DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to a correspondence filed on 07/02/2025.
Claims 1, 9, 12, 20 are amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/02/2025, with respect to claims 1-20 being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 07/02/2025 with respect of claims 1-2, 5, 7, 9, 12-13, 16, 18 and 20 being rejected as being unpatentable over Cradick (US 20130031263) in view of Ishimoto (US 20070013936) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for at least the reasons below:
In a response filed on 07/02/2025, the Applicant argued that Ishimoto does not teach or suggest features previously included in claim 9 which are now included in claim 1, specifically alleging that Ishimoto fails to teach “providing the user interface data to a client device associated with the first storage location, the user interface data causing the client device to display a notification identifying at least the second transfer protocol option” because the Applicant alleges that Ishimoto does not disclose a notification being displayed on the client device including the user interface data which identifies at least the second transfer protocol option. Furthermore, the Applicant argued that Craddick is silent with respect to teaching anything related to ranking a plurality of transfer protocols based on assigned environmental scores. Therefore, the Applicant believes that the amended claims are patentable over the prior art: The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s assertions and points out that the Applicant interpretation of Craddick and Ishimoto, individually and as a combination, is erroneous. As a first matter, the Examiner submits that Ishimoto teaches in Figs. 13 and 14 display examples for a network configuration that indicates that a particular protocol is prioritized over another protocol, for example using IPv6 protocol over IPv4. More specifically, Ishimoto teaches:
[0067]: ... FIG. 14 shows the display screen 51 in the case where the common network configuration information 37 p contains a setup of the protocol of the application layer. Priority display fields 53 indicating which protocol is prioritized among HTTP, FTP and SNMP, up and down buttons 54 with which the priority among selected items is changed, and a setup update button 56 to reflect the priority setup, are placed on the display screen 51.
That is, the Ishimoto reference suggests that during network configuration operations of one or more storage units, a particular protocol (i.e. IPv6, HTTP, FTP, SNMP, etc.) may be selected over another protocol for executing processes based on priority information. Furthermore, Ishimoto suggests:
[0057]: Firstly, the application determines whether HTTP communication is supported (S102). IF HTTP communication is supported (S102: Yes), the application communicates with the corresponding device 91-96 (S103). If information is acquired (S104: Yes), the setup is set to use HTTP communication (S105). On the other hand, if HTTP communication is not supported (S102: No) or information is not acquired (S104: No), it is determined whether FTP communication is supported (S106), a similar process to the process described above is executed (S106-S109). If FTP communication is not supported (S106: No) or information is not acquired (S108: No), it is determined whether SNMP communication is supported (S110), similar processes are executed (S110-S113). Then if SNMP communication is not supported (S110: No) or information is not acquired (S112: No), a message that communication with the device 91-96 failed is displayed on the display screen 51 of the display unit 5 (S114). In the processes in S102-S114, according to the priority order, it is determined whether it is possible to communicate using HTTP, FTP or SNMP in this order. The priority order may be different from the above order.
In the portion highlighted above, the Ishimoto clearly disclose techniques for suggesting at least a second protocol option for communication purposes based on determining that a first protocol is not supported and/or based on priority information. Therefore, Ishimoto is not silent with respect to teaching providing an indication, on a display of a client device that display a notification identifying at least the second transfer protocol option.
