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
This non-final Office action is in response to applicant’s communication received on April 01, 2026, wherein claims 1-8 are currently pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on April 22, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are geared towards the newly amended claims with newly added limitations. The newly amended claims and the newly added limitations/terms are considered and fully addressed for the first time in the rejection below.
35 USC §101 discussion:
The newly added limitation do not help overcome the §101 rejection presented in the previous Office action. The newly added limitations only state obtaining abstract information based on more abstract information (“guaranteed resource and a target resource profile”). The claims are directed to the idea of resource management (e.g. reduce resource contention or resource interference). Other limitations, for example, “wherein the target resource level is one of a plurality of resource levels including a preset highest resource level and a preset lowest resource level” is abstract in nature as it discusses levels compared to plurality of levels and discusses highest and lowest levels (which are preset). This is just stating and determining abstract information/data in determining a target level (abstract information). Similar most limitations describing the core concepts (rejection below addresses this) of Applicant’s claims are abstract in nature and the claim as a whole is an abstract idea (resource management). There is nothing technical shown and nor is there any improvement to any technology or technical environment shown. The core concept also discusses the deploying of resources step where the Applicant states the method for deploying resources comprises “adjusting” various resources “to reduce resource contention or resource interference.” The main concept claimed here is deploying resources to reduce contention or interference – which is an abstract concept as sending and adjusting resources to reduce contention/interference, in Applicant’s claims, shows no improvement in technology or any improvement in a technical environment. In fact, Applicant does even have any technical steps or any definition or description of resource contention and resource interference in the original disclosure/specification and the only mention of resource contention and resource interference is on para. 0002 of the specification (in “Background” section) which states “problems such as resource contention and resource interference are prone to occur between the business services.” The Applicant states processing devices as something resource management it used for, but the claimed concept itself is the management of resources and not towards devices. Although, Applicant’s concept is within a context of collocating business services and data centers, the main concept is abstract as in it is heavily geared towards determining resource management and locating/co-locating business services and the steps used int eh claims are all using obtained information and analyzing this information (with also comparing information, manipulating abstract type information, and heavily using mathematical concepts). The newly added additionally elements are all generic/general-purpose computing/technical elements/components/etc., (e.g. “device,” “computing,” “memory,” “dynamically,” and “processing devices”) and are either just mentioned in the abstract and/or are used in an ”apply-it” fashion. The focus of the claims is simply to use computers and a familiar network as a tool to perform abstract processes involving simple information exchange. Carrying out abstract processes organizing human activities involving information exchange is an abstract idea. See, e.g., BSG, 899 F.3d at 1286; SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167-68; Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1261-62 (Fed. Cir. 2016). And use of standard computers and networks to carry out those functions—more speedily, more efficiently, more reliably—does not make the claims any less directed to that abstract idea. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 222-25; Customedia, 951 F.3d at 1364; Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019); SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
As stated before, in the previous Office action, independent claims (1, 7, 8) and dependent claims (2-6) recite obtaining/accessing/etc., information/data (where the information itself is non-technical and abstract in nature – e.g. resource levels of a business, schedules, deployment information, profile, time information, usage information, etc.,), data analysis and manipulation to determine more data (including, among others, comparing information, organizing information, applying mental processes of observation/judgement, using mathematical concepts (levels determinations and use in evaluations, volume/amount, determinations based on usage (summing, etc.,), timings, etc.,) to determine more information to use, etc.,), and providing/displaying this determined data for further analysis/manipulation and/or decision-making steps. The claimed invention further uses mathematical steps (as discussed above) to analyze and determine further data. The limitations of independent claims (1, 7, 8) and dependent claims (2-6), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity ((business/commercial interactions – business relations in providing businesses resources), and mathematical concepts (levels determinations and use in evaluations, volume/amount, determinations based on usage (summing, etc.,), timings, etc.,). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because but for the recitation of, for example, processing devices, etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-6); computing device, processors, memories, processing devices, etc., (in independent claim 7); and non-transitory computer readable storage medium, processors, computing devices, processing devices, etc., (independent claim 8) in the context of the independent claims (1, 7, 8) and dependent claims (2-6), the claims encompass the above stated abstract idea (organizing human activity ((business/commercial interactions – business relations in providing businesses resources), and mathematical concepts (levels determinations and use in evaluations, volume/amount, determinations based on usage (summing, etc.,), timings, etc.,)). As shown above, the claims and specification recite generic/general-purpose computers and computing elements/components/devices/etc., which are recited at a high level of generality performing generic computer functions. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, page 53-55). The generic/general-purpose computers and computing elements/components/devices/etc., limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (the above abstract idea) in an apply-it fashion using generic/general-purpose computers, processors, and/or computer components/elements/ devices, etc.
