CTNF 18/365,580 CTNF 87495 DETAILED ACTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. This office action is in response to application filed on 8/4/2023. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more: Claim 1 recites in part: “…for a given workload to be executed by the predetermined network function, generating a sustainability metric for the first node and the second node; and selecting, based on the sustainability metric, one of the first node and the second node …” These limitations as drafted, the broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, are functions that can be reasonably carried out in the human mind, through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion. Moreover, these limitations as drafted, the broadest reasonable interpretation when read in light of the specification, are also functions that encompasses mathematical concepts that can be performed mentally requiring specific mathematical calculations (geometric means calculations) to perform the generating and therefore encompasses mathematical concepts. “Unless it is clear that a claim recites distinct exceptions, such as a law of nature and an abstract idea, care should be taken not to parse the claim into multiple exceptions, particularly in claims involving abstract ideas.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. However, if possible, the examiner should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. “For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A, Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. Under such circumstances, however, the Supreme Court has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Id. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). Here, the steps of generating sustainability metric and selecting node falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas and step of generating sustainability metrics also fall within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. Limitations are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements: “…to execute the predetermined network function…”merely recite intended use of the claimed invention, then it cannot integrate a judicial exception under the ‘treatment or prophylaxis’ consideration” (See, MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)) Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Furthermore, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In particular, “…receiving sustainability information for a first node and a second node in a plurality of nodes configured to execute at least part of a predetermined network function; receiving sustainability information for a location at which the first node and the second node are respectively disposed….” Are directed to data gathering and are insignificant extra solution activity, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. (See, MPEP 2106.05(d)). As such, claim 1 is not patent eligible. Claim 11 and 18 are not patent eligible for the same reasons given for claim 1. wherein the “a device comprising an interface configured to enable network communication; a memory and one or more processors coupled to the interface and the memory” and “one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media encoded with instructions that when executed by a processor, cause the processor to” are merely steps to apply the abstract idea, thus fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and directed to routine steps and do not contain any inventive concepts. In addition, claims 2-10, 12-17, and 19-20 are also not patent eligible for similar reasons given in respective independent claims because they fail to recite any limitations that integrate the judicial exception of claim 1, 11 and 18 respectively into a practical application nor amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. In particular, claims 2, 12 are directed to more intended use. Claims 3-4, 6, 10, 13-14, 16, and 19-20 are directed toward additional details of data gathering and or storage. Claims 6-9 and 17 are additional mental process/mathematical calculation steps. As such, they are also not patent eligible Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1-2, 5-6, 8-12, 15-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albero et al. (US PGPUB 2024/0112285), in view of de Mattos et al. (US PGPUB 2023/0130420) . As for claim 1, Albero teaches a method comprising: receiving sustainability information [cost of producing the necessary amount of energy] for a first node [identified data center computing system] and a second node [identified data center computing system] in a plurality of nodes [identified data center computing systems] configured to execute at least part of a workload [event processing request] (paragraph 43, “…identify an amount of energy needed to process the event processing request and a corresponding cost of producing that amount of energy for each of the identified data center computing systems configured to process the event processing request …” and paragraph 45, “…identifying the cost of producing the necessary amount of energy…..identify various mixes of energy sources ….whether a given energy source produces storable energy…reduce wasted energy…or user specified a preference for green energy sources, any green energy sources maybe ranked…” Prior art teaching the cost of producing the energy includes the mixes of energy sources that includes how wasteful the energy produced is or green energy source, etc., received/used by the energy optimization platform are understood as sustainability information in view of the specification. See, Specification paragraph 20.), receiving sustainability information for a location [weather or environmental patterns] at which the first node and the second node are respectively disposed (paragraph 44, “…energy optimization platform ….take into account any weather or environmental patterns that may impact processing of the event….for example availability of solar power …”); for a given workload to be executed by the predetermined network function, generating a sustainability metric for the first node and the second node (paragraph 47, “…once an energy mix has been identified for the identified data center computing system…rank these data center computing systems (based on cost/energy source