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 .
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0003]: “merge request” should read “merge requests”
[0015]: “to determine correspond to amounts of time” should read “to determine corresponding amounts of time”
[0016]: “physical infrastructure of distributed computing system” should read “physical infrastructure of a distributed computing system”
[0023]: “In another example,,” should read “In another example,” (omit second comma)
[0025]: “Processing device 160a, b” should read “Processing device 112”
[0026]: “may bet the same” should read “may be the same”
[0030]: “a particular segments” should read “a particular segment”
[0034]: “training a machine learning for” should read “training a machine learning model for”
[0040]: “each of the plurality of operation” should read “each of the plurality of operations”
[0047]: “may utilized” should read “may be utilized”
[0048]: “in client-server network environment” should read “in a client-server network environment”
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of the claims will follow the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“2019 PEG”).
Claim 1
Step 1: The claim recites a method, and is therefore directed to the statutory category of processes.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
“identifying tracing data comprising a plurality of traces for a plurality of operations performed by a distributed computing system on behalf of a plurality of users of the distributed computing system during a period of time, wherein each of the plurality of operations comprise one or more segments from a set of segments and each trace in the tracing data includes a latency corresponding to each segment of a corresponding operation”; This limitation encompasses mentally identifying tracing data comprising a plurality of traces for a plurality of operations.
“determining a set of overall latencies comprising an overall latency for each segment in the set of segments in view of the tracing data”; This limitation encompasses mentally determining a set of overall latencies comprising an overall latency for each segment in the set of segments in view of the tracing data.
“determining, for each user of the plurality of users, a set of user latencies comprising a user latency for each segment in the set of segments in view of the tracing data”; This limitation encompasses mentally determining a set of user latencies for each user of the plurality of users comprising a user latency for each segment in the set of segments in view of the tracing data.
“generating…a set of energy usage estimates including an energy usage estimate for one or more of the plurality of users…the energy usage estimate for the one or more of the plurality of users generated based on the set of overall latencies and the set of user latencies for the one or more of the plurality of users”; This limitation encompasses mentally generating a set of energy usage estimates including an energy usage estimate for one or more of the plurality of users, based on the set of overall latencies and the set of user latencies for the one or more of the plurality of users.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim further recites that the set of energy usage estimates is generated “by a processing device” and “using a machine learning (ML) model.” However, these limitations amount to mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using a generic computer programmed with generic computer algorithms (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The analysis at this step mirrors that of Step 2A Prong 2. As an ordered whole, the claim is directed to a mentally performable process of identifying tracing data, determining a set of overall latencies, determining a set of user latencies, and then generating a set of energy usage estimates given the overall latencies and user latencies. Nothing in the claim provides significantly more than this. As such, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
“wherein the set of segments include at least one of time spent in a hypertext transfer protocol frontend of the distributed computing system, time spent in an object store daemon of the distributed computing system, time spent in a storage backend daemon of the distributed computing system, time spent in a library in communication with the storage backend daemon, or time spent between daemons of the distributed computing system”; This limitation merely further limits the set of segments of claim 1, and the steps of claim 1 are still mentally performable given this further limitation.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. See analysis of claim 1.
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. See analysis of claim 1.
Claim 3
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
“wherein the set of overall latencies includes an overall amount of time the distributed computing system utilized to perform each segment in the set of segments included in the tracing data for the period of time”; This limitation merely further limits the set of overall latencies determined in claim 1, and determining a set of overall latencies is still mentally performable when the set includes an overall amount of time the distributed computing system utilized to perform each segment.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. See analysis of claim 1.
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. See analysis of claim 1.
Claim 4
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
“wherein the set of user latencies for each user includes a total amount of time the distributed computing system utilized to perform each segment in the set of segments included in the tracing data on behalf of a corresponding user for the period of time”; This limitation merely further limits the set of user latencies determined in claim 1, and determining a set of user latencies is still mentally performable when the set includes a total amount of time the distributed computing system utilized to perform each segment in the set of segments on behalf of a corresponding user for the period of time.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. See analysis of claim 1.
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. See analysis of claim 1.
Claim 5
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the same judicial exception as claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim further recites “wherein the ML model comprises a classification and regression tree model,” however this limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using a generic computer programmed with generic computer algorithms (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The analysis at this step mirrors that of Step 2A Prong 2.
Claim 6
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
“wherein the plurality of operations corresponding to the tracing data comprises a sampling of total operations performed by the distributed computing system on behalf of the plurality of users of the distributed computing system during the period of time”; This limitation merely further limits the plurality of operations corresponding to the identified tracing data of claim 1, and identifying tracing data is still mentally performable when the plurality of operations comprise a sampling of total operations performed by the distributed computing system on behalf of the plurality of users of the distributed computing system during the period of time.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. See analysis of claim 1.
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. See analysis of claim 1.
Claim 7
Step 1: A process, as above.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
“wherein the plurality of operations comprise at least one of GET, PUT, or DELETE commands”; This limitation merely further limits the plurality of operations that correspond to the identified tracing data of claim 1, and identifying tracing data is still mentally performable when the plurality of operations comprise at least one of GET, PUT, or DELETE commands.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. See analysis of claim 1.
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. See analysis of claim 1.
Claims 8-14
Step 1: The claims recite a system comprising a memory and a processing device, and therefore are directed to the statutory category of machines.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claims 8-14 recite the same judicial exception as claims 1-7, respectively.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The analysis at this step mirrors that of claims 1-7, respectively, except insofar as claims 8-14 additionally recite “A system comprising: a memory; and a processing device, operatively coupled to the memory, to: [perform the method],” however this limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using a generic computer programmed with generic computer algorithms (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The analysis at this step mirrors that of claims 1-7, respectively, except insofar as claims 8-14 additionally recite a system with a memory and a processing device, which amounts to mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using a generic computer programmed with generic computer algorithms (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as analyzed in Step 2A Prong 2.
Claims 15-20
Step 1: The claims recite a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, and therefore are directed to the statutory category of articles of manufacture.
Step 2A Prong 1: Claims 15-20 recite the same judicial exception as claims 1-6, respectively.
Step 2A Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The analysis at this step mirrors that of claims 1-6, respectively, except insofar as claims 15-20 additionally recite “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium including instructions that, when executed by a processing device, cause the processing device to… [perform the method],” however this limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using a generic computer programmed with generic computer algorithms (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B: The claim does not contain significantly more than the judicial exception. The analysis at this step mirrors that of claims 1-6, respectively, except insofar as claims 15-20 additionally recite a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, which amounts to mere instructions to apply a judicial exception using a generic computer programmed with generic computer algorithms (MPEP 2106.05(f)) as analyzed in Step 2A Prong 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant' s disclosure:
US20250117551 (Meng et al.): Meng et al. discloses using a machine learning model to generate an estimate of energy usage in addressing a particular application request using real-time trace metrics and a common pattern of resource use for the particular request.
Distributed Latency Profiling through Critical Path Tracing (Eaton et al.): Eaton et al. discloses identifying latencies of segments on a critical path trace in processing a request through a distributed computing system, and identifying an aggregated latency for the segment among multiple request traces (see Table 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GWYNEVERE A DETERDING whose telephone number is (571) 272-7657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 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, Kamran Afshar can be reached at (571) 272-7796. 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.
/G.A.D./Examiner, Art Unit 2125
/KAMRAN AFSHAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2125
Prosecution Insights