DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 § 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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kairali et al. (US PG Pub No. 2023/0409410 A1) in view of He et al. (US Pat No. 10,999,766).
Regarding claim 1, Kairali teaches a method for managing resources of a distributed system, the method comprising:
analyzing the distributed system to attempt to identify a second data processing system that is not overloaded ([0035], wherein “As depicted at 34 in FIG. 3B, the computer task offload program 108A, 108B may identify one or more available computing devices by first continuously and dynamically maintaining a list of computing devices in the collaborative computing environment previously described in FIG. 2 as well as continuously and dynamically detect the computer resources associated with each computing device”);
in an instance of the analyzing where the second data processing system is successfully identified as not being overloaded ([0035]):
identifying a workload hosted by the first data processing system ([0029], wherein “Specifically, at 302, the computer task offload program 108A, 108B may automatically identify an off-loadable computer task/job which may be offloaded from a first computing device to a second computing device from the multiple computing devices”);
offloading the workload to the second data processing system to obtain a workload result ([0029], wherein “Furthermore, according to one embodiment, the off-loadable computer task may include any computer task capable of being offloaded from the first computing device to the second computing device”); and
providing the workload result to the first data processing system to facilitate the timely completion of the data flow ([0029], wherein “Examples of off-loadable computer tasks may include certain types of cron jobs, scheduled jobs, background jobs, backend jobs, data flows, computer threads, and/or any computer task that is not centralized on one computer (i.e. the first computer) such that the computer task can be distributed to one or more computers on a network (such as the second computer).”).
Kairali does not teach monitoring operation of a first data processing system of the distributed system to identify an occurrence of an overload event, the overload event indicating that the first data processing system is likely to fail to timely generate a result required for timely completion of a data flow performed the first data processing system and at least one other component of the distributed system.
He teaches monitoring resource usage for overload conditions in edge computing devices before deciding to offload workloads (abstract; col 2 lines 10-27; col 13 lines 11-25). It is old and well known that overloaded processing systems are likely to fail to timely generate a result. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to identify an occurrence of an overload event. One would be motivated by the desire to perform load balancing such that loads can be migrated to resources that are not overloaded.
Regarding claim 2, Kairali teaches the first data processing system is an edge device that is a member of edge infrastructure of the distributed system ([0029], wherein “According to one embodiment, the first computing device may include a server or edge computing device from the one or more servers 206 (as depicted by cloud data center 206 in FIG. 2) and edge computing devices 202a, 202b, 202c as also previously described in FIG. 2.”).
Regarding claim 3, Kairali teaches the second data processing system is a member of data processing center infrastructure of the distributed system, the edge infrastructure being remote to the processing center infrastructure ([0029], wherein “Furthermore, the second computing device may include a different server or edge computing device from the one or more servers 206 and edge computing devices 202a, 202b, 202c similarly described in FIG. 2 that is different from the first computing device.”).
Regarding claim 4, Kairali teaches the processing center infrastructure comprises a data center in which the second data processing system is located (Fig 2).
Regarding claim 5, He teaches monitoring operation of the first data processing system comprises: identifying a processing resources utilization level for the first data processing system; identifying a memory resources utilization level for the first data processing system; and comparing at least one of the processing resources utilization level for the first data processing system and the memory resources utilization level for the first data processing system to criteria that discriminate overloaded data processing systems to determine whether the first data processing system is overloaded (col 2 lines 22-27, wherein resources comprise processor and memory; col 7 lines 2-11).
Regarding claim 6, He does not teach the processing resources utilization level comprises an average use level of processors of the first data processing system for a period of time.
It is old and well known to calculate an average value over a period of time for resource metrics. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that the processing resources utilization level comprises an average use level of processors of the first data processing system for a period of time. One would be motivated by the desire to smooth out the processor usage level.
Regarding claim 7, He does not teach the memory resources utilization level comprises an average use level of memory of the first data processing system for a period of time.
It is old and well known to calculate an average value over a period of time for resource metrics. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that the memory resources utilization level comprises an average use level of memory of the first data processing system for a period of time. One would be motivated by the desire to smooth out the memory usage level.
Regarding claim 8, Kairali teaches analyzing the distributed system to attempt to identify the second data processing system that is not overloaded comprises: identifying a processing resources utilization level for the second data processing system; identifying a memory resources utilization level for the second data processing system; and comparing at least one of the processing resources utilization level for the second data processing system and the memory resources utilization level for the second data processing system to second criteria that discriminate not overloaded data processing systems to determine whether the second data processing system is not overloaded ([0035], wherein “As depicted at 34 in FIG. 3B, the computer task offload program 108A, 108B may identify one or more available computing devices by first continuously and dynamically maintaining a list of computing devices in the collaborative computing environment previously described in FIG. 2 as well as continuously and dynamically detect the computer resources associated with each computing device”).
Regarding claim 9, He teaches wherein the criteria comprises a first threshold associated with processing resources utilization levels and the second criteria comprises a second threshold associated with processing resources utilization levels (col 7 lines 2-11).
Regarding claim 10, He does not explicitly teach wherein the first threshold is higher than the second threshold, and the second threshold is a maximum threshold while the first threshold is a minimum threshold.
It is old and well known to set minimum and maximum thresholds for determining various triggering conditions such as overload determination. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to set minimum and maximum thresholds. One would be motivated by the desire to define upper and lower limits for the range of monitoring values.
Regarding claims 11-20, the are the medium and system claims of claims 1-5 above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1-5 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC C WAI whose telephone number is (571)270-1012. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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, Aimee Li can be reached at (571) 272-4169. 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.
/Eric C Wai/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195