resources” ll3 should be “the resources in the combined resource pool”. “test resources” ll4 should be “test resources from the test resources”. “resources” ll5 should be “resources from the test resources”.
As per claim 9, see objection on claim 1.
As per claim 10, see objection on claim 2.
As per claim 11, see objection on claim 3.
As per claim 12, see objection on claim 4.
As per claim 14, see objection on claim 6.
As per claim 15, see objection on claim 7.
As per claim 16, see objection on claim 8.
As per claim 20, see objection on claim 6.
As per claim 21, see objection on claim 7.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
As per claim 1, the claim recites a series of steps, therefore is a process.
The claim recites the limitation of “selecting a target resource pool from the combined resource pools”. This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
The limitation of “acquiring at least one test resource requirement . . . obtaining combined resource pools that satisfy the at least one test resource requirement through grouping at least two of all existing test resources”, amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g); this limitation is also a mere generic transmission and presentation of collected and analyzed data which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g). 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 claim is directed to the abstract idea.
As discussed above, “acquiring at least one test resource requirement . . . obtaining combined resource pools that satisfy the at least one test resource requirement through grouping at least two of all existing test resources” amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). “allocating resources of the target resource pool to the test task” is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See Background, Spec. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 2, see rejection on claim 1. “combining . . . test resources . . . “ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See US 2011/0072437. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 3, see rejection on claim 2. “traversing each initial resource pool . . . detect at least one initial resource pool in which each test resource satisfies the target features”, this limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
“target features required by the test resources; . . . reserving the at least one initial resource pool, to obtain the combined resource pools that satisfy the at least one test resource requirement” is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See US 11204813 and DRUYAN. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 4, see rejection on claim 1. “selecting . . . or selecting . . . “ This limitation, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
As per claim 5, see rejection on claim 1. “marking . . . “ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See US 2020/0264921. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 6, see rejection on claim 1. “marking . . . “ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See US 2020/0264921. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 7, see rejection on claim 1. “automatically adjusting resources . . . “ “ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See US 2017/0255491. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 8, see rejection on claim 1. “automatically finding resources . . . “ is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo. See US 2011/0072437. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 9, see rejection on claim 1.
As per claim 10, see rejection on claim 2.
As per claim 11, see rejection on claim 3.
As per claim 12, see rejection on claim 4.
As per claim 13, see rejection on claim 5.
As per claim 14, see rejection on claim 6.
As per claim 15, see rejection on claim 7.
As per claim 16, see rejection on claim 8.
As per claim 17, see rejection on claim 1. “a memory . . . a processor” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. 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. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). “execute . . . “ does not require any particular application of the recited “execute...” and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As per claim 19, see rejection on claim 5.
As per claim 20, see rejection on claim 6.
As per claim 21, see rejection on claim 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. A means- (or step-) plus-function limitation that is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on failure of the specification to disclose corresponding structure, material or act that performs the entire claimed function also lacks adequate written description.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “an acquiring module, configured to acquire at least one test resource requirement required by a test task; a managing module, configured to obtain combined resource pools that satisfy the at least one test resource requirement through grouping at least two of all existing test resources; and an allocating module, configured to select a target resource pool from the combined resource pools, and allocate resources of the target resource pool to the test task . . . the managing module is configured to combine at least two of all existing test resources randomly by the number of test resources, to obtain combined resource pools that satisfy the at least one test resource requirement, wherein the number of test resources of each resource pool in the combined resource pools is consistent with the number of test resources required by the test task . . . the managing module is configured to traverse, after combining at least two of all existing test resources randomly by the number of test resources, each initial resource pool obtained through combination by the number of test resources in turn, to detect at least one initial resource pool in which each test resource satisfies the target features, and reserve the at least one initial resource pool, to obtain the combined resource pools that meet the at least one test resource requirement . . . the allocating module is configured to randomly select a resource pool from the combined resource pools as the target resource pool, or select an idle resource pool from the combined resource pools as the target resource pool . . . the managing module is further configured to mark the target resource pool as busy after the allocating module allocates the resources of the target resource pool to the test task . . . the managing module is further configured to mark the target resource pool as idle, after the target resource pool is marked as busy and the test task completes the test based on the resources of the target resource pool, wherein the resources of the resource pool marked as idle are not allocated . . . the managing module is further configured to automatically adjust resources in the combined resource pools when the test resources change . . . the managing module is configured to automatically find resources complying with the at least one test resource requirement from all test resources, to obtain the combined resource pools containing all resources that satisfy the at least one test resource requirement” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim, the structure described in the specification does not perform the entire function in the claim, and/or no association between the structure and the function can be found in the specification. A case in point: [0110]-[0114] do not show an algorithm or flow chart showing how an allocation module selects a pool and allocates resources.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 4, 9-10, 12 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DRUYAN (US 2011/0072437) (hereinafter DRUYAN) in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art (Background, Spec) (hereinafter AAPA).
