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 3-9, and 11 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, 3-7, and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
As per claim 1, “ the site systems”, ll 7 should be “the plurality of site systems”. “the data in the candidate deployment plan”, ll 19 should be “data in the candidate deployment plan”. “candidate information”, ll 24 should be “the candidate information”.
As per claim 3, “each of the plurality of calculation engines”, ll 3 should be “the each of the plurality of calculation engines”.
As per claim 4, “a plurality of pieces of candidate information”, ll2-3 should be “the plurality of pieces of candidate information”.
As per claim 5, “ a site system”, ll 3 should be “a site system from the plurality of site systems”.
As per claim 6, “a process”, ll 4 should be “the process”. “a plurality of pieces of the candidate information”, ll 6-7 should be “the plurality of pieces of the candidate information”.
As per claim 7, “a process”, ll 4 should be “ the process”.
As per claim 12, see objection on claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gohad et al (US 2013/0138806 ) (hereinafter Gohad) in view of Mukherjee et al (US 2022/0413814 ) (hereinafter Mukherjee).
As per claim 1, Gohad teaches:
A deployment plan calculation device that generates deployment plan information on a deployment plan for deploying data and a processing component for performing a process related to the data to one of a plurality of site systems having computers, wherein in the deployment plan, the data and the processing component, and the site systems where the data and the processing component are deployed are associated with each other, and the deployment plan calculation device comprises:
a memory (Gohad, Fig 1A 28);
a processor (Gohad, Fig 1A 26); and
a plurality of calculation engines executed by the processor,
wherein the memory stores management information on each of the plurality of site systems,
the plurality of calculation engines calculate candidate information including a candidate deployment plan that is a candidate for the deployment plan (Gohad, [0121]—under BRI, a candidate deployment plan that is a candidate for the deployment plan can be one of alternate provisioning plans) , and
an evaluation value obtained by evaluating a process related to the data in the candidate deployment plan based on the management information and a target performance that is a target performance of the process (Gohad, [0121]—under BRI, an evaluation value can be appropriateness of alternative plans; a target performance and a management information can be information used to determine appropriate plan ),
each of the plurality of calculation engines has a plurality of policies (Gohad, [0110]—under BRI, a plurality of policies can be a newly added resource that might be more healthy and/or suitable), and
calculates candidate information using one or more of the plurality of policies, respectively (Gohad, [0110]), and
the processor causes each of the plurality of calculation engines that use different policies for calculating the deployment plan to calculate the candidate information (Gohad, [0110]—under BRI, different policies can be healthy and suitable), and integrates a plurality of pieces of the candidate information based on the candidate deployment plan included in the calculated plurality of pieces of the candidate information so as to generate the deployment plan information (Gohad, [0126]—under BRI, integrating can be arriving at based on this output of the resource classification as healthy/unhealthy).
Gohad does not expressly teach:
wherein the policies defining calculation methods for calculating the candidate information;
However, Mukherjee discloses:
wherein the policies defining calculation methods for calculating the candidate information (Mukherjee, [0137]—under BRI, calculation methods can be model-agnostic optimizations . . . model-specific optimizations);
Both Mukherjee and Gohad pertain to the art of resource allocation.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Mukherjee’s method to use different methods to calculate execution plan because it is well-known in the art that it is wise to pursue multiple plans to find the most optimal solution.
As per claim 2, Gohad/Mukherjee teaches:
The deployment plan calculation device according to claim 1 (See rejection on claim 1), wherein the processor executes the calculation engine corresponding to each of a plurality of policies designated by designation information designating the plurality of policies (Gohad, [0110]) .
As per claim 10, Gohad/Mukherjee teaches:
The deployment plan calculation device according to claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1), wherein the processor deploys the data and the processing component according to the deployment plan information (Gohad, [0004], [0121], [0126]—under BRI, data and the processing component can be a replacement resource and cloud tenancy ).
As per claim 12, see rejection on claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2016/0283275 teaches a method of assigning resources according to a deployment plan.
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