As a second matter, The Examiner argues that the Applicant’s assertions that Craddick is silent with respect to suggesting anything related to ranking the transfer protocols is erroneous. More specifically, the invention of Cradick particularly discloses assigning a communication protocol to a pair of processing elements, the assignment based on a priority of the communication protocols (see Abstract). Additionally, Cradick teaches:
[0046]: In addition to prioritizing processing elements, the stream manager 134 may also prioritize different communication protocols—i.e., inter- and intra-nodal communication protocols (i.e. ranking communication protocols). Inter-nodal communication protocols include protocols that use TCP/IP, shared file systems, relational databases, or RDMA using, for example, InfiniBand™ (InfiniBand™ is a trademark of the InfiniBand Trade Association). Intra-nodal communication protocols include protocols that use shared memory 245 or the interconnect bus 220 to transmit data to a processing element running on the same compute node. Each protocol may be prioritized based on system limitations, speed, or cost of using the protocol to transmit data (i.e. ranking protocols based on environmental scores). For example, a TCP/IP system may be limited by a certain number of ports or bandwidth which caps the number of processing elements that may use this type of communication. Accordingly, a communication protocol that has a low cap may be assigned a priority that ensures that only the processing elements that need that particular communication protocol are assigned to it. Also, the data transfer rates of the communication protocol may be considered. If RDMA provides higher data transfer rates than using a relational database, RDMA may be assigned a priority to ensure more processing elements are assigned to it rather than the relational database. (emphasis added).
That is, Cradick specifically considers environmental factors such as speed, cost of using the protocol, low cap etc. for ranking different communication protocols. Accordingly, contrary to the Applicant’s assertions, Cradick does not fail to suggest ranking of the communication protocols based on environmental scores. Based on this analysis, and additional support provided in the Cradick and Ishimoto reference, the Examiner maintains his position that the claims are not patentable over the prior art.
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 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 12, 13, 16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cradick et al. (US 20130031263) hereinafter Cradick in view of Ishimoto (US 20070013936).
Regarding claim 1, Cradick teaches a computing system comprising:
a communications module (see Fig. 1 item 120);
a processor coupled to the communications module (see Fig. 2 item 205); and
a first memory coupled to the processor (see Fig. 2 item 225), the first memory storing processor-executable instructions which, when executed, configure the system to:
assign, in a second memory, an environmental score (see [0052]: performance measurements against standards; see also [0053, 57]: operating costs) to each of a plurality of transfer protocol options (see Abstract: Techniques are described for assigning and changing communication protocols for a pair of processing elements. The communication protocol determines how the pair of processing elements transmits data in a stream application. The pair may be assigned a communication protocol (e.g., TCP/IP or a protocol that uses a relational database, shared file system, or shared memory) before the operator graph begins to stream data);
determine a rank for each of the plurality of transfer protocol options based on the environmental scores assigned to the plurality of transfer protocol options (see [0046]: the stream manager 134 may also prioritize different communication protocols—i.e., inter- and intra-nodal communication protocols ... Each protocol may be prioritized based on system limitations, speed, or cost of using the protocol to transmit data ... The stream manager 134 may also consider the cost of implementing or using the communication protocol. If using an intra-nodal communication protocol tends to wear out the associated hardware faster than using an inter-nodal communication protocol, the inter-nodal protocol may be assigned to as many processing elements as feasible; see also Abstract: This assignment may be based on a priority of the processing elements and/or a priority of the communication protocols);
detect an event associated with a first storage location (see [0044]: The performance monitor 327 may use indicators, such as CPU utilization (i.e. event) or buffered stream data 260, to gather performance related data for determining whether to switch a communication protocol; see also [0052]: detecting a high CPU utilization rate in performance data);
in response to detecting the event:
filter the plurality of transfer protocol options to exclude at least a first transfer protocol option having a low rank relative to the rank for each of the plurality of transfer protocols (see [0052]: the performance monitor 327 may instruct the stream manager 134 to switch the communication protocol of the busy processing element to a faster communication protocol); and
generate data identifying at least a second transfer protocol option, the second transfer protocol option having a high rank relative to the rank of each of the plurality of transfer protocols (see [0052]: Switching to a communication protocol with a higher data transfer rate may prevent the buffer from reaching its maximum capacity; see also [0056]: After receiving the instruction from the performance monitor 327, the stream manager 134 may determine if there is another communication protocol available for the underperforming processing element or pair of processing elements … However, if there is a faster communication protocol available, the stream manager 134 may instruct the pair to switch to the faster protocol if the protocol can support the additional processing element without exceeding the system limitations or failing to meet performance standards; see also [0057]: In one embodiment, a processing element may switch communication protocols based on a factor other than performance. The performance monitor 327 may also consider, for example, operating costs or deterioration of hardware components).