Prior art discussion (also see the rejection below):
The newly amended claims and the newly added limitations/terms are considered and fully addressed for the first time in the rejection below.
Applicant states that Morris does not disclose, in the amended claims, obtaining a "target schedulable resource" based on a "guaranteed resource" and a "target resource profile" corresponding to a target resource level. Morris states in co. 1, lines 17-63 “managing resources to bring about the successful completion of a project with respect to specific project goals and objectives…resource availability...objective (hard) constraints (available resources (guaranteed resources)) and subjective (soft) constraints (e.g., specified named resources to work on projects, tolerances in delivering on all projects and meeting the required resourcing levels (e.g. target resources and target levels – also see citations above)).” Morris further states in col. 4, lines 15-19 that “resources can include one or more computer resources,” and in col. 6, line 25-33 that “resource information can represent…physical resource (e.g. computer resources).” In col. 7, lines 25-30 Morris discloses “define what resources are required for the successful completion of a project…can define a minimum or maximum number of resources required (target)]]; col. 2, lines 4-8 [project portfolios…allocate resources to projects in a portfolio using project-level constraints and then determine optimized project portfolio allocation scenario(s) that satisfy one or more optimization criteria associated with the portfolio…resource…schedule]; col. 4, lines 35-61 [allocating resources to project portfolios subject to project-level constraints and generating optimized scenarios that satisfy specific optimization criteria…resource allocation…business constraints; with col. 4, lines 15-19 [resources can include one or more computer resources], col. 6, line 25-33 [resource information can represent…physical resource (e.g. computer resources)]; see further with col. 6, lines 57-63 [resource is available for use and not assigned to other projects or due for maintenance (guaranteed resource)] and col. 7, lines 25-30 [define what resources are required for the successful completion of a project…can define a minimum or maximum number of resources required (target)]]; col. 13, line 54 – col. 14, line 36 [optimizing…satisfying…level…criteria…maximizes…resources…critical…level… minimum and/or a maximum level of resource]; col. 16, line 63 – col. 17, line 39 [discusses processing devices; and also see with col. 3, line 16 – col. 4, line 15 [regarding computing/processing devices]]; col. 22, lines 9-16 [projects…resource(s)…satisfy…total …level of resource demand – see with col. 23, lines 60-64 [[p]roject…scheduled with…resources required to address the incident levels (target)].” Therefore, Morris indeed discloses obtaining a "target schedulable resource" based on a "guaranteed resource" and a "target resource profile" corresponding to a target resource level (see detailed rejection below addressing the full limitations).
As it was stated in the previous rejection, analogous art Senarath discloses wherein the target resource level is one of a plurality of resource levels including a preset highest resource level and a preset lowest resource level (¶¶ 0151-0152 [measuring an experienced service level against a pre-determined metric, and provide QoE feedback information to the network…closed-loop management may be operative to reduce at least one QoS level within a network slice until at least one QoE feedback falls to, or meets, a QoE feedback target threshold level. In some aspects the closed-loop management may be operative to increase at least one QoS level within a network slice until at least one QoE feedback rises to, or meets, a QoE feedback minimum threshold level…operative to minimize network resources expended to meet a target feedback threshold level, and/or to increase network resources expended in order to meet the QoE minimum threshold level ;see with 0143-0147 [resource assignment… virtual network nodes/virtual functions using the network infrastructure…VN operation… virtual network nodes/virtual functions using the network infrastructure…evaluating QoE on the VN to meet rate assurances…monitoring elements and/or charging elements may be co-located with the virtual service-specific/user-specific serving gateways (v-s/u-SGWs)] and 0134-0137]); and determined method for deploying the device resources comprising: dynamically adjusting at least one of the computing resource or the memory resource associated with the one or more processing devices to reduce resource contention or resource interference among the one or more processing devices (¶¶ 0134-0137 [series of virtual network components that can be adjusted in response to dynamic feedback…can be adjusted to provide the needed QoE, and to ensure that resources are not being unnecessarily deployed…adjustment of virtual elements can include scaling out, scaling in, scaling up and scaling down (creating new virtual elements, removing virtual elements, increasing the resources allocated to an element, and reducing the resources allocated to an element respectively)…overall network cannot provide the desired QoE for any of the virtual networks, due to the resource usage by other virtual networks, adjustments can be made to any or all of the networks that are not using their allocated resources so that all customers receive a level of service that best approximates their needs]). Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Morris wherein the target resource level is one of a plurality of resource levels including a preset highest resource level and a preset lowest resource level; and the determined method for deploying the device resources comprising: dynamically adjusting at least one of the computing resource or the memory resource associated with the one or more processing devices to reduce resource contention or resource interference among the one or more processing devices as taught by analogous art Senarath in order to efficiently and optimally manage resources since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (KSR-G/TSM); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Senarath would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
Thus, Morris in view of Senarath indeed discloses "dynamically adjusting at least one of the computing resource or the memory resource associated with the one or more processing devices to reduce resource contention or resource interference among the one or more processing devices."
