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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant states: Notably, the claims recite to physically route task processing among distinct hardware devices, which cannot be practically performed in the human mind. Applicant's specification " [0011], [0013] support this improvement, describing that a disruption of task processing may be caused by device low power and/or high heat, and that the described techniques assign task processing to a device having a power availability and/or thermal state adequate to complete the task, as well as load balancing to reduce power consumption by shifting tasks to devices with more power availability. This is clearly an improvement to the functioning of a distributed system, and not simply an abstract mental exercise. Accordingly, Applicant requests that the §101 rejection be withdrawn.
Examiner states: Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “describing that a disruption of task processing may be caused by device low power and/or high heat, and that the described techniques assign task processing to a device having a power availability and/or thermal state adequate to complete the task, as well as load balancing to reduce power consumption by shifting tasks to devices with more power availability”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Limitation directed to routing a task is interpreted as mere data collection. The courts have identified mere data gathering is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d) (Ex. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;)”.
Further arguments directed to the other dependent claims have been addressed above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent claims the limitation selects a device, as drafted, recites functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a function that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitations as cited above as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process.
Thus, these limitation falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional limitations: processor, hardware, devices, battery. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f), and steps of receiving, obtaining, providing do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of processor, hardware, devices, battery, amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. Furthermore, the limitations directed to receiving and obtaining the courts have identified mere data gathering is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d) (Ex. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;) and the limitation directed to providing the task is an insignificant extra solution activity.
The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and mere data gathering do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 7, 16 the limitations of filtering and identifying are functions that can be reasonably performed in the human mind, thus, additional mental process defined in the claims. The claim does not include any additional element, thus, no limitation that needs to be analyzed under prong 2 for practical application, or under step 2B for significantly more.
Regarding claim 2-4, 6, 11-13, 15 the limitation of what a power state comprises, what a thermal state indicates are considered mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. Accordingly, the additional element recited in claim 3 fails to provide a practical application under prong 2, or amount to significantly more under step 2B.
Regarding claim 5, 8, 9, 14, 17, 18, 20 the limitations of obtaining, receiving, providing information, processing a task, obtaining state information, are nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity which is not a practical application under prong 2. Under step 2B, the courts of identified the generic function of gathering/storing data, the results of the judicial exception, is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
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.
Claim/s 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLean (Pub. No. US 2022/0318073) in view of Das (Pub. No. US 2014/0173036).
Claim 1, 10, 19 McLean teaches “A method, comprising: receiving, from a task-source device, a task processing request to process a task ([0020] A workload may be submitted by a client device in the form of a workload request transmitted over a network from the client device to a composer, such as a management server running an application that manages the composable computing system.); obtaining a power availability state for each device in a distributed system of devices ([0050] FIG. 6 is flowchart of operations 150 for composing hardware resources to form a computing subsystem to perform a first workload having a power domain requirement in accordance with some embodiments. Operation 152 includes accessing a system resource database including, for each of a plurality of disaggregated computing hardware resources within a composable computing system, data corresponding to hardware characteristics that describe the disaggregated computing hardware resource and one or more power domain characteristic of a power domain that supplies power to the disaggregated computing hardware resource. [0045] In the table 93, one example of a workload type or context is a financial transaction, which could be simply designated by a tag with a value of (1). The power domain requirements associated with the financial transactions workload type includes separate power domain requirements for storage, compute and memory resources. In this example, the power domain requirements for the data storage resources include N+N redundant power supplies, an uninterruptible power supply, and greater than 25% available power capacity; the power domain requirements for the compute resources include N+1 redundant power supplies, and greater than 25% available power capacity; and the power domain requirements for the memory resources include N+N redundant power supplies, an uninterruptible power supply, and greater than 50% available power capacity.); selecting, based at least in part on the power availability state for each device, a task-target device from the distributed system of the devices; and providing, to the task-target device, at least a portion of the task for processing by the task-target device ([0050] Operation 158 includes selecting a subset of the disaggregated computing hardware resources to be included in a first computing subsystem for performance of the first workload, wherein each of the disaggregated computing hardware resources selected to be included in the first computing subsystem complies with the identified power domain requirement for the first workload. Operation 160 includes provisioning of the first computing subsystem. Finally, operation 162 includes assigning the first computing subsystem to perform the first workload. [0036; See composer interpreted as task processing manager for Claim 19] FIG. 1 is a diagram of a composable computer system 10 including a composer 20 that may implement some embodiments. The composable computer system 10 may further include various disaggregated computing hardware resources, including compute resources 30, storage resources 40, memory resources 50, and interconnect and network resources 60. For example, the composer 20 may take the form of a management server 22 including a central processing unit or processor 24, a network adapter 25 to facilitate communication over the system network 12, and memory 26. The memory 26 may store a composer application 27 that include program instructions that, when executed by the processor 24, cause the processor to perform various operations that implement one or more embodiments described herein. The memory 26 may further store or otherwise access a system resource database 28 that stores data corresponding to hardware characteristics for each of the other resources in the composable computer system 10.)”.