However, the invention of Cradick does not explicitly disclose a system wherein:
the generating step comprises generating user interface data identifying at least a second transfer protocol option;
providing the user interface data to a client device associated with the first storage location, the user interface data causing the client device to display a notification identifying at least the second transfer protocol option.
Ishimoto remedies to this deficiency. More specifically, Ishimoto teaches a system in accordance with the claimed invention, the system comprising:
generating user interface data identifying at least a second transfer protocol option (see Figs. 13 and 14 and [0067]: Display examples on the display screen 51 in S22 are shown in FIGS. 13-16. FIG. 13 shows the display screen 51 in the case where the common network configuration information 37 p contains a setup of the protocol of the network layer. Setup change item fields 57 indicating whether IPv6 is used and whether IPv6 is prioritized over IPv4 … FIG. 14 shows the display screen 51 in the case where the common network configuration information 37 p contains a setup of the protocol of the application layer. Priority display fields 53 indicating which protocol is prioritized among HTTP, FTP and SNMP); and
provide the user interface data to a client device associated with the first storage location, the user interface data causing the client device to display a notification identifying at least the second transfer protocol option (Ishimoto – see [0067]: FIG. 13 shows the display screen 51 in the case where the common network configuration information 37 p contains a setup of the protocol of the network layer. Setup change item fields 57 indicating whether IPv6 is used and whether IPv6 is prioritized over IPv4 (i.e. notification of a second transfer protocol option). … FIG. 14 shows the display screen 51 in the case where the common network configuration information 37 p contains a setup of the protocol of the application layer. Priority display fields 53 indicating which protocol is prioritized among HTTP, FTP and SNMP).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Cradick with the teachings of Ishimoto to include generating user interface data identifying at least a second transfer protocol option in order to arrive at the claimed invention. The motivation behind such combination would have been to allow the modified system to provide a GUI option for displaying of the change, therefore allowing the user or administrator to make manual selections to the protocol choice as required.
Regarding claim 2, Cradick in view of Ishimoto is applied as disclosed in claim 1 examined above.
Ishimoto further teaches a system wherein:
detecting the event includes receiving an instruction to display a listing of one or more transfer protocol options, and wherein the system is further caused to provide the user interface data to a client device associated with the first storage location, the user interface data causing the client device to display a user interface that includes a listing of selectable options, the listing of selectable options including at least the second transfer protocol option (see Figs. 13 and 14 and [0067]: Display examples on the display screen 51 in S22 are shown in FIGS. 13-16. FIG. 13 shows the display screen 51 in the case where the common network configuration information 37 p contains a setup of the protocol of the network layer. Setup change item fields 57 indicating whether IPv6 is used and whether IPv6 is prioritized over IPv4 … FIG. 14 shows the display screen 51 in the case where the common network configuration information 37 p contains a setup of the protocol of the application layer. Priority display fields 53 indicating which protocol is prioritized among HTTP, FTP and SNMP).
Regarding claim 5, Cradick in view of Ishimoto is applied as disclosed in claim 1 examined above. The combination of Cradick and Ishimoto teaches a system comprising detecting an event associated with the first storage location. Furthermore, The Cradick-Ishimoto combination teaches a system wherein detecting the event includes receiving an instruction to transfer data resources from the first storage location using the first transfer protocol option (Cradick – see [0020]: Further, if the communication protocol is switching from an inter-nodal protocol to an intra-nodal protocol, one or more of the affected processing elements may migrate to a different compute node; see also [0052]: A high CPU utilization rate (e.g., greater than 90%) may indicate that a processing element or elements associated with the CPU are processing significant amounts of data. Since this processed data is likely to be transmitted to downstream processing elements, the performance monitor 327 may instruct the stream manager 134 to switch the communication protocol of the busy processing element to a faster communication protocol. Similarly, if the data stored in the buffered stream data 260 is increasing rapidly, the associated processing element may be unable to transfer the stored data to a downstream element as fast as the processing element can process the data), and wherein the system is further caused to provide the user interface data to a client device associated with the first storage location, the user interface data causing the client device to display a notification identifying at least the second transfer protocol option (Ishimoto – see [0067]: display screen 51 in Figs. 13 and 14).
Regarding claim 7, Cradick and Ishimoto teaches the limitations of claim 1 as examined above. The combination of Cradick and Ishimoto teaches a system comprising detecting an event associated with the first storage location. Furthermore, The Cradick-Ishimoto combination teaches a system wherein detecting the event includes receiving an instruction to transfer data resources from the first storage location to a second storage location (Cradick - see [0020]: Further, if the communication protocol is switching from an inter-nodal protocol to an intra-nodal protocol, one or more of the affected processing elements may migrate to a different compute node), and wherein the system is further caused to:
provide the user interface data to a client device associated with the storage first location (Ishimoto – see Figs. 13 and 14), and
initiate a transfer of the data resources from the first storage location to the second storage location using the second transfer protocol option, wherein the rank of the second transfer protocol option is equal to one (Craddock – see [0020]: Further, if the communication protocol is switching from an inter-nodal protocol to an intra-nodal protocol, one or more of the affected processing elements may migrate to a different compute node).
Regarding claim 9, Cradick in view of Ishimoto is applied as disclosed in claim 1 examined above. The combination of Cradick and Ishimoto teaches a system comprising detecting an event associated with the first storage location. Furthermore, The Cradick-Ishimoto combination teaches a system wherein detecting the event includes detecting a transfer of data resources from the first storage location using the first transfer protocol option (Cradick - see [0020]: Further, if the communication protocol is switching from an inter-nodal protocol to an intra-nodal protocol, one or more of the affected processing elements may migrate to a different compute node).
Regarding claim 12, Cradick teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
assigning, in a memory, an environmental score (see [0052]: performance measurements against standards; see also [0053, 57]: operating costs) to each of a plurality of transfer protocol options (see Abstract: Techniques are described for assigning and changing communication protocols for a pair of processing elements. The communication protocol determines how the pair of processing elements transmits data in a stream application. The pair may be assigned a communication protocol (e.g., TCP/IP or a protocol that uses a relational database, shared file system, or shared memory) before the operator graph begins to stream data);
determining a rank for each of the plurality of transfer protocol options based on the environmental scores assigned to the plurality of transfer protocol options (see [0046]: the stream manager 134 may also prioritize different communication protocols—i.e., inter- and intra-nodal communication protocols ... Each protocol may be prioritized based on system limitations, speed, or cost of using the protocol to transmit data ... The stream manager 134 may also consider the cost of implementing or using the communication protocol. If using an intra-nodal communication protocol tends to wear out the associated hardware faster than using an inter-nodal communication protocol, the inter-nodal protocol may be assigned to as many processing elements as feasible; see also Abstract: This assignment may be based on a priority of the processing elements and/or a priority of the communication protocols);
detecting an event associated with a first storage location (see [0044]: The performance monitor 327 may use indicators, such as CPU utilization (i.e. event) or buffered stream data 260, to gather performance related data for determining whether to switch a communication protocol; see also [0052]: detecting a high CPU utilization rate in performance data);
in response to detecting the event:
filtering the plurality of transfer protocol options to exclude at least a first transfer protocol option having a low rank relative to the rank for each of the plurality of transfer protocols (see [0052]: the performance monitor 327 may instruct the stream manager 134 to switch the communication protocol of the busy processing element to a faster communication protocol); and
generating data identifying at least a second transfer protocol option, the second transfer protocol option having a high rank relative to the rank of each of the plurality of transfer protocols (see [0052]: Switching to a communication protocol with a higher data transfer rate may prevent the buffer from reaching its maximum capacity; see also [0056]: After receiving the instruction from the performance monitor 327, the stream manager 134 may determine if there is another communication protocol available for the underperforming processing element or pair of processing elements … However, if there is a faster communication protocol available, the stream manager 134 may instruct the pair to switch to the faster protocol if the protocol can support the additional processing element without exceeding the system limitations or failing to meet performance standards; see also [0057]: In one embodiment, a processing element may switch communication protocols based on a factor other than performance. The performance monitor 327 may also consider, for example, operating costs or deterioration of hardware components).