As per claim 1, DRUYAN teaches:
A resource allocation method, comprising steps of:
acquiring at least one task resource requirement required by a task (DRUYAN, [0006]-under BRI, acquiring at least one test resource requirement required by a test task can be determining job characteristic [job's computational resource requirements]) ;
obtaining combined resource pools that satisfy the at least one task resource requirement through grouping at least two of all existing task resources (DRUYAN, [0006]--under BRI, combined resource pools can be nodes; grouping at least two of all existing task resources can be group of resources in two nodes); and
selecting a target resource pool from the combined resource pools (DRUYAN, [0006]—under BRI, a target resource pool can be assigned nodes) , and
allocating resources of the target resource pool to the task(DRUYAN, [0006]-under BRI, resources can be resources in assigned nodes).
DRUYAN does no expressly teach:
wherein the task is a test;
However, AAPA discloses:
wherein the task is a test (AAPA, [0002]—networking test);
Both AAPA and DRUYAN pertain to the art of resource allocation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use AAPA’s method to run test job because it is well-known in the art that test is a common task executed in a compute systems. A PHOSITA would thus know to use AAPA’s method to support sch a common task.
As per claim 2, DRUYAN/AAPA teaches:
The method according to claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1), wherein the at least one test resource requirement comprises:
number of test resources required by a test (DRUYAN, [0006]—under BRI, number of test resources can be several test resources); and
the step of obtaining the combined resource pools that satisfy the at least one test resource requirement through grouping at least two of all existing test resources comprise:
combining at least two of all existing test resources randomly by the number of test resources required by the test (DRUYAN, [0006]—under BRI, randomly can be not systematically), to obtain the combined resource pools that satisfy the at least one test resource requirement (DRUYAN, [0006]),
wherein the number of test resources of each resource pool in the combined resource pools is consistent with the number of test resources required by the test task (DRUYAN, [0006]).
As per claim 4, DRUYAN/AAPA teaches:
The method according to claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1), wherein the step of selecting a target resource pool from the combined resource pools comprises:
randomly selecting a resource pool from the combined resource pools as the target resource pool, or selecting an idle resource pool from the combined resource pools as the target resource pool (DRUYAN, [0006]—under BRI, an idle resource pool can be available nodes).
As per claim 9, see rejection on claim 1.
As per claim 10, see rejection on claim 2.
As per claim 12, see rejection on claim 4.
As per claim 17, see rejection on claim 1.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DRUYAN/AAPA as applied above, and further in view of Dolgov et al (US 11204813 ) (hereinafter Dolgov).
As per claim 3, DRUYAN/AAPA teaches:
The method according to claim 2 (See rejection on claim 2), wherein the at least one test resource requirement further comprises: target features required by the test resources (DRUYAN, [0006]); after the step of combining at least two of all existing test resources randomly by the number of test resources required by the test (DRUYAN, [0006]);
DRUYAN/AAPA does not expressly teach:
the method further comprises:
traversing each initial resource pool obtained in turn, to detect at least one initial resource pool in which each test resource satisfies the target features; and reserving the at least one initial resource pool, to obtain the combined resource pools that satisfy the at least one test resource requirement.
However, Dolgov discloses:
the method further comprises:
traversing each initial resource pool obtained in turn, to detect at least one initial resource pool in which each test resource satisfies the target features (Dolgov, claim 1) ; and reserving the at least one initial resource pool, to obtain the combined resource pools that satisfy the at least one test resource requirement (Dolgov, claim 1).
Both Dolgov and DRUYAN/AAPA pertain to the art of resource allocation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Dolgov’s method to search and reserve resources because it is well-known in the art that an application might need a particular feature to work, and, if the system has the feature that can satisfy the request, that feature will need to be provided for the system to work.
As per claim 11, see rejection on claim 3.
Claims 5-6, 13-14 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DRUYAN/AAPA as applied above, and further in view of Luo et al (US 2020/0264921) (hereinafter Luo).
As per claim 5, DRUYAN/AAPA teaches:
The method according to claim 1(see rejection on claim 1) .