However, McLean may not explicitly teach the new limitation.
Das teaches “the power availability state of each device indicating at least one of a battery power level of a device battery of a respective device ([0036] The service module 203 may be implemented as software or firmware, i.e. "code" or "executable instructions" for execution by one or more processors and that may be stored in a non-transitory, non-volatile memory. The service modules run on the respective devices as a background service and provide periodic device context activity information updates, and possibly other updates and information, to peer devices, to the NaaS cloud based PAN service 101 or to both. For example, the periodic updates may include "status" such as battery power level, location information, etc. ), or whether the respective device is powered by the device battery or by an external power source.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Das with the teachings of McLean in order to provide a system that teaches details of power information. The motivation for applying Das teaching with McLean teaching is to provide a system that allows for improved design choice. McLean, Das are analogous art directed towards distributed task processing. Together McLean, Das teaches every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Das with the teachings of McLean by known methods before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and gained expected results.
Claim 2, 11, the combination teaches the claim, wherein McLean teaches “the method of claim 1, wherein the power availability state of the task-target device indicates that the task-target device is connected for unlimited power ([0019] In one example, redundancy within a power domain supplying power to a power-consuming device may increase a power robustness level of the power domain hardware because one or more hardware components of the power domain may fail without a loss of power to the power-consuming device. In another example, a battery backup or uninterruptible power supply (UPS) coupled to a power-consuming device may increase a power robustness level of the power domain hardware because an upstream supply of power may fail, or be temporarily interrupted, without a loss of power to the power-consuming device.)”.
Claim 4, 13, the combination teaches the claim, wherein McLean teaches “the method of claim 1, wherein the power availability state of the task-target device indicates that the task-target device has a power capacity to perform at least the portion of the task for the processing ([0050] Operation 158 includes selecting a subset of the disaggregated computing hardware resources to be included in a first computing subsystem for performance of the first workload, wherein each of the disaggregated computing hardware resources selected to be included in the first computing subsystem complies with the identified power domain requirement for the first workload. Operation 160 includes provisioning of the first computing subsystem. Finally, operation 162 includes assigning the first computing subsystem to perform the first workload.)”.
Claim 5, 14, the combination teaches the claim, wherein McLean teaches “the method of claim 1, further comprising: obtaining a thermal state for each of the devices in the distributed system of the devices, and the task-target device is selected based at least in part on the thermal state of the task-target device ([0028] In a further option, the identified power domain requirement requires that, for each of the disaggregated computing hardware resources selected to be included in the first computing subsystem for performance of the first workload, the power domain supplying power to the disaggregated computing hardware resource includes only devices that are operating below a predetermined thermal limit for each of the devices.)”.
Claim 7, 16, the combination teaches the claim, wherein McLean teaches “the method of claim 1, further comprising: filtering, based at least in part on task resource requirements of the task, the distributed system of the devices to identify a subset of the devices that are operable to process the task, and the task-target device is selected from the subset of the devices device ([0050] Operation 158 includes selecting a subset of the disaggregated computing hardware resources to be included in a first computing subsystem for performance of the first workload, wherein each of the disaggregated computing hardware resources selected to be included in the first computing subsystem complies with the identified power domain requirement for the first workload. Operation 160 includes provisioning of the first computing subsystem. Finally, operation 162 includes assigning the first computing subsystem to perform the first workload.)”.