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Note: The above §101 discussion under the “Response to Arguments” section is fully incorporated under this rejection and should be considered part of this rejection as well.
Regarding Step 1 (MPEP 2106.03) of the subject matter eligibility test per MPEP 2106.03, Claims 1-6 are directed to a method (i.e., process), claim 7 is directed to a device (i.e. machine), and claim 8 is directed to non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (i.e. product or article of manufacture). Accordingly, all claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
(Under Step 2) The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Under Step 2A, Prong 1 (MPEP 2106.04)) The independent claims (1, 7, 8) and dependent claims (2-6) recite obtaining/accessing/etc., information/data (where the information itself is non-technical and abstract in nature – e.g. resource levels of a business, schedules, deployment information, profile, time information, usage information, etc.,), data analysis and manipulation to determine more data (including, among others, comparing information, organizing information, applying mental processes of observation/judgement, using mathematical concepts (levels determinations and use in evaluations, volume/amount, determinations based on usage (summing, etc.,), timings, etc.,) to determine more information to use, etc.,), and providing/displaying this determined data for further analysis/manipulation and/or decision-making steps. The claimed invention further uses mathematical steps (as discussed above) to analyze and determine further data. The limitations of independent claims (1, 7, 8) and dependent claims (2-6), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity ((business/commercial interactions – business relations in providing businesses resources), and mathematical concepts (levels determinations and use in evaluations, volume/amount, determinations based on usage (summing, etc.,), timings, etc.,). If a claims limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including scheduling, social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), then it falls within the “organizing human activities” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57). If a claims limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations then it falls within the Mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance - Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57).
Accordingly, since Applicant's claims fall under mathematical concepts grouping and organizing human activities grouping, the claims recite an abstract idea.
(Under Step 2A, prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d))) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because but for the recitation of, for example, devices, processing devices, computing, memory, dynamically (no details shown), etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-6); computing devices, processors, memories, computing, dynamically (no details shown), processing devices, etc., (in independent claim 7); and non-transitory computer readable storage medium, processors, computing devices, memories, processing devices, computing, dynamically (no details shown), etc., (independent claim 8) in the context of the independent claims (1, 7, 8) and dependent claims (2-6) (hereinafter generic/general-purpose computers and computing elements/components/devices/etc., or additional elements), the claims encompass the above stated abstract idea (organizing human activity ((business/commercial interactions – business relations in providing businesses resources), and mathematical concepts (levels determinations and use in evaluations, volume/amount, determinations based on usage (summing, etc.,), timings, etc.,)). As shown above, the claims and specification recite generic/general-purpose computers and computing elements/components/devices/etc. (for example, devices, processing devices, computing, memory, dynamically (no details shown), etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-6); computing devices, processors, memories, computing, dynamically (no details shown), processing devices, etc., (in independent claim 7); and non-transitory computer readable storage medium, processors, computing devices, memories, processing devices, computing, dynamically (no details shown), etc., (independent claim 8)) in the context of the independent claims (1, 7, 8) and dependent claims (2-6), which are recited at a high level of generality performing generic computer functions. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, page 53-55). The generic/general-purpose computers and computing elements/components/devices/etc., limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (the above abstract idea) in an apply-it fashion using generic/general-purpose computers, processors, and/or computer components/elements/devices, etc. (for example, devices, processing devices, computing, memory, dynamically (no details shown), etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-6); computing devices, processors, memories, computing, dynamically (no details shown), processing devices, etc., (in independent claim 7); and non-transitory computer readable storage medium, processors, computing devices, memories, processing devices, computing, dynamically (no details shown), etc., (independent claim 8)). The CAFC has stated that it is not enough, however, to merely improve abstract processes by invoking a computer merely as a tool.. Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The focus of the claims is simply to use computers and a familiar network as a tool to perform abstract processes involving simple information exchange. Carrying out abstract processes organizing human activities involving information exchange is an abstract idea. See, e.g., BSG, 899 F.3d at 1286; SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167-68; Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1261-62 (Fed. Cir. 2016). And use of standard computers and networks to carry out those functions—more speedily, more efficiently, more reliably—does not make the claims any less directed to that abstract idea. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 222-25; Customedia, 951 F.3d at 1364; Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019); SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities.