DRUYAN/AAPA does not expressly teach:
wherein after the step of allocating the resources of the target resource pool to the test task, the method further comprises:
marking the target resource pool as busy, wherein resources of the target resource pool marked as busy are not allocated.
However, Luo discloses:
wherein after the step of allocating the resources of the target resource pool to the test task, the method further comprises:
marking the target resource pool as busy (Luo, [0015]), wherein resources of the target resource pool marked as busy are not allocated(Luo, [001]).
Both Luo and DRUYAN/AAPA pertain to the art of resource allocation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Luo’s method to mark resources as busy and not use busy resources because it is well-known in the art that knowing whether resources are busy help resource allocation decisions. A PHOSITA would thus know to use Luo’s method to manage resource allocation.
As per claim 6, DRYAN/AAPA/Luo teaches:
The method according to claim 5 (See rejection on claim 5), wherein after the step of marking the target resource pool as busy, the method further comprises:
marking the target resource pool as idle (Luo, [0015]), after the test task completes the test based on the resources of the target resource pool, wherein resources of the target resource pool marked as idle are allocated (Luo, [0015]).
As per claim 13, see rejection on claim 5.
As per claim 14, see rejection on claim 6.
As per claim 19, DRUYAN/AAPA teaches:
The method according to claim 2 (see rejection on claim 2).
DRUYAN/AAPA does not expressly teach:
wherein after the step of allocating the resources of the target resource pool to the test task, the method further comprises:
marking the target resource pool as busy, wherein resources of the target resource pool marked as busy are not allocated.
However, Luo discloses:
wherein after the step of allocating the resources of the target resource pool to the test task, the method further comprises:
marking the target resource pool as busy (Luo, [0015]), wherein resources of the target resource pool marked as busy are not allocated(Luo, [0015]).
Both Luo and DRUYAN/AAPA pertain to the art of resource allocation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Luo’s method to mark resources as busy and not use busy resources because it is well-known in the art that knowing whether resources are busy help resource allocation decisions. A PHOSITA would thus know to use Luo’s method to manage resource allocation.
As per claim 20, DRYAN/AAPA/Luo teaches:
The method according to claim 19 (see rejection on claim 19), wherein after the step of marking the target resource pool as busy, the method further comprises:
marking the target resource pool as idle (Luo, [0015]), after the test task completes the test based on the resources of the target resource pool(Luo, [0015]), wherein resources of the target resource pool marked as idle are allocated (Luo, [0015]).
Claims 7-8, 15-16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DRUYAN/AAPA as applied above, and further in view of Bradshaw et al (US 2017/0255491) (hereinafter Bradshaw).
As per claim 7, DRUYAN/AAPA teaches:
The method according to claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1).
DRUYAN/AAPA does not expressly teach:
wherein the method further comprises:
automatically adjusting resources in the combined resource pools when test resources change.
However, Bradshaw discloses:
wherein the method further comprises:
automatically adjusting resources in the combined resource pools when test resources change (Bradshaw, [0005]).
Both Bradshaw and DRUYAN/AAPA pertain to the art of resource allocation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Bradshaw’s method to adjust resources dynamically because it is well-known in the art that dynamic allocation offers flexibility and efficiency in resource management including optimizing memory usage by allocating only what's needed at runtime, enhancing program performance.
As per claim 8, DRUYAN/AAPA/Bradshaw teaches:
The method according to claim 7 (See rejection on claim 7), wherein the step of automatically adjusting resources in the combined resource pools comprises:
automatically finding resources complying with the at least one test resource requirement from all test resources (DRUYAN, [0006]), to obtain combined resource pools containing all resources that satisfy the at least one test resource requirement (DRUYAN, [0006]) .
As per claim 15, see rejection on claim 7.
As per claim 16, see rejection on claim 8.
As per claim 21, DRUYAN/AAPA teaches:
The method according to claim 2 (see rejection on claim 2).
DRUYAN/AAPA does not expressly teach:
wherein the method further comprises:
automatically adjusting resources in the combined resource pools when test resources change.
However, Bradshaw discloses:
wherein the method further comprises:
automatically adjusting resources in the combined resource pools when test resources change (Bradshaw, [0005]).
Both Bradshaw and DRUYAN/AAPA pertain to the art of resource allocation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Bradshaw’s method to adjust resources dynamically because it is well-known in the art that dynamic allocation offers flexibility and efficiency in resource management including optimizing memory usage by allocating only what's needed at runtime, enhancing program performance..
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2023/0189075 teaches a method of allocating resources based on test features.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLIE SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-5100. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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, Pierre Vital can be reached at (571) 272-4215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/CHARLIE SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198