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 4, 6, and 8 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 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 1-3, 5, 7, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As per claim 1, the claim recites a device, therefore is a machine.
“… analyzing the collected resource information of each cluster”. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover 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 “collect resource information of each cluster in a heterogeneous cluster environment” 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)). The elements of “a communication unit . . . 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 it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
As discussed above, “collect resource information of each cluster in a heterogeneous cluster environment” amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g). “a communication unit . . . a processor” is 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. “perform integrated interworking between orchestrations in each cluster ” 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 Brown. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 2, see rejection on claim 1. “ . . . select a scheduling candidate group based on the score table”. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
“generate a watching level for auto scaling and a score table for scheduling, based on the collected resource information of each cluster . . . perform auto-scaling according to a watching level of each cluster . . . perform load balancing between operating environments with respect to a service that requires resource scaling . . . perform resource scheduling” 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 Brown/Jiang. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 3, see rejection on claim 2. “wherein the analytic engine is configured to generate the score table for scheduling by performing a filtering operation and a scoring operation based on the resource information of each cluster“ 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 Brown/Jiang. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 5, see rejection on claim 2. “ wherein the hybrid autoscaling controller is configured to perform vertical scaling (VPA) or horizontal scaling (HPA) with respect to a cluster in which a service requiring resource scaling is driven according to a watching level of each cluster” 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 Wu. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 7, see rejection on claim 2. “wherein the processor further comprises a policy manager configured to set a resource policy for each cluster” 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 Verma. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 9, see rejection on claim 7. “wherein the processor further comprises a policy manager configured to set a resource policy for each cluster” 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 Brown/Jiang. The claim is ineligible.
As per claim 10, see rejection on claim 1.
As per claim 11, see rejection on claim 1.
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, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brown et al (US 2011/0225298) (hereinafter Brown).
As per claim 1, Brown teaches:
A hybrid cloud management device comprising:
a communication unit configured to collect resource information of each cluster in a heterogeneous cluster environment (Brown, Abstract—under BRI, collecting resource information can be getting a processing load metric for each server); and
a processor configured to perform integrated interworking between orchestrations in each cluster by analyzing the collected resource information of each cluster (Brown, Abstract—under BRI, analyzing the collected resource information can be analyzing to generate respective load balancing score for each server).
As per claim 10, see rejection on claim 1.
As per claim 11, see rejection on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2-3, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown in view of Jiang (US 2019/0319933) (hereinafter Jiang) .
As per claim 2, Brown teaches:
The hybrid cloud management device of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1),wherein the processor comprises:
an analytic engine configured to generate a score table for scheduling based on the collected resource information of each cluster (Brown, Abstract—under BRI, a score table for scheduling can be the load balancing scores);
a load balancer configured to perform load balancing between operating environments with respect to a service that requires resource scaling (Brown, Fig 2 54—under BRI, a service that requires resource scaling can be a job that needs a resource for processing); and
a scheduler configured to select a scheduling candidate group based on the score table, and to perform resource scheduling (Brown, Fig 2 54, 55).
Brown does not expressly teach:
wherein the an analytic engine configured to generate a watching level for auto scaling;
a hybrid autoscaling controller configured to perform auto-scaling according to a watching level of each cluster;
However, Jiang discloses:
wherein the an analytic engine configured to generate a watching level for auto scaling (Jiang, [0055]--under BRI, generating a watching level for auto scaling can be generating a threshold for making a determination that one of these nodes is overloaded);
a hybrid autoscaling controller configured to perform auto-scaling according to a watching level of each cluster (Jiang, [0055]);
Both Jiang and Brown pertain to the art of 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 Jiang’s method to scale resources because it is well-known in the art that scaling resources, particularly with the advent of AI and high-density, modular architectures, provides significant benefits in efficiency, cost reduction, and performance.
As per claim 3, Brown/Jiang teaches:
The hybrid cloud management device of claim 2 (see rejection on claim 2), wherein the analytic engine is configured to generate the score table for scheduling by performing a filtering operation and a scoring operation based on the resource information of each cluster (Brown, Abstract).
As per claim 9, Brown/Jiang teaches:
The hybrid cloud management device of claim 7 (see rejection on claim 7), wherein the processor is configured to determine, when an overload occurs in a specific node, a cluster having a highest priority, based on a pre-set resource policy for each cluster, and to perform node resource scaling (Jiang, [0061]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown/Jiang as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Wu et al (US 2025/0181412) (hereinafter Wu).
As per claim 5, Brown/Jiang teaches:
The hybrid cloud management device of claim 2 (see rejection on claim 2), wherein the hybrid autoscaling controller is configured to perform scaling with respect to a cluster in which a service requiring resource scaling is driven according to a watching level of each cluster (Jiang, [0055]).
Brown/Jiang does not expressly teach:
wherein the scaling is vertical scaling (VPA) or horizontal scaling (HPA);
However, Wu discloses:
wherein the scaling is vertical scaling (VPA) or horizontal scaling (HPA) (Wu, [0056]);
Both Wu and Brown/Jiang pertain to the art of 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 Wu’s method to vertical scale because it is well-known in the art that Vertical Pod Autoscaler (VPA) in Kubernetes maximizes cluster efficiency and reduces costs by automatically resizing pod CPU and memory requests based on real-time usage, eliminating manual, inaccurate guessing.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown/Jiang as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Verma et al (US 2020/0241910) (hereinafter Verma).
As per claim 7, Brown/Jiang teaches:
The hybrid cloud management device of claim 2 (see rejection on claim 2).
Brown/Jiang does not expressly teach:
wherein the processor further comprises a policy manager configured to set a resource policy for each cluster.
However, Verma discloses:
wherein the processor further comprises a policy manager configured to set a resource policy for each cluster (Verma, [0032])
Both Verma and Brown/Jiang pertain to the art of 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 Verma’s method to set resource policy because it is well-known in the art clusters having different policies can provide services at different level. Multi-service level data centers provide significant benefits, including lower total cost of ownership (TCO), improved reliability via redundant, multi-location setups, and scalable, flexible infrastructure
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2012/0324469 teaches a method of allocating resources ensuring service level is met.
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