However, the invention of Cradick does not explicitly disclose a method wherein:
the generating step comprises generating user interface data identifying at least a second transfer protocol option;
provide the user interface data to a client device associated with the first storage location, the user interface data causing the client device to display a notification identifying at least the second transfer protocol option.
Ishimoto remedies to this deficiency. More specifically, Ishimoto teaches a computer-implemented method in accordance with the claimed invention, the method comprising:
generating user interface data identifying at least a second transfer protocol option (see Figs. 13 and 14 and [0067]: Display examples on the display screen 51 in S22 are shown in FIGS. 13-16. FIG. 13 shows the display screen 51 in the case where the common network configuration information 37 p contains a setup of the protocol of the network layer. Setup change item fields 57 indicating whether IPv6 is used and whether IPv6 is prioritized over IPv4 … FIG. 14 shows the display screen 51 in the case where the common network configuration information 37 p contains a setup of the protocol of the application layer. Priority display fields 53 indicating which protocol is prioritized among HTTP, FTP and SNMP); and
provide the user interface data to a client device associated with the first storage location, the user interface data causing the client device to display a notification identifying at least the second transfer protocol option (Ishimoto – see [0067]: FIG. 13 shows the display screen 51 in the case where the common network configuration information 37 p contains a setup of the protocol of the network layer. Setup change item fields 57 indicating whether IPv6 is used and whether IPv6 is prioritized over IPv4 (i.e. notification of a second transfer protocol option). … FIG. 14 shows the display screen 51 in the case where the common network configuration information 37 p contains a setup of the protocol of the application layer. Priority display fields 53 indicating which protocol is prioritized among HTTP, FTP and SNMP).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Cradick with the teachings of Ishimoto to include generating user interface data identifying at least a second transfer protocol option in order to arrive at the claimed invention. The motivation behind such combination would have been to allow the modified system to provide a GUI option for displaying of the change, therefore allowing the user or administrator to make manual selections to the protocol choice as required.
Regarding claim 13, it teaches the limitations of claim 2 examined above. Therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applied.
Regarding claim 16, it teaches the limitations of claim 5 examined above. Therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applied
Regarding claim 18, it teaches the limitations of claim 7 examined above. Therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applied.
Regarding claim 20, Cradick teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising processor-executable instructions which, when executed, configure a processor to:
assign, in a memory, an environmental score (see [0052]: performance measurements against standards; see also [0053, 57]: operating costs) to each of a plurality of transfer protocol options (see Abstract: Techniques are described for assigning and changing communication protocols for a pair of processing elements. The communication protocol determines how the pair of processing elements transmits data in a stream application. The pair may be assigned a communication protocol (e.g., TCP/IP or a protocol that uses a relational database, shared file system, or shared memory) before the operator graph begins to stream data);
determine a rank for each of the plurality of transfer protocol options based on the environmental scores assigned to the plurality of transfer protocol options (see [0046]: the stream manager 134 may also prioritize different communication protocols—i.e., inter- and intra-nodal communication protocols ... Each protocol may be prioritized based on system limitations, speed, or cost of using the protocol to transmit data ... The stream manager 134 may also consider the cost of implementing or using the communication protocol. If using an intra-nodal communication protocol tends to wear out the associated hardware faster than using an inter-nodal communication protocol, the inter-nodal protocol may be assigned to as many processing elements as feasible; see also Abstract: This assignment may be based on a priority of the processing elements and/or a priority of the communication protocols);
detect an event associated with a first storage location (see [0044]: The performance monitor 327 may use indicators, such as CPU utilization (i.e. event) or buffered stream data 260, to gather performance related data for determining whether to switch a communication protocol; see also [0052]: detecting a high CPU utilization rate in performance data);
in response to detecting the event:
filter the plurality of transfer protocol options to exclude at least a first transfer protocol option having a low rank relative to the rank for each of the plurality of transfer protocols (see [0052]: the performance monitor 327 may instruct the stream manager 134 to switch the communication protocol of the busy processing element to a faster communication protocol); and
generate data identifying at least a second transfer protocol option, the second transfer protocol option having a relatively high rank (see [0052]: Switching to a communication protocol with a higher data transfer rate may prevent the buffer from reaching its maximum capacity; see also [0056]: After receiving the instruction from the performance monitor 327, the stream manager 134 may determine if there is another communication protocol available for the underperforming processing element or pair of processing elements … However, if there is a faster communication protocol available, the stream manager 134 may instruct the pair to switch to the faster protocol if the protocol can support the additional processing element without exceeding the system limitations or failing to meet performance standards; see also [0057]: In one embodiment, a processing element may switch communication protocols based on a factor other than performance. The performance monitor 327 may also consider, for example, operating costs or deterioration of hardware components).
However, the invention of Cradick does not explicitly disclose a system wherein:
the generating step comprises generating user interface data identifying at least a second transfer protocol option;
provide the user interface data to a client device associated with the first storage location, the user interface data causing the client device to display a notification identifying at least the second transfer protocol option.
Ishimoto remedies to this deficiency. More specifically, Ishimoto teaches a system in accordance with the claimed invention, the system comprising:
generating user interface data identifying at least a second transfer protocol option (see Figs. 13 and 14 and [0067]: Display examples on the display screen 51 in S22 are shown in FIGS. 13-16. FIG. 13 shows the display screen 51 in the case where the common network configuration information 37 p contains a setup of the protocol of the network layer. Setup change item fields 57 indicating whether IPv6 is used and whether IPv6 is prioritized over IPv4 … FIG. 14 shows the display screen 51 in the case where the common network configuration information 37 p contains a setup of the protocol of the application layer. Priority display fields 53 indicating which protocol is prioritized among HTTP, FTP and SNMP); and
provide the user interface data to a client device associated with the first storage location, the user interface data causing the client device to display a notification identifying at least the second transfer protocol option (Ishimoto – see [0067]: FIG. 13 shows the display screen 51 in the case where the common network configuration information 37 p contains a setup of the protocol of the network layer. Setup change item fields 57 indicating whether IPv6 is used and whether IPv6 is prioritized over IPv4 (i.e. notification of a second transfer protocol option). … FIG. 14 shows the display screen 51 in the case where the common network configuration information 37 p contains a setup of the protocol of the application layer. Priority display fields 53 indicating which protocol is prioritized among HTTP, FTP and SNMP).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Cradick with the teachings of Ishimoto to include generating user interface data identifying at least a second transfer protocol option in order to arrive at the claimed invention. The motivation behind such combination would have been to allow the modified system to provide a GUI option for displaying of the change, therefore allowing the user or administrator to make manual selections to the protocol choice as required.
Claims 3, 6, 10, 14, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cradick et al. (US 20130031263) hereinafter Cradick in view of Ishimoto (US 20070013936), in further view of Ekins et al. (US 20210373973) hereinafter Ekins.
Regarding claim 3, Cradick in view of Ishimoto is applied as disclosed in claim 2 examined above. The combination of Cradick and Ishimoto teaches a system wherein detecting the event includes receiving an instruction to display a listing of one or more transfer protocol options on a user interface data to a client device, the user interface including a list of selectable options. Ishimoto further teaches a system wherein the listing of selectable options further includes one or more additional transfer protocol options of the plurality of transfer protocol options (see Fig. 14: HTTP, FTP, SNMP protocols, and wherein the rank of each of the one or more additional transfer protocol options is above a certain threshold; see [0047]: For example, the network configuration may contain a setup wherein a proxy server is used when the communication is executed using HTTP or FTP (see FIG. 15), or the mail server address and the time-out value in the case SMTP (Simple Mail Transfer Protocol) is used). However, the combination of Cradick and Ishimito does not explicitly teach a system wherein the rank of each of the one or more additional transfer protocol options is above a certain threshold.
In the same field of endeavor, Ekins teaches a system in accordance with the claimed invention, the system wherein the rank of each of the one or more additional transfer protocol options is above a certain threshold (see [0336]: Thus, the selected (1902) target execution environment may be selected (1902) as the execution environment (1712 a, 1712 b, 1712 n) having a lowest carbon emission cost (1704) and having an availability meeting or exceeding the availability threshold (1904)).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Cradick-Ishimoto combination reference to include a system wherein the rank of each of the one or more additional transfer protocol options is above a certain threshold as taught in Ekins. This would have been advantageous as it would facilitating meeting service level agreements guaranteeing a particular level of availability of the one or more transfer protocol options during executing of the data transfer, therefore improving the overall system operability and reliability.
Regarding claim 4, Cradick in view of Ishimoto is applied as disclosed in claim 2 examined above. The combination of Cradick and Ishimoto teaches a system wherein detecting the event includes receiving an instruction to display a listing of one or more transfer protocol options on a user interface data to a client device, the user interface including a list of selectable options. However, the combination of Cradick and Ishimoto does not explicitly teach a system wherein prior to detecting the event, the system is further caused to:
determine that the first storage location is associated with a request to suppress, from the listing of selectable options, one or more transfer protocol options having a low environmental score.
In the same field of endeavor, Ekins teaches a system in accordance with the claimed invention, the system wherein prior to detecting the event, the system is further caused to:
determine that the first storage location is associated with a request to suppress, from the listing of selectable options, one or more transfer protocol options having a low environmental score (see [0335]: For example, execution environments (1712 a, 1712 b, 1712 n) whose predicted operating cost exceed a threshold (1904) may be excluded from candidacy. As another example, execution environments (1712 a, 1712 b, 1712 n) whose predicted availability falls below a threshold (1904) may be excluded from candidacy).
Regarding claim 6, Cradick in view of Ishimoto is applied as disclosed in claim 5 as examined above. The Cradick-Ishimoto combination teaches a system wherein detecting the event includes receiving an instruction to transfer data resources from the first storage location using the first transfer protocol option, and wherein the system is further caused to provide the user interface data to a client device associated with the first storage location. Furthermore, Ishimoto teaches a system wherein the notification further identifies one or more additional transfer protocol options of the plurality of transfer protocol options (see Fig. 14: HTTP, FTP, SNMP). However, the combination of Cradick and Ishimoto does not explicitly teach a system wherein the rank of each of the one or more additional transfer protocol options is above a certain threshold.
In the same field of endeavor, Ekins teaches a system in accordance with the claimed invention, the system wherein the rank of each of the one or more additional transfer protocol options is above a certain threshold (see [0336]: Thus, the selected (1902) target execution environment may be selected (1902) as the execution environment (1712 a, 1712 b, 1712 n) having a lowest carbon emission cost (1704) and having an availability meeting or exceeding the availability threshold (1904); see also [0339]: For example, the target execution environment (1712 a) may be selected (2006) as having a highest fitness score (2004). As another example, the target execution environment (1712 a) may be selected (2006) as having a highest fitness score (2004) and satisfying one or more thresholds as described above. Thus, while the target execution environment (1712 a) may be selected (2006) with the carbon emission cost (1704) as a factor in selection, the target execution environment (1712 a) may or may not have the lowest carbon emission cost (1704) due to the other factors used in calculating the fitness scores (2004)).
Regarding claim 10, Cradick in view of Ishimoto is applied as disclosed in claim 1 examined above. The Cradick-Ishimoto combination fails however to explicitly teach a system wherein the environmental score assigned to each of the plurality of transfer protocol options is based upon an expected carbon footprint associated with use of each of the plurality of transfer protocol options.
In the same field of endeavor, Ekins is applied in accordance with the claimed invention, the invention of Ekins suggesting a system wherein the environmental score assigned to each of the plurality of transfer protocol options is based upon an expected carbon footprint associated with use of each of the plurality of transfer protocol options (see [0338]: For example, the fitness score (2004) for a given execution environment (1712 a, 1712 b, 1712 n) may be calculated based on the carbon emission cost (1704) for the given execution environment (1712 a, 1712 b, 1712 n) and one or more other values. Such other values may include, for example, a cost associated with the given execution environment (1712 a, 1712 b, 1712 n), one or more performance metrics associated with the execution environment (1712 a, 1712 b, 1712 n), or other values as can be appreciated. As an example, the fitness score (2004) may be calculated (2002) using a weighted function applied to the carbon emission cost (1704) and the one or more other values).
Regarding claim 11, Cradick in view of Ishimoto, in further view of Ekins is applied as disclosed in claim 10 examined above. Ekins further teaches a system wherein the expected carbon footprint is based upon one or more of an expected number of persons required to effect each of the transfer protocol options, an expected amount of transportation required to effect each of the transfer protocol options, or an expected use of biometric authentication associated with each of the transfer protocol options (see [0318]: the amount of carbon for the carbon emission cost (1704) may be calculated as a function of the emission intensity value and an estimated amount of energy to be used by the particular execution environment (1712 a, 1712 b, 1712 n); see also [0319]: In other words, the amount of energy used in executing the workload (1716), and therefore the carbon emission cost (1704) is calculated based on a projected workload behavior).
Regarding claim 14, it teaches the limitations of claim 3 examined above. Therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applied.
Regarding claim 15, it teaches the limitations of claim 4 examined above. Therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applied.
Regarding claim 17, it teaches the limitations of claim 6 examined above. Therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applied.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cradick et al. (US 20130031263) hereinafter Cradick in view of Ishimoto (US 20070013936), in further view of Aggarwal et al. (US 20190191017) hereinafter Aggarwal.
Regarding claim 8, Cradick in view of Ishimoto is applied as disclosed in claim 7 as examined above. The combination of Cradick and Ishimito teaches a system adapted to provide the user interface data to a client device associated with the storage first location and initiate a transfer of the data resources from the first storage location to the second storage location using the second transfer protocol option. However, the Cradick-Ishimito combination does not explicitly teach a system wherein prior to detecting the event, the system is further caused to:
determine that the first storage location is associated with a request to automatically select, from the plurality of transfer protocol options, a transfer protocol option having a highest rank.
In the same field of endeavor, Aggarwal is applied as disclosed in the claimed invention, the Appel invention suggesting a system wherein prior to detecting the event, the system is further caused to:
determine that the first storage location is associated with a request to automatically select, from the plurality of transfer protocol options, a transfer protocol option having a highest rank (see [0055]: In such examples, protocol selector 304 may be configured to select a first communication protocol among the plurality of communication protocols that has a higher priority. For example, switching device 104 may be able to communicate with a particular one of electronic device(s) 102 using several communication protocols (e.g., IR, RF, HDMI-CEC, and IP), but certain communication protocols (e.g., HDMI-CEC) may be determined to be more reliable than other protocols for certain types of commands).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Aggarwal suggesting a system adapted to determine that the first storage location is associated with a request to automatically select, from the plurality of transfer protocol options, a transfer protocol option having a highest rank into the system of the Cradick-Ishimoto combination in order to arrive at the claimed invention. The motivation for such combination would have been to provide a method for selecting the most suitable communication protocol for executing the data transfer among a plurality of communication protocols, thereby improving operating costs and using network resources efficiently.
Regarding claim 19, it teaches the limitations of claim 8 examined above. Therefore, the same rationale of rejection is applied.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICK F NGANKAM whose telephone number is (571)270-3659. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-7:30.
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, Glenton Burgess can be reached at (571) 272-3949. 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.
/P.F.N/Examiner, Art Unit 2454
/GLENTON B BURGESS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights