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 .
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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per claim 1, the claim recites a system and, therefore, is a machine.
The claim recites the limitation of “identify a second workload for execution subsequent to the execution of the first workload . . . identify a computing resource in the plurality of computing resources common to the first workload and the second workload”. 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 “execute the first workload using the plurality of computing resources . . . execute the second workload using the identified computing resource” 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. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). As for "acquire, from a cloud-based resource provider, a plurality of computing resources to execute a first workload . . . replace a label associated with the first workload on the identified computing resource with a label associated with the second workload”, “acquire . . “ is insignificant extra solution activity of data gathering and “replace…” is insignificant extra solution activity of generic transmission. “processor”, “memory”, “resource provider”, “computing resources” which 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)). The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
“acquire, from a cloud-based resource provider, a plurality of computing resources to execute a first workload . . . replace a label associated with the first workload on the identified computing resource with a label associated with the second workload” 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 7877751. As mentioned above, “execute…” and “execute…” is parallel to mere instructions to apply an exception that cannot provide an inventive concept. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 2, see rejection on claim 1. “ acquiring . . . “ is insignificant extra solution activity of generic transmission.
As per claim 3, see rejection on claim 1. “ return . . . “ is insignificant extra solution activity of generic transmission.
As for claim 4, , see rejection on claim 1. “detect . . . “ 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. “ return . . . “ is insignificant extra solution activity of generic transmission.
As per claim 5, see rejection on claim 1. “ acquiring . . . “ is insignificant extra solution activity of generic transmission. “performing . . .” 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 2021/0149743 .
As per claim 6, see rejection on claim 5. “wherein the hierarchal quota enforcement process is based on a type of computing resource for each computing resource in the plurality of computing 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 2021/0149743 .
As per claim 7, see rejection on claim 6. “wherein the type of computing resource . . . a processor, a computing device, a storage medium, a virtual machine, and a software service” 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 2021/0149743 .
As per claim 8, see rejection on claim 1.
As per claim 9, see rejection on claim 2.
As per claim 10, see rejection on claim 3.
As per claim 11, see rejection on claim 4.
As per claim 12, see rejection on claim 5.
As per claim 13, see rejection on claim 6.
As per claim 14, see rejection on claim 7.
As per claim 15, see rejection on claim 1.
As per claim 16, see rejection on claim 2.
As per claim 17, see rejection on claim 3.
As per claim 18, see rejection on claim 4.
As per claim 19, see rejection on claim 5.
As per claim 20, see rejection on claims 6 & 7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maeda et al (US 7877751 ) (hereinafter Maeda).
As per claim 1, Maeda teaches:
A computer system comprising:
a processor (Maeda, Fig 2 P1-2); and
a memory (Maeda, Fig 2 12)coupled to the processor and storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computer system to:
acquire, from a cloud-based resource provider, a plurality of computing resources to execute a first workload (Maeda, Fig 10 ST37X—under BRI, acquiring resources can be assigning task to processors) ;
execute the first workload using the plurality of computing resources (Maeda, col 4, ll49-51);
identify a second workload for execution subsequent to the execution of the first workload ( Maeda, col 1, ll56-57—a 2nd work load exists in order to execute tasks in order );
identify a computing resource in the plurality of computing resources common to the first workload and the second workload (Maeda, Fig 11—processors 1-4 are common computing resource) ;
replace a label associated with the first workload on the identified computing resource with a label associated with the second workload (Maeda, Fig 11 T10a, T10b—under BRI, label can be task number assigned to processors 1-4 ) and
execute the second workload using the identified computing resource (Maeda, col 4, ll49-51).
As per claim 2, Maeda teaches:
The computer system of claim 1 (See rejection on claim 1), wherein acquiring the plurality of computing resources includes adding a label associated with the first workload to each respective resource in the plurality of computing resources(Maeda, Fig 11, T10a-e—task number 1 assigned to all processors) .
As per claim 3, Maeda teaches:
The computer system of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1), wherein the memory further stores instructions to return resources from the plurality of resources to the cloud-based resource provider that are not used by the second workload subsequent to completion of the execution of the first workload (Maeda, col 11, T10a-c—processor 1 needs to be returned to be used by task number 3).
As per claim 8, see rejection on claim 1.
As per claim 9, see rejection on claim 2.
As per claim 10, see rejection on claim 3.
As per claim 15, see rejection on claim 1.
As per claim 16, see rejection on claim 2.
As per claim 17, see rejection on claim 3.
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 5-7, 12-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda in view of Chen (US 2021/0149743) (hereinafter Chen) .
As per claim 5, Maeda teaches:
The computer system of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1).
Maeda does not expressly teach:
wherein acquiring the plurality of computing resources includes performing a hierarchal quota enforcement process to confirm the acquisition of each computing resource in the plurality of computing resources.
However, Chen discloses:
wherein acquiring the plurality of computing resources includes performing a hierarchal quota enforcement process to confirm the acquisition of each computing resource in the plurality of computing resources (Chen, [0141]—under BRI, confirming can be finding out that a CPU quota . . . is a CPU resource (that is, a CPU time slice) of a fixed . . . a memory quota of a container is a memory resource of a fixed size . . . . ).
Both Chen and Maeda pertain to the art of quota management.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Chen’s method to confirm the acquisition of each computing resource in the plurality of computing resources because it is well-known in the art that if resource allocation in the cloud platform is unbalanced, a relatively large quantity of resource fragments may be generated, resulting in that remaining resources cannot be allocated, and the resource utilization rate is reduced Chen’s method can detect/reduce (confirming) resource fragments generated in the cloud platform and improve the resource utilization rate.
As per claim 6, Maeda/Chen teaches:
The computer system of claim 5 (See rejection on claim 5), wherein the hierarchal quota enforcement process is based on a type of computing resource for each computing resource in the plurality of computing resources (Chen, [0141]).
As per claim 7, Maeda/Chen teaches:
The computer system of claim 6 (See rejection on claim 6), wherein the type of computing resource is associated with at least one of:
a processor, a computing device, a storage medium, a virtual machine, and a software service (Chen, [0141]).
As per claim 12, see rejection on claim 5.
As per claim 13, see rejection on claim 6.
As per claim 14, see rejection on claim 7.
As per claim 19, see rejection on claim 5.
As per claim 20, see rejection on claims 6 & 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2024/0385887 teaches a method of determining CPU quota.
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, Vital Pierre 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