preferences, and/or otherwise…” the ranking value based on cost/energy source considerations, whatever format the ranking uses to indicate their relative value to each other, is understood as the sustainability metric.) ; and selecting, based on the sustainability metric, one of the first node and the second node to execute the workload (paragraph 47, “…select the top ranked data center computing system…”). Albero does not explicitly teach the workload is a predetermined network function. However, de Mattos teaches a known method of energy/sustainability aware workload distribution including receiving sustainability information for a first node and a second node configured to execute at least part of a predetermined network function [VNF] (Abstract, “…energy model to identify energy consumption implied by enabling an instance of the VNF at an edge node to accept a user VNF call…” in view of paragraph 14, 21, 68. Prior teaches sustainability information of each node is obtained/received by the energy model in the process of determining where to place the predetermined network function (i.e., VNF), where VNFs are part of a service function chain, thus, are constructively understood as “at least part of a predetermined network function”), and selecting, based on the sustainability metric, one of the first node and the second node to execute the predetermined network function (paragraph 84, “…prioritizes ….the energy consumption….search for nodes that consume less energy than the other nodes…”). This known technique is applicable to the system of Albero as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to sustainability based deployment of workloads in networked nodes. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application would have recognized that applying the known technique of de Mattos would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of de Mattos to the teachings of Albero would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such sustainability based workload dispatch features into similar systems. Further, applying receiving sustainability information for a first node and a second node configured to execute at least part of a predetermined network function, and selecting, based on the sustainability metric, one of the first node and the second node to execute the predetermined network function to Albero with receiving sustainability information and selecting, based on sustainability metric, one of plurality of nodes to execute workload accordingly, would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow improved multi-objective optimization for deploying network functions. (de Mattos, paragraph 3). As for claim 2, de Mattos also teaches the predetermined network function is an application programming interface function (Abstract, VNF calls are understood as API function). As for claim 5, de Mattos also teaches generating the sustainability metric for the first node and the second node comprises receiving runtime information for the first node and the second node (paragraph 19, the system utilizes dynamism of available resources, which is understood as the dynamic/runtime information of the resources/nodes). As for claim 6, Albero also teaches generating the sustainability metric for the first node and the second node comprises receiving workload information for the workload (paragraph 38). De Mattos teaches workload is predetermined network function (paragraph 19). As for claim 8, Albero also teaches automatically selecting the one of the first node and the second node to execute the workload (paragraph 47). De Mattos teaches workload is predetermined network function (paragraph 19). As for claim 9, Albero also teaches generating the sustainability metric for the first node and the second node comprises using machine learning (paragraph 23, “energy optimization model may include one or more supervised learning models…unsupervised learning models…and/or other models…”) As for 10, Albero also teaches publishing the sustainability metric for the first node and the second node (paragraph 45-47. All variations of sustainability metric, i.e., energy cost, energy source and/or otherwise are clearly accessible for use to rank the data center computing systems. Thus, the availability of these calculations/determination are constructively publishing the metrics). As for claims 11-12, 15-16, they contain similar limitations as claims 1-2, and 5-6 above. Thus, they are rejected under the same rationales. In addition, Albero teaches a device comprising an interface configured to enable network communications; a memory; and one or more processors coupled to the interface and the memory (paragraph 3). As for claims 18-20, they contain similar limitations as claims 1, 3-4 above. Thus, they are rejected under the same rationales. In addition, Albero also teaches one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media encoded with instructions (paragraph 67) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 3, 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albero et al. (US PGPUB 2024/0112285), in view of de Mattos et al. (US PGPUB 2023/0130420), further in view of Shehabi et al. (“US Data Center Energy Usage Report”, June 2016) . As for claim 3, Albero also teaches receiving the sustainability information for the first node and the second node (paragraph 43-44). While Albero and de Mattos teaches obtaining energy usage of each node. Albero and de Mattos do not explicitly teach the sustainability information is generated from a server efficiency rating tool information source. However, Shehabi teaches a known method of determining the energy usage by a node including receiving information from a server efficiency rating tool (SERT) information source (Section 2.2.3, Pg. 5, “SERT was created …tool uses a set of synthetic worklets to test …providing detailed power consumption data…collected and maintained…” Section 2.3.1., Pg. 9, “Server Power Draw”, power …estimated from the SERT …values…). This known technique is applicable to the system of Albero and de Mattos as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to sustainability information determination for server nodes. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application would have recognized that applying the known technique of Shehabi would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Shehabi to the teachings of Albero and de Mattos would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such sustainability information determination features into similar systems. Further, applying the sustainability information is generated from a server efficiency rating tool information source to Albero and de Mattos with determining and receiving sustainability information accordingly, would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow improved ability to make available standardized sustainability information for government based standards. (Shehabi, Section 2.2.3). As for claims 13 and 19, they contain similar limitations as claim 3 above. Thus, they are rejected under the same rationales . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 4, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albero et al. (US PGPUB 2024/0112285), in view of de Mattos et al. (US PGPUB 2023/0130420), in view of Kommula et al. (US PGPUB 2020/0037473) . As for claim 4, Albero also teaches receiving the sustainability information for the first node and the second node (paragraph 43-44). While Albero and de Mattos teaches obtaining energy usage of each node. Albero and de Mattos do not explicitly teach the sustainability information is generated from a leadership in energy and environmental design (LEED) information source. However, Kommula teaches a known method of determining the energy usage by a node including receiving information from LEED information source (paragraph 23, “optimize energy usage…qualifies under LEED standards…LEED certification…” teaching LEED information is an indication of reduced energy consumption for running workloads.). This known technique is applicable to the system of Albero and de Mattos as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to sustainability information determination for server nodes. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application would have recognized that applying the known technique of Kommula would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Kommula to the teachings of Albero and de Mattos would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such sustainability information determination features into similar systems. Further, applying the sustainability information is generated from LEED information source to Albero and de Mattos with determining and receiving sustainability information from LEED information source accordingly, would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow optimized energy usage in data centers for workloads (Kommula, Paragraph 23). As for claims 14 and 20, they contain similar limitations as claim 4 above. Thus, they are rejected under the same rationales . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 7, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albero et al. (US PGPUB 2024/0112285), in view of de Mattos et al. (US PGPUB 2023/0130420), in view of Bodas et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0185132) . As for claim 7, Albero teaches generating the sustainability metric for the first node and the second node comprises generating the sustainability information for the first node and the second node and the sustainability information for the location at which the first node and the second node are respectively disposed. Albero and de Mattos do not explicitly teach the use of geometric means calculation to generate energy efficiency information for servers. However, Bodas teaches a known method of sustainability based evaluation of nodes for execution of workloads including using a geometric mean of performance per power value at each node (paragraph 117). This known technique is applicable to the system of Albero and de Mattos as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to sustainability information determination for server nodes. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application would have recognized that applying the known technique of Bodas would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Bodas to the teachings of Albero and de Mattos would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such sustainability information determination features into similar systems. Further, applying use of geometric mean to determine sustainability metrics to Albero and de Mattos with determining sustainability metrics including sustainability information for the first and second node and sustainability information for the location at which the first and second node respectively reside including energy efficiency of the nodes to execute workloads accordingly, would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow improved dynamic measurement of energy efficiency to allow better power allocation to run the workloads efficiently (Bodas, Paragraph 6). As for claims 17, they contain similar limitations as claim 7 above. Thus, they are rejected under the same rationales . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN X LU whose telephone number is (571)270-1233. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm. 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 on 5712723759. 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. /KEVIN X LU/Examiner, Art Unit 2199 /LEWIS A BULLOCK JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/365,580 Page 2 Art Unit: 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/365,580 Page 3 Art Unit: 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/365,580 Page 4 Art Unit: 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/365,580 Page 5 Art Unit: 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/365,580 Page 6 Art Unit: 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/365,580 Page 7 Art Unit: 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/365,580 Page 8 Art Unit: 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/365,580 Page 10 Art Unit: 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/365,580 Page 12 Art Unit: 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/365,580 Page 13 Art Unit: 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/365,580 Page 14 Art Unit: 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/365,580 Page 15 Art Unit: 2199 Application/Control Number: 18/365,580 Page 16 Art Unit: 2199