(Under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05)) The independent claims (1, 7, 8) and dependent claims (2-6) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The claims recite using known and/or generic/general-purpose computers and computing elements/components/devices/etc., and software (for example, devices, processing devices, computing, memory, dynamically (no details shown), etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-6); computing devices, processors, memories, computing, dynamically (no details shown), processing devices, etc., (in independent claim 7); and non-transitory computer readable storage medium, processors, computing devices, memories, processing devices, computing, dynamically (no details shown), etc., (independent claim 8)). For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of "well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry." Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014), at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). These activities as claimed by the Applicant are all well-known and routine tasks in the field of art – as can been seen in the specification of Applicant’s application (for example, see Applicant’s specification at, for example, fig.1, ¶¶ 0124 [general-purpose/generic computers/processors/etc., and generic/general-purpose computing components/devices/etc., (see also 0126-0127 [e.g. general-purpose processor])], 0032-0132-0135 [general-purpose/generic computers/processors/etc., and generic/general-purpose computing components/devices/etc.,]) and/or the specification of the below cited art (used in the rejection below and on the PTO-892) and/or also as noted in the court cases in §2106.05 in the MPEP. Further, "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice at 2358. None of the hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Adding generic computer components to perform generic functions that are well‐understood, routine and conventional, such as gathering data, performing calculations, and outputting a result would not transform the claim into eligible subject matter. Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might impede innovation more than it would promote it. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Applicant is directed to the following citations and references: Digitech Image., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc.(U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415); and (2) Federal register/Vol. 79, No 241 issued on December 16, 2014, page 74629, column 2, Gottschalk v. Benson. Viewed as a whole, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014).
The dependent claims further define the independent claims and merely narrow the described abstract idea, but not adding significantly more than the abstract idea. The above rejection includes and details the discussion of dependent claims and the above rejection applies to all the dependent claim limitations. In summary, the dependent claims further state using obtained data/information (where the information itself is abstract in nature), data analysis and manipulation to determine more data (including, among others, comparing information, organizing information, applying mental processes of observation/judgement, using mathematical concepts (levels determinations and use in evaluations, volume/amount, determinations based on usage (summing, etc.,), timings, etc.,) to determine more information to use, etc.,), and providing/displaying this determined data for further analysis/manipulation and/or decision-making steps. The claimed invention further uses mathematical steps (as discussed above) to analyze and determine further data. These claims are directed towards organizing human activity ((business/commercial interactions – business relations in providing businesses resources), and mathematical concepts (levels determinations and use in evaluations, volume/amount, determinations based on usage (summing, etc.,), timings, etc.,). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims and specification recite generic components (for example, devices, processing devices, computing, memory, dynamically (no details shown), etc., (in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-6); computing devices, processors, memories, computing, dynamically (no details shown), processing devices, etc., (in independent claim 7); and non-transitory computer readable storage medium, processors, computing devices, memories, processing devices, computing, dynamically (no details shown), etc., (independent claim 8) in the context of the independent claims (1, 7, 8) and dependent claims (2-6)) which are recited at a high level of generality performing generic/general-purpose computer functions. (MPEP 2106.04 and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, page 53-55). The dependent claims also merely recites post-solution/extra-solution activities (with generic/general-purpose computers and/or computing components/devices/etc.,). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities. The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea without adding any new additional elements. Also, the dependent claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the juridical exception because the additional elements either individually or in combination are merely an extension of the abstract idea itself. See detailed rejection and discussion above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris et al., (US 7,991,632) in view of Senarath et al., (US 2016/0352924).
As per claim 1, Anderson discloses a method for colocation device resources for of a plurality of business services including a computing resource and a memory resource, (fig. 2 [see with col 16, line 63 – col. 18, line 51 [shows network, component, modules, etc., (colocation) where there are plurality of business services]]; col. 25, lines 34-47 [cloud computing and network (type of colocation); see with col. 4, lines 15-19 [resources can include one or more computer resources]]), wherein the method comprises:
for one of the device resources (col. 4, lines 15-19 [resources can include one or more computer resources]):
determining a target resource level corresponding to the device resources for the business service (co. 1, lines 17-31 [managing resources to bring about the successful completion of a project with respect to specific project goals and objectives…resource availability]; col. 1, lines 56-64 [account both objective (hard) constraints (e.g., available resources, required start/end dates, risk, criticality, cost and return on investment weightings, etc.) and subjective (soft) constraints (e.g., specified named resources to work on projects, tolerances in delivering on all projects and meeting the required resourcing levels, etc.) to ensure that any outcome is fully aligned with the needs of the business]; col. 2, lines 4-8 [project portfolios…allocate resources to projects in a portfolio using project-level constraints and then determine optimized project portfolio allocation scenario(s) that satisfy one or more optimization criteria associated with the portfolio…resource…schedule]; col. 4, lines 35-61 [allocating resources to project portfolios subject to project-level constraints and generating optimized scenarios that satisfy specific optimization criteria…resource allocation…business constraints]; col. 13, line 54 – col. 14, line 36 [optimizing…satisfying…level…criteria…maximizes…resources…critical…level… minimum and/or a maximum level of resource]; col. 22, lines 9-16 [projects…resource(s)…satisfy…total …level of resource demand – see with col. 23, lines 60-64 [[p]roject…scheduled with…resources required to address the incident levels (target)]]);
obtaining a target schedulable resource of each of one or more processing devices based on a guaranteed resource and a target resource profile of the one or more processing devices corresponding to the target resource level, wherein the target schedulable resource is a schedulable resource corresponding to the target resource level; when the target schedulable resource of the one or more processing devices satisfies a deployment condition resource (e.g. computer resources)]; see further with col. 6, lines 57-63 [resource is available for use and not assigned to other projects or due for maintenance (guaranteed resource)] and col. 7, lines 25-30 [define what resources are required for the successful completion of a project…can define a minimum or maximum number of resources required (target)]]; col. 2, lines 4-8 [project portfolios…allocate resources to projects in a portfolio using project-level constraints and then determine optimized project portfolio allocation scenario(s) that satisfy one or more optimization criteria associated with the portfolio…resource…schedule]; col. 4, lines 35-61 [allocating resources to project portfolios subject to project-level constraints and generating optimized scenarios that satisfy specific optimization criteria…resource allocation…business constraints; with col. 4, lines 15-19 [resources can include one or more computer resources], col. 6, line 25-33 [resource information can represent…physical resource (e.g. computer resources)]; see further with col. 6, lines 57-63 [resource is available for use and not assigned to other projects or due for maintenance (guaranteed resource)] and col. 7, lines 25-30 [define what resources are required for the successful completion of a project…can define a minimum or maximum number of resources required (target)]]; col. 13, line 54 – col. 14, line 36 [optimizing…satisfying…level…criteria…maximizes…resources…critical…level… minimum and/or a maximum level of resource]; col. 16, line 63 – col. 17, line 39 [discusses processing devices; and also see with col. 3, line 16 – col. 4, line 15 [regarding computing/processing devices]]; col. 22, lines 9-16 [projects…resource(s)…satisfy…total …level of resource demand – see with col. 23, lines 60-64 [[p]roject…scheduled with…resources required to address the incident levels (target)]]; see also col. 1, lines 55-63 [objective (hard) constraints (available resources (guaranteed resources)) and subjective (soft) constraints (e.g., specified named resources to work on projects, tolerances in delivering on all projects and meeting the required resourcing levels (e.g. target resources and target levels – also see citations above)); with col. 6, line 25-33 [resource information can represent…physical resource (e.g. computer resources)], col. 7, lines 25-30 [define what resources are required for the successful completion of a project…can define a minimum or maximum number of resources required (target)]]).
Morris does not explicitly state wherein the target resource level is one of a plurality of resource levels including a preset highest resource level and a preset lowest resource level; and wherein the deploying the device resources comprises: dynamically adjusting at least one of the computing resource or the memory resource associated with the one or more processing devices to reduce resource contention or resource interference among the one or more processing devices.
Analogous art Senarath discloses wherein the target resource level is one of a plurality of resource levels including a preset highest resource level and a preset lowest resource level (¶¶ 0151-0152 [measuring an experienced service level against a pre-determined metric, and provide QoE feedback information to the network…closed-loop management may be operative to reduce at least one QoS level within a network slice until at least one QoE feedback falls to, or meets, a QoE feedback target threshold level. In some aspects the closed-loop management may be operative to increase at least one QoS level within a network slice until at least one QoE feedback rises to, or meets, a QoE feedback minimum threshold level…operative to minimize network resources expended to meet a target feedback threshold level, and/or to increase network resources expended in order to meet the QoE minimum threshold level ;see with 0143-0147 [resource assignment… virtual network nodes/virtual functions using the network infrastructure…VN operation… virtual network nodes/virtual functions using the network infrastructure…evaluating QoE on the VN to meet rate assurances…monitoring elements and/or charging elements may be co-located with the virtual service-specific/user-specific serving gateways (v-s/u-SGWs)] and 0134-0137]); and
determined method for deploying the device resources comprising: dynamically adjusting at least one of the computing resource or the memory resource associated with the one or more processing devices to reduce resource contention or resource interference among the one or more processing devices (¶¶ 0134-0137 [series of virtual network components that can be adjusted in response to dynamic feedback…can be adjusted to provide the needed QoE, and to ensure that resources are not being unnecessarily deployed…adjustment of virtual elements can include scaling out, scaling in, scaling up and scaling down (creating new virtual elements, removing virtual elements, increasing the resources allocated to an element, and reducing the resources allocated to an element respectively)…overall network cannot provide the desired QoE for any of the virtual networks, due to the resource usage by other virtual networks, adjustments can be made to any or all of the networks that are not using their allocated resources so that all customers receive a level of service that best approximates their needs]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Morris wherein the target resource level is one of a plurality of resource levels including a preset highest resource level and a preset lowest resource level; and the determined method for deploying the device resources comprising: dynamically adjusting at least one of the computing resource or the memory resource associated with the one or more processing devices to reduce resource contention or resource interference among the one or more processing devices as taught by analogous art Senarath in order to efficiently and optimally manage resources since doing so could be performed readily by any person of ordinary skill in the art, with neither undue experimentation, nor risk of unexpected results (KSR-G/TSM); and also since one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would have recognized that applying the known technique and concepts of Senarath would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such concepts and features into similar systems (KSR-D). (MPEP 2141).
As per claim 7, claim 7 discloses substantially similar limitations as claim 1 above; and therefore claim 7 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning as presented above for claim 1.
As per claim 8, claim 8 discloses substantially similar limitations as claim 1 above; and therefore claim 8 is rejected under the same rationale and reasoning as presented above for claim 1.
As per claim 2, Morris discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein for one of the processing devices, the obtaining the target schedulable resource of the processing device comprises: determining the target resource profile of the processing device, wherein the target resource profile is a resource profile corresponding to the target resource level; determining the guaranteed resource corresponding to the target resource level; and determining the target schedulable resource based on the guaranteed resource, the target resource profile, and device resources of the processing device (see citations above for claim 1 and also see col. 1, lines 56-64 [account both objective (hard) constraints (e.g., available resources, required start/end dates, risk, criticality, cost and return on investment weightings, etc.) and subjective (soft) constraints (e.g., specified named resources to work on projects, tolerances in delivering on all projects and meeting the required resourcing levels, etc.) to ensure that any outcome is fully aligned with the needs of the business]; col. 2, lines 23-30 [resources…satisfies (target)…project…constraints – see with col. 2, lines 13-60 and col. 1, lines 1-4 [these show as a whole that resources are managed and allocated for a project (business) and the allocation is to satisfy the demand/criteria (target for amount of resources) for the project to be completed optimally; and also show current availability of resource (guaranteed resource)]; additionally, col. 8, lines 18-67 discusses the base/guaranteed resources available and also demand and criteria based decisions for projects]; col. 4, lines 35-46 [allocating resources to project…constraints…satisfy specific…criteria…level of resourcing]; col. 8, lines 45-67).
As per claim 3, Morris discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein the determining the target resource profile of the processing device comprises: obtaining a target-level resource profile in each of one or more time periods, and in one of the time periods, obtaining one or more business resource profiles corresponding to one or more target business services in the time period, wherein the target business service is an existing business service corresponding to the target resource level on the processing device; obtaining the target-level resource profile in the time period based on the one or more business resource profiles; and determining the target resource profile based on the target-level resource profile in the one or more time periods (see citations above for claims 1-2 and in addition see col. 4, lines 35-61 [allocating resources…projects…constraints….satisfy…criteria…level (target) of resourcing…data capture…supply and demand…resource…time period…scheduling…resource…business constraints]; col. 6, lines 58-64 [availability attributes (e.g., information indicating times/dates and/or locations that the resource is available for use and not assigned to other projects or due for maintenance)…attributes]; col. 10, line 62 – col. 11, line 6 [resources allocated…projects (see citations claim 2 above for details)…criterion…available resources…schedule…time scheduled…complete projects…time period…allocation of resources to a project portfolio such that the average project completion time is minimized]; col. 13, line 56 – col. 14, line 15 [allocation…satisfying…constraints…maximum utilization…resources…schedule…time…resources…time period – see with col. 15, lines 41-60]).
As per claim 4, Morris discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein when the target resource level is the preset lowest resource level, for one of the processing devices, the obtaining the target schedulable resource of the processing device comprises: obtaining usage of one or more other business resources corresponding to one or more other business services, wherein the other business services are existing business services corresponding to other resource levels on the processing device; and determining the target schedulable resource based on the usage of the one or more other business resources and device resources of the processing device (see citations above for claims 1-2 and also see col. 1, lines 52-64 [schedule and resource utilization…available resources…resourcing levels (also taking into account priority levels)…resource utilization criteria; see with col. 7, lines 20-65 [resource constraints define what resources are required or can be used for the successful completion of a project…a minimum or maximum number of resources required…set a minimum or maximum limit]], col. 8, line 38 – col. 9, line 2; col. 9, line 58 – col. 10, line 6; col. 14, lines 17-40; see also col. 20, lines 6-55 [as used in example scenarios]).
As per claim 5, Morris discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the deployment condition comprises: a relationship between the target schedulable resource and target resource usage satisfies a predetermined condition (see citations for claims 1-2 and 4 and also see col. 2, lines 5-60 [discussed above and see with col. 3, lines 16-36 and col. 1, lines 52-64 [schedule and resource utilization…available resources…resourcing levels (also taking into account priority levels)…resource utilization criteria; see with col. 7, lines 20-65 [resource constraints define what resources are required or can be used for the successful completion of a project…a minimum or maximum number of resources required…set a minimum or maximum limit]]),
wherein the target resource usage is determined by summing usage of one or more target business resources corresponding to one or more target business services and a request resource of the business service, and the target business service is an existing business service corresponding to the target resource level on the processing device (see citations above and for claims 1-2 and 4 and also see col. 8, line 52 – col. 9, line 2 [allocate resource…individual resource utilization…total…utilization (summing) – see with col. 10, line 63 – col. 11, line 29+ [various types of resources discussed with resource usage and totaling and aggregating usage to meet project/business gorals/targets] and with col. 12, line 63 – col. 13, line 30 [discussing satisfying criteria and constraints (regarding resource(s) allocation) for business projects]]; col. 3, line 58 – col. 4, line 15; col. 4, lines 27-67; see also col. 19, line 59 – col. 20, line 35 [discusses a use case example where it is discussed: resource demand…addition of work/projects to existing work/portfolio…allocating resource…satisfy…total demand (resource allocation/schedule); see with also col. 23, lines 43-58 [an example of adding resources based on additional need/demand and also rebalancing]]).
As per claim 6, Morris discloses the method according to claim 5, wherein when one or more processing devices that satisfy the deployment condition exist, the deployment method comprises: determining a target processing device from the one or more processing devices that satisfy the deployment condition, and deploying the business service on the target processing device (see citations above for claims 1-2 and 4-5 (which show meeting/satisfying condition in allocating/deploying resources) and also see col. 2, lines 13-60 [discuss computing/network devices/modules/systems which are used and in which allocation and decision-making occurs (including meeting/satisfying allocation/deployment conditions/criteria/etc.,) – see the with col. 3, lines 16-35; col. 4, lines 8-15; and col. 16, line 63 – col. 17, line 10]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, some of the pertinent prior art is as follows:
Anderson et al., (US 2011/0126275): Discusses intelligent workload management and that services provisioned in the workload management system may include any suitable combination of physical infrastructure resources and virtualized infrastructure resources. For example, to provision virtualized services that can abstract underlying physical platforms and share computing resources in a manner that may address many needs for immediacy in business environments, the workload management system may manage physical infrastructure resources and virtualized infrastructure resources to support provisioning virtualized services. Thus, the service-oriented architecture employed in the workload management system may enable management for the physical infrastructure resources (e.g., rack-mounting, configuring, and otherwise physically installing servers, storage resources, and other devices), and may further enable management for the virtualized infrastructure resources (e.g., pre-configuring provisioned services with identity management features, denying, flagging, or auditing service requests from unauthorized entities, etc.). Moreover, the workload management system may be considered a service in that the workload management service may be built dynamically in response to service requests (e.g., because a management infrastructure can introduce computational burdens just as any other resource, limiting the existence of the workload management infrastructure to an on-demand service can free computational resources for other tasks having a greater need for immediacy).
Narkier et al., (US 10,049,335): Relates to a method that includes displaying to a user, via a display element, a user interface that allows a user to characterize business demand of an organization; receiving, from a user, via one or more input devices, input characterizing business demand; automatically comparing, utilizing one or more processors and one or more memory elements of a computer system, qualities of business demand to attributes of ensembles comprising implementations of reusable patterns, the qualities of business demand being based at least in part on the received input characterizing business demand; determining, based on said comparing step, a recommended ensemble; and displaying to a user, via a display element, the recommended ensemble and other possible ensembles as well as a visualization comparing the recommended ensemble and the other possible ensembles to business demand. The qualities of business demand include qualities associated with resources, such as qualities associated with processing resources, qualities associated with memory resources, qualities associated with network resources, or qualities associated with storage resources.
Senarath et al., (US 10,721,362): Discusses that network slices are the collection of the allocation of the resources in what may be different networks. A network slice, from the perspective of an infrastructure provider may only include resources in the infrastructure provider network. From the perspective of the M2M SP, the network slice is a substantially seamless aggregation of all network slices that the M2M SP uses which is analogous to the VN. The TCSP deals with seamlessly connecting the different network slices of infrastructure provider resources, along with network slices from the TCSP resources, to create the M2M VN. It should be understood that at various points in time, the total allocation of network slices for different resources may not add up to 100%. If the value is less than 100% it means that the resource is not fully utilized. If it exceeds 100% it may be a network design choice knowing that there is a very low likelihood that all customers will be using a resource at the same time. It should be understood that the size and nature of different network slices can vary with time as new resources come online or as existing resources are re-allocated. The M2M SP may typically be unaware of the changes in the infrastructure.” Further states that QoE provides a network operator with more flexibility in how to allocate resources. End-to-end QoE control can be achieved using the method outlined below. In some aspects, QoE control may be service-based, with QoE enforcement performed by a controller 210 which configures end-to-end virtual resources to satisfy the required QoS parameters along the entire link so that the overall link will have the required QoE. The controller 210 is configured to facilitate network resource allocation and deployment for example, in accordance with functionalities such as software-defined networking, network function virtualization, software defined topology, and the like.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GURKANWALJIT SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-5392. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached on 571-270-5389. 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.
/Gurkanwaljit Singh/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights