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
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.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1: Step 1: the claim is directed to statuary category.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the following limitations:
1. A computer-implemented method of predicting optimal configurations for deploying a given resource in a computing environment, the method comprising:
determining, by the one or more processors, relationships between the one or more factors (relationship determination in high level is an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion mental process which can reasonably be performed in one’s mind with the aid of pencil and paper);
based on parameters comprising the relationships, identifying, by the one or more processors, from a search space, one or more resources configurations for at least one resource and one or more workload configurations for at least one workload in the computing environment (configuration identification in high level is an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion mental process which can reasonably be performed in one’s mind with the aid of pencil and paper);
The claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements:
obtaining, by one or more processors, one or more factors relevant to the given resource (amounts to mere data gathering, an insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), which is well understood, routine and convention activity of receiving or gathering data as identified by the court in MPEP 2106.05(d));
executing, by the one or more processors, based on a pre-defined policy, a test, wherein the test executes a workload configured according to a workload configuration of the one or more workload configurations for the at least one workload in a system under a test instance configured according to a resource configuration of the one or more resource configurations for the at least one resource (amounts to mere insignificant application, an insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), which is extra-solution activity of well, understood routine and conventional operation of applying it under MPEP 2106.05(d));
obtaining, by the one or more processors, performance measurements for the test in the system under test instance (amounts to mere insignificant application, an insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), which is extra-solution activity of well, understood routine and conventional operation of presentation of offer or statistics under MPEP 2106.05(d)); and
utilizing, by the one or more processors, the performance measurements to update a known data set (amounts to mere insignificant application, an insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), which is extra-solution activity of well, understood routine and conventional operation of applying it under MPEP 2106.05(d));
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B: As shown above, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 2-4: Step 1: the claim is directed to statuary category.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of parent claim.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s):
However, those elements amount to generally linking the abstract ideas to the technological environment or field of use as discussed in in MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: As shown above, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 5-8: Step 1: the claim is directed to statuary category.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of parent claim.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s):
However, those elements of performing repetitive calculations amounts to well-understood, routine, conventional activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), example (ii).
Step 2B: As shown above, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 9-11: Step 1: the claim is directed to statuary category.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of parent claim.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s):
However, those elements amount to mere insignificant application, an insignificant extra-solution activity as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g), which is extra-solution activity of well, understood routine and conventional operation of applying it under MPEP 2106.05(d));
Step 2B: As shown above, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 12-17: Step 1: the claim is directed to statuary category.
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites the abstract idea of parent claim.
Step 2A Prong 2: The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s):
However, those elements amount to generally linking the abstract ideas to the technological environment or field of use as discussed in in MPEP 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: As shown above, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 18-19 are system claims having similar limitation as claims 1 and 5 and are rejected under the same rationale. The additional elements in claim 18 is A computer system for predicting optimal configurations for deploying a given resource in a computing environment, the computer system comprising: a memory; and one or more processors in communication with the memory, wherein the computer system is configured to perform a method (amounts to performing generic function of execution of stored instructions (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract into practical application and are not sufficient to amount to significant more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are an abstract idea.
Claim 20 is computer readable storage medium claim having similar limitation as claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale. The additional elements in claim 20 is A computer program product for predicting optimal configurations for deploying a given resource in a computing environment, the computer program product comprising: one or more computer readable storage media and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media readable by at least one processing circuit to:(amounts to performing generic function of execution of stored instructions (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract into practical application and are not sufficient to amount to significant more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are an abstract idea.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Chen et al (Resource Allocation for Cloud-Based Software Services Using Prediction-Enabled Feedback Control With Reinforcement Learning” April 2022)
1. A computer-implemented method of predicting optimal configurations for deploying a given resource in a computing environment (See abstract on adaptive resource allocation), the method comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
obtaining, by one or more processors, one or more factors relevant to the given resource (See abstract on resource cost and system states. Examiner Note (EN): those are factors relevant to the given resource. See also Fig. 1 on factors such as workload, types of VM, performance, QoS, cost, etc);
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
determining, by the one or more processors, relationships between the one or more factors (See pg. 1121 on relationship between different plans and objective function. See also section 3 that objective function is based on factors such as QoS and cost);
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
200
400
media_image4.png
Greyscale
based on parameters comprising the relationships, identifying, by the one or more processors, from a search space, one or more resources configurations for at least one resource and one or more workload configurations for at least one workload in the computing environment (see abstract and table 1 on resource allocation plans. See also pg. 1121 on searching from objective space and algorithm 1 on action space);
PNG
media_image5.png
200
400
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
200
400
media_image6.png
Greyscale
executing, by the one or more processors, based on a pre-defined policy, a test, wherein the test executes a workload configured according to a workload configuration of the one or more workload configurations for the at least one workload in a system under a test instance configured according to a resource configuration of the one or more resource configurations for the at least one resource (see abstract and table 1 on resource allocation plans with performance indexes. See also algorithm 1 and Fig 1 on execution of resource allocation plan. See also pg. 1125 on simulation (i.e. testing) of cases/plans);
PNG
media_image7.png
200
400
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
200
400
media_image8.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image9.png
200
400
media_image9.png
Greyscale
obtaining, by the one or more processors, performance measurements for the test in the system under test instance (see abstract and table 1 on resource allocation plans with performance indexes. See also Fig. 1 on monitoring the execution); and
utilizing, by the one or more processors, the performance measurements to update a known data set (see abstract and Fig. 1 on updating historical data with current workload).
2. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the parameters further comprise the known data set (See Fig. 1 on historical data. EN: historical data is known data).
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the parameters further comprise hyper-parameters reflecting how the computing environment performs in when the one or more factors comprise specific values (See equation 7).
PNG
media_image10.png
200
400
media_image10.png
Greyscale
4. The computer-implemented method of claim 3, further comprising: applying, by the one or more processors, a linear regression on known performance criteria to derive the hyper-parameters (see equation 11).
PNG
media_image11.png
200
400
media_image11.png
Greyscale
5. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: based on the parameters comprising the relationships and the known data set, identifying, by the one or more processors, from the search space, a first additional one or more resources configurations for the at least one resource and a second additional one or more workload configurations for the at least one workload in the computing environment; executing, by the one or more processors, based on the pre-defined policy, the test; obtaining, by the one or more processors, additional performance measurements for the test in the system under test instance; and determining, by the one or more processors, based on the additional performance measurements, if pre-defined stopping criteria have been reached (EN: drawn to iterations. See section 4.3).
PNG
media_image12.png
200
400
media_image12.png
Greyscale
6. The computer-implemented method of claim 5, further comprising: based on determining that the pre-defined stopping criteria have been reached, identifying, by the one or more processors, a given resource configuration of the additional one or more resource configurations for the at least one resource and a given workload configuration of the additional one or more workload configurations for the at least one workload meeting the pre-defined stopping criteria, wherein the given resource configuration of the additional one or more resource configurations for the at least one resource and the given workload configuration of the additional one or more workload configurations for the at least one workload meeting the pre-defined stopping criteria comprise an optimal workload configuration and an optimal resource configuration (see algorithm 1).
PNG
media_image13.png
200
400
media_image13.png
Greyscale
7. The computer-implemented method of claim 6, further comprising: implementing, by the one or more processors, the optimal workload configuration and the optimal resource configuration when deploying the given resource in the computing environment (See Fig. 1 on executing/implementing the plan).
8. The computer-implemented method of claim 5, further comprising: based on determining that the pre-defined stopping criteria have not been reached, updating, by the one or more processors, the known data set with the additional performance measurements; and iteratively executing a process until the pre-defined stopping criteria have been reached, the process comprising: based on the parameters comprising the relationships and the known data set, identifying, by the one or more processors, from the search space, another one or more resource configurations for the at least one resource and another one or more workload configurations for the at least one workload in the computing environment; executing, by the one or more processors, based on the pre-defined policy, the test; obtaining, by the one or more processors, other performance measurements for the test in the system under test instance; and determining, by the one or more processors, based on the other performance measurements, if the pre-defined stopping criteria have been reached (EN: drawn to repeat until converge. See pg. 1122 on train until convergence).
PNG
media_image14.png
200
400
media_image14.png
Greyscale
9. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein executing the test further comprises: provisioning, by the one or more processors, one or more system under test instances based on the system under test instance according to the resource configuration of the one or more resource configurations for at the least one resource (see section 2).
PNG
media_image15.png
200
400
media_image15.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image16.png
200
400
media_image16.png
Greyscale
10. The computer-implemented method of claim 9, wherein the provisioning comprises provisioning at least one system under test instance for each resource configuration of the one or more resource configurations for at the least one resource; and scheduling, by the one or more processors, the test in each system under test instance, wherein at least two tests run in parallel (See pg. 1128).
PNG
media_image17.png
200
400
media_image17.png
Greyscale
11. The computer-implemented of claim 1, wherein executing the test based on the pre- defined policy, comprises applying, by the one or more processors, an objective function to predict the performance measurements.
PNG
media_image18.png
200
400
media_image18.png
Greyscale
12. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more factors relevant to the given resource are selected from the group consisting of: resource factors, workload factors, and performance criteria (See Fig. 1 on workload, types of resource (VM), and performance).
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
13. The computer-implemented method of claim 12, wherein the one or more factors comprise resource factors and the resource factors are selected from the group consisting of: number of nodes, number of pods, computer processing units, and number of memory units (see fig. 1 on number and type. See also table 6 on CPU and memory).
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image19.png
200
400
media_image19.png
Greyscale
14. The computer-implemented method of claim 12, wherein the one or more factors comprise workload factors and the workload factors are selected from the group consisting of: number of entities, number of spans, and number of metrics (See fig 1 that workload consist of number and type).
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
15. The computer-implemented method of claim 12, wherein the one or more factors comprise performance criteria and the performance criteria are selected from the group consisting of: response time, throughput, and error rate (See fig. 1 on Qos and section 3 Qos consisting of response time and throughput).
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image20.png
200
400
media_image20.png
Greyscale
16. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the given resource is a software application (see abstract).
PNG
media_image21.png
200
400
media_image21.png
Greyscale
17. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the at least one workload comprises a workload of the given resource and the at least one resource would execute the given resource after deployment of the given resource in the computing environment (see fig. 1 on workload of resources and plan execution).
PNG
media_image9.png
200
400
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Claims 18-19 are system claims having similar limitation as claims 1 and 5 and are rejected under the same rationale. The additional elements in claim 18 is A computer system for predicting optimal configurations for deploying a given resource in a computing environment, the computer system comprising: a memory; and one or more processors in communication with the memory, wherein the computer system is configured to perform a method (see fig. 1 and table 6. EN: cloud computing/system inherently has memory and processor).
Claim 20 is computer readable storage medium claim having similar limitation as claim 1 and is rejected under the same rationale. The additional elements in claim 20 is A computer program product for predicting optimal configurations for deploying a given resource in a computing environment, the computer program product comprising: one or more computer readable storage media and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media readable by at least one processing circuit to (see fig. 1 and table 6. EN: cloud computing/system inherently has memory and processor and CRSM).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang et al (“INFERBENCH: UNDERSTANDING DEEP LEARNING INFERENCE SERVING WITH AN AUTOMATIC BENCHMARKING SYSTEM” Jan 2021) disclose using learning for workload, resource allocation and system configuration. See abstract.
DUC et al (“Machine Learning Methods for Reliable Resource Provisioning in Edge-Cloud Computing: A Survey” 2019) disclose a survey of ML for resource provision. See abstract and Fig 4.
JINDAL et al (US 20190303475 A1) disclose using workload data and analyzer for resource allocation ([0049], Fig. 3), use of linear regression ([0080]-[0092]), hyperparameter ([0094]), search space ([0107]-[0109]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUT WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1123. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm EST.
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, Abdullah Al Kawsar can be reached at 5712703169. 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.
/LUT WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2127
Prosecution Insights