Claim/s 3, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLean, Das in view of Catalano (Pat. No. US 9,996,397).
Claim 3, 12 the combination may not explicitly teach the limitations of the claim.
Catalano teaches “the method of claim 1, wherein the power availability state of the task-target device indicates that a battery level of the task-target device exceeds a reference battery level ([Col. 17, Line 48-60] In those embodiments having the charge distribution unit 130, the battery signal data 109 (i.e., the battery level usage data and usage pattern data) may also be input into the computing device 125 along with the various different function signals 107. These input data signals 107, 109 may be used together to ensure one or more devices, alone or in combination, have enough battery power to carryout or perform a desired function(s) or task. That is, the above described methods, systems and apparatus for allocating, monitoring, and maintaining a controlled distribution of battery power to each device ensure that sufficient battery power is available for optimal and complete performance of the function or task to be full-filled.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Catalano with the teachings of McLean, Das in order to provide a system that teaches details of different power domains. The motivation for applying Catalano teaching with McLean, Das teaching is to provide a system that allows for improved design choice. McLean, Das, Catalano are analogous art directed towards distributed task processing. Together McLean, Das, Catalano teaches every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Catalano with the teachings of McLean, Das by known methods before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and gained expected results.
Claim/s 6, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLean, Das in view of Park (Pub. No. US 2015/0046685).
Claim 6, 15 the combination may not explicitly teach the limitation.
Park teaches “the method of claim 5, wherein the thermal state of the task-target device indicates that at least one of a battery temperature or a processor temperature is below a reference temperature ([Abstract] When a temperature reading of the processor cores is below a threshold, a set of processor cores may be selected to provide the lowest power consumption for the given workload. When the temperature reading of the processor cores is above the threshold, a set processor cores may be selected to provide the best performance for a given power budget.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Park with the teachings of McLean, Das in order to provide a system that teaches details of different power domains. The motivation for applying Park teaching with McLean, Das teaching is to provide a system that allows for improved design choice. McLean, Das, Park are analogous art directed towards distributed task processing. Together McLean, Das, Park teaches every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Park with the teachings of McLean, Das by known methods before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and gained expected results.
Claim/s 8, 17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLean, Das in view of Raj (Pub. No. US 2018/0143851).
Claim 8, 17, 20 the combination may not explicitly teach the limitation.
Raj teaches The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a task result from the task-target device; and providing the task result to the task-source device ([0033] A workload agent 120, such as workload agent 120A, may receive a job assignment from the scheduling agent 100, perform the job, and return a result of the job to the scheduling agent 100, or alternatively to the client application 110 that requested the job.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Raj with the teachings of McLean, Das in order to provide a system that teaches details of processing workloads. The motivation for applying Raj teaching with McLean, Das teaching is to provide a system that allows for improved design choice. McLean, Das, Raj are analogous art directed towards distributed task processing. Together McLean, Das, Raj teaches every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Raj with the teachings of McLean, Das by known methods before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and gained expected results.
Claim/s 9, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McLean, Das in view of Ernest (Pub. No. US 2006/0149576).
Claim 9, 18 the combination may not explicitly teach the limitation.
Ernest teaches “the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a first task result from the task-target device that processes at least the portion of the task; processing a remainder portion of the task to produce a second task result; and providing the first task result and the second task result to the task-source device ([0058] Grid scheduler service 408 may also coordinate the collection and return of a result or response to a grid job. In one example, when grid scheduler service 408 receives a batch grid job, grid scheduler service 408 may accumulate all the results of the batch job and return the results to client system 200 or other systems. In another example, when grid scheduler service 408 receives a transaction processing grid job, grid scheduler service 408 may quickly return responses to client system 200.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Ernest with the teachings of McLean, Das in order to provide a system that teaches details of processing workloads. The motivation for applying Ernest teaching with McLean teaching is to provide a system that allows for improved design choice. McLean, Das, Ernest are analogous art directed towards distributed task processing. Together McLean, Das, Ernest teaches every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Ernest with the teachings of McLean, Das by known methods before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and gained expected results.
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 WYNUEL S AQUINO whose telephone number is (571)272-7478. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached at 571-272-3759. 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.
/WYNUEL S AQUINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights