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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4, 8, 10-11, 14-16, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 5, 9, 11-14, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As per claim 1, “the status”, ll6 should be “a status”. “the task”, ll10 should be “a task”. “each of the available resources”, ll12 should be “the each of the available resources”. “function accelerator cards” ll13 should be “the function accelerator cards”. “each of the performance estimation values”, ll15 should be “the each of the performance estimation values”.
As per claim 2, “available resources”, ll4 should be “the available resources”.
As per claim 5, “each of the performance estimation values”, ll5-6 should be “the each of the performance estimation values”. “function accelerator cards” ll6-7 should be “the function accelerator cards”.
As per claim 9, “a performance estimation value”, ll5 should be “a performance estimation value from the performance estimation values”.
As per claim 11, “a function accelerator card” ll2-3 should be “a function accelerator card from the function accelerator cards”.
As per claim 12, see objection on claim 1.
As per claim 13, see objection on claim 1.
As per claim 14, see objection on claim 2.
As per claim 17, see objection on claim 5.
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.
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, 5-7, 9, 12-13, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per claim 1, the claim recites a series of step, therefore is a process.
The claim recites the limitation of “ determining the status of each of available resources for the one or more host servers and the one or more function accelerator cards . . . calculating . . . selecting the host servers or function accelerator cards in which the task is to be deployed in consideration of each of the performance estimation values”. 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.
2A - Prong 2: N/A (No additional elements are present).
2B: N/A
As per claim 5, see rejection on claim 1. “comparing the received status information with each of the performance estimation values . . . select the host servers or function accelerator cards in which the task is to be deployed “ 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. “receiving the current overall system resource status information . . . ” 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 per claim 6, see rejection on 1. “ . . . a first task . . . is selected from already deployed tasks . . . the first task is re-deployed . . . determining, the calculating, and the selecting ” 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 2024/0039808. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 7, see rejection on claim 1. “the task deployment apparatus is implemented as a separate server that is separated from the cloud system and interoperates through a communication network” 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 2016/0266916 . The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 9, see rejection on claim 1. “calculating and storing a required resource estimation value and a performance estimation value according to the required resource estimation value, respectively, when one or more tasks are deployed in the one or more host servers and the one or more function accelerator cards” is not required. See 35 USC 103 rejection below.
As per claim 12, see rejection on claim 1
As per claim 13, see rejection on claim 1.
As per claim 17, see rejection on claim 5.
As per claim 18, see rejection on claim 6.
As per claim 20, see rejection on claim 13. “ . . . perform selecting and re-deploying a first task that does not meet target performance from already deployed tasks” 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 2024/0039808. The claim is ineligible.
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, 5, 7, 9, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morelli et al (US 2016/0266916 ) (hereinafter Morelli) in view of Creamer et al (US 8713574) (hereinafter Creamer).
As per claim 1, Morelli teaches:
A task deployment method in a cloud system including one or more host servers and one or more function accelerator cards, which is performed by one or more processors in a task deployment apparatus, the task deployment method comprising:
calculating each of performance estimation values when the task to be deployed is executed in the one or more host servers or the one or more function accelerator cards under the condition of each of the available resources (Morelli, [0108]—under BRI, performance estimation values can be expected performance characteristics of the requested emulation if that potential emulator server 126 is selected for the emulation, each of the available resources can be resources in potential emulator server 126); and
selecting the host servers or function accelerator cards in which the task is to be deployed in consideration of each of the performance estimation values (Morelli, [0109]—under BRI, selecting the host servers or function accelerator cards in which the task is to be deployed in consideration of each of the performance estimation values can be select at least one potential emulator server 126 as the selected at least one emulator server 126 for the emulation session based on, for example, which potential emulator server 126 has at least one highest ranking [which is based on expected performance characteristics]).
Morelli does not expressly each:
determining the status of each of available resources for the one or more host servers and the one or more function accelerator cards;
However, Creamer discloses:
determining the status of each of available resources for the one or more host servers and the one or more function accelerator cards (Creamer, Abstract—under BRI, status of each of available resources for the one or more host servers and the one or more function accelerator cards can be availability of soft co-processor and status of getting request from a primary processor to offload a selected function);
Both Creamer and Morelli pertain to the art of resource scheduling.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Creamer’s method to determine the status of each of available resources because it is well-known in the art that scheduling tasks requires determining resource availability.
As per claim 5, Morelli/Creamer teaches:
The task deployment method of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1), wherein the selecting comprises, when a deployment request for the task is received, receiving the current overall system resource status information, and comparing the received status information with each of the performance estimation values to select the host servers or function accelerator cards in which the task is to be deployed (NOT REQUIRED: the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met).
As per claim 7, Morelli/Creamer teaches:
The task deployment method of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1), wherein the task deployment apparatus is implemented as a separate server that is separated from the cloud system and interoperates through a communication network (Morelli, Fig 1 Control Server 122 Emulation server 126).
As per claim 9, Morelli/Creamer teaches:
The task deployment method of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1), further comprising calculating and storing a required resource estimation value and a performance estimation value according to the required resource estimation value, respectively, when one or more tasks are deployed in the one or more host servers and the one or more function accelerator cards (NOT REQUIRED: the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met).
As per claim 12, see rejection on claim 1.
As per claim 13, see rejection on claim 1.
Claims 6, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morelli/Cream as applied above, and further in view of Singwi et al (US 2024/0039808) (hereinafter Singwi).
As per claim 6, Morelli/Creamer teaches:
The task deployment method of claim 1 (See rejection on claim 1) .
Morelli/Creamer does not expressly each:
wherein a first task that does not meet target performance is selected from already deployed tasks, and the first task is re-deployed by being subjected to the determining, the calculating, and the selecting.
However, Singwi discloses:
wherein a first task that does not meet target performance is selected from already deployed tasks, and the first task is re-deployed by being subjected to the determining, the calculating, and the selecting (Singwi, [0120]).
Both Singwi and Morell/Creamer pertain to the art of resource scheduling.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Singwi’s method to redeploy tasks based on non-performance because it is well-known in the art that in order to have compliance with SLA or system requirements, non-performing tasks would need to be redeployed to a server less busy.
As per claim 18, see rejection on claim 6.
As per claim 20, Morell/Creamer teaches:
The task deployment apparatus of claim 13 (See rejection on claim 13)
Morell/Creamer does not expressly teach:
wherein the processor is configured to further perform selecting and re-deploying a first task that does not meet target performance from already deployed tasks.
However, Singwi discloses:
wherein the processor is configured to further perform selecting and re-deploying a first task that does not meet target performance from already deployed tasks (singwi, [0120]).
Both Singwi and Morell/Creamer pertain to the art of resource scheduling.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Singwi’s method to redeploy tasks based on non-performance because it is well-known in the art that in order to have compliance with SLA or system requirements, non-performing tasks would need to be redeployed to a server less busy.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2022/0012104 teaches a method of forecasting system performance.
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