Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8,13-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind and mathematical concepts.
Regarding claim 1, with the exception of the recitation of the limitations ‘one or more processors; and one or more machine-readable medium coupled to the one or more processors and storing computer program code comprising sets of instructions executable by the one or more processors’, the claim is directed to mental processes and mathematical concepts.
The limitation ‘determine feedback metrics for the software application based on the hardware metrics or based on software metrics for the one or more software applications, the feedback metrics indicating whether the one or more software applications experienced performances issues when executed by the computer system; safety margin determined according to the threshold value and the histogram’ are mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
The limitation ‘generate a histogram plotting a frequency of the feedback metric using bins based on a difference between the allocated resources and the used resources, wherein data points used to generate the histogram are a pair including a difference value and a feedback metric value, the difference values being a particular difference between allocated resources and used resources when the corresponding feedback metric value was recorded’ is a mental process – concept performed by a human using a pen and paper as well as a mathematical concept based on mathematical relationships.
The limitation ‘determine a threshold value for the difference between the allocated resources and the used resources by iteratively determining, starting with a rightmost bin of the histogram, whether a number of data points in that bin indicate poor performance of the one or more software applications based on the difference between the allocated resources and the used resources, wherein the threshold value indicates a safety margin for operating the one or more software applications without performing poorly’ is a mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion as well as a mathematical concept based on mathematical relationships.
Step 2A: Prong two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements ‘one or more processors; and one or more machine-readable medium coupled to the one or more processors and storing computer program code comprising sets of instructions executable by the one or more processors’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements ‘obtain historic records of hardware metrics for one or more software applications executed by the computer system, the hardware metrics including an amount of allocated resources allocated by the computer system to the one or more software applications and an amount of used resources used by the one or more software applications when executed by the computer system’ is directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and includes data gathering.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements ‘re-allocate resources of the computer system for the one or more software applications, wherein reallocating the resources of the computer system improves a utilization of the resources of the computer system’ are simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, MPEP 2106.05(d). WO2020139069A1 – discloses another cited prior art, the United States Patent application number US20120297238 A1 discloses a computer-implemented method to migrate application load from a data center to a separate target location, the method comprising: monitoring an application running on one or more computing resources in a data center to determine an ongoing application load; determining whether a threshold for migrating the application to another computing resource has been reached; identifying a target computing resource to which to migrate at least some of the running application's load; identifying one or more applications to migrate; and migrating at least some application load of the identified applications to the identified target computing resource, wherein the preceding steps are performed by at least one processor. USPN 20220353201 – discloses moreover and unfortunately, conventional attempts by application operators to automate compute resource provisioning to a microservices application requires encountering a fault event (e.g., crossing a non-compliance threshold) before a response is provided that allocates further compute resources to the microservices application
Regarding claim 2, the limitation ‘check, using a statistical test, a hypothesis that a bin of the histogram has more values for the frequency of the feedback metric than an expected number of values by comparing the total measurement points in that histogram bin and values above a tolerable value’ is a mathematical concept as well as mental process – concept performed in the human mind or performed by a human with pen and paper.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation ‘determine data points where the feedback metric is equal to or below a tolerance threshold; and remove the data points below the tolerance threshold such that they are not used to generate the histogram’ are mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation ‘determine the bins of the histogram are equidistant; and divide, after removing the data points below the tolerance threshold, a number of data points in each bin by a total number of data points in the corresponding bin if the bins are equidistant’ are mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 5, the limitation ‘calculate an expected mass of data points per bin; and calculate a likeliness for a deviation between the mass for each particular bin and an average mass per bin, wherein a likeliness equal to or below a likeliness threshold value indicates that the poor performance of the one or more software applications is not a coincidence’ are mathematical concepts – mathematical calculations.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation ‘wherein the one or more software applications are operated by a cloud computing platform’ is directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)) , and ‘wherein reallocation of the resources for the one or more software applications includes reserving memory of the cloud computing platform for the one or more software applications’ is directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 7, the limitation ‘wherein software metrics for the one or more software applications include metrics for one or more of out of memory dumps, other memory shortages or events, software crashes, and metrics associated with performance issues’ is directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 8, with the exception of the recitation of the limitations ‘One or more non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer program code comprising sets of instructions’, the claim is directed to mental processes and mathematical concepts.
The limitation ‘determine feedback metrics for the software application based on the hardware metrics or based on software metrics for the one or more software applications, the feedback metrics indicating whether the one or more software applications experienced performances issues when executed by the computer system; safety margin determined according to the threshold value and the histogram’ are mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
The limitation ‘generate a histogram plotting a frequency of the feedback metric using bins based on a difference between the allocated resources and the used resources, wherein data points used to generate the histogram are a pair including a difference value and a feedback metric value, the difference values being a particular difference between allocated resources and used resources when the corresponding feedback metric value was recorded’ is a mental process – concept performed by a human using a pen and paper as well as a mathematical concept based on mathematical relationships.
The limitation ‘determine a threshold value for the difference between the allocated resources and the used resources by iteratively determining, starting with a rightmost bin of the histogram, whether a number of data points in that bin indicate poor performance of the one or more software applications based on the difference between the allocated resources and the used resources, wherein the threshold value indicates a safety margin for operating the one or more software applications without performing poorly’ is a mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion as well as a mathematical concept based on mathematical relationships.
Step 2A: Prong two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements ‘One or more non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer program code comprising sets of instructions’ are directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements ‘obtain historic records of hardware metrics for one or more software applications executed by a computer system, the hardware metrics including an amount of allocated resources allocated by the computer system to the one or more software applications and an amount of used resources used by the one or more software applications when executed by the computer system’ is directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and includes data gathering.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements ‘re-allocate resources of the computer system for the one or more software applications, wherein reallocating the resources of the computer system improves a utilization of the resources of the computer system’ are simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, MPEP 2106.05(d). WO2020139069A1 – discloses another cited prior art, the United States Patent application number US20120297238 A1 discloses a computer-implemented method to migrate application load from a data center to a separate target location, the method comprising: monitoring an application running on one or more computing resources in a data center to determine an ongoing application load; determining whether a threshold for migrating the application to another computing resource has been reached; identifying a target computing resource to which to migrate at least some of the running application's load; identifying one or more applications to migrate; and migrating at least some application load of the identified applications to the identified target computing resource, wherein the preceding steps are performed by at least one processor. USPN 20220353201 – discloses moreover and unfortunately, conventional attempts by application operators to automate compute resource provisioning to a microservices application requires encountering a fault event (e.g., crossing a non-compliance threshold) before a response is provided that allocates further compute resources to the microservices application
Regarding claim 13, the limitation ‘wherein the one or more software applications are operated by a cloud computing platform’ is directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)) , and ‘wherein reallocation of the resources for the one or more software applications includes reserving memory of the cloud computing platform for the one or more software applications’ is directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 14, the limitation ‘wherein software metrics for the one or more software applications include metrics for one or more of out of memory dumps, other memory shortages or events, software crashes, and metrics associated with performance issues’ is directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 15, the claim is directed to mental processes and mathematical concepts.
The limitation ‘determining feedback metrics for the software application based on the hardware metrics or based on software metrics for the one or more software applications, the feedback metrics indicating whether the one or more software applications experienced performances issues when executed by the computer system’ are mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
The limitation ‘generate a histogram plotting a frequency of the feedback metric using bins based on a difference between the allocated resources and the used resources, wherein data points used to generate the histogram are a pair including a difference value and a feedback metric value, the difference values being a particular difference between allocated resources and used resources when the corresponding feedback metric value was recorded; safety margin determined according to the threshold value and the histogram’ is a mental process – concept performed by a human using a pen and paper as well as a mathematical concept based on mathematical relationships.
The limitation ‘determining a threshold value for the difference between the allocated resources and the used resources by iteratively determining, starting with a rightmost bin of the histogram, whether a number of data points in that bin indicate poor performance of the one or more software applications based on the difference between the allocated resources and the used resources, wherein the threshold value indicates a safety margin for operating the one or more software applications without performing poorly’ is a mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion as well as a mathematical concept based on mathematical relationships.
Step 2A: Prong two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements ‘obtaining historic records of hardware metrics for one or more software applications executed by a computer system, the hardware metrics including an amount of allocated resources allocated by the computer system to the one or more software applications and an amount of used resources used by the one or more software applications when executed by the computer system’ is directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and includes data gathering.
Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements ‘obtaining historic records of hardware metrics for one or more software applications executed by a computer system, the hardware metrics including an amount of allocated resources allocated by the computer system to the one or more software applications and an amount of used resources used by the one or more software applications when executed by the computer system’ is directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and includes data gathering.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements ‘re-allocate resources of the computer system for the one or more software applications, wherein reallocating the resources of the computer system improves a utilization of the resources of the computer system’ are simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, MPEP 2106.05(d). WO2020139069A1 – discloses another cited prior art, the United States Patent application number US20120297238 A1 discloses a computer-implemented method to migrate application load from a data center to a separate target location, the method comprising: monitoring an application running on one or more computing resources in a data center to determine an ongoing application load; determining whether a threshold for migrating the application to another computing resource has been reached; identifying a target computing resource to which to migrate at least some of the running application's load; identifying one or more applications to migrate; and migrating at least some application load of the identified applications to the identified target computing resource, wherein the preceding steps are performed by at least one processor. USPN 20220353201 – discloses moreover and unfortunately, conventional attempts by application operators to automate compute resource provisioning to a microservices application requires encountering a fault event (e.g., crossing a non-compliance threshold) before a response is provided that allocates further compute resources to the microservices application
Regarding claim 16, the limitation ‘checking, using a statistical test, a hypothesis that a bin of the histogram has more values for the frequency of the feedback metric than an expected number of values by comparing the total measurement points in that histogram bin and values above a tolerable value’ is a mathematical concept as well as mental process – concept performed in the human mind or performed by a human with pen and paper.
Regarding claim 17, the limitation ‘determining data points where the feedback metric is equal to or below a tolerance threshold; and removing the data points below the tolerance threshold such that they are not used to generate the histogram’ are mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation ‘determining the bins of the histogram are equidistant; and dividing, after removing the data points below the tolerance threshold, a number of data points in each bin by a total number of data points in the corresponding bin if the bins are equidistant’ are mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion.
Regarding claim 19, the limitation ‘calculating an expected mass of data points per bin; and calculating a likeliness for a deviation between the mass for each particular bin and an average mass per bin, wherein a likeliness equal to or below a likeliness threshold value indicates that the poor performance of the one or more software applications is not a coincidence’ are mathematical concepts – mathematical calculations.
Regarding claim 20, the limitation ‘wherein the one or more software applications are operated by a cloud computing platform’ is directed to generic computer components recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to nothing more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(f)) , and ‘wherein reallocation of the resources for the one or more software applications includes reserving memory of the cloud computing platform for the one or more software applications’ is directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)); ‘wherein software metrics for the one or more software applications include metrics for one or more of out of memory dumps, other memory shortages or events, software crashes, and metrics associated with performance issues’ is directed to adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Regarding claim 21, the limitation ‘according to the safety margin determined according to the threshold value and the histogram’ is a mental process – concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion;
the limitation ‘wherein reallocating the resources of the computer system includes reallocating hardware resources of the computer system’ are simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, MPEP 2106.05(d).
USPN 20050022056 - Also, known HA management software cannot automatically migrate some peripheral hardware resources at the time of the take-over. For example, some hardware resources, such as local printers, display devices, modems and the like, are directly connected to the primary computer, do not have a network interface and cannot be automatically re-assigned to the back-up computer at the take-over. Thus, when a failure occurs in the primary computer, an operator has to manually disconnect these hardware resources from the primary computer and re-connect them to the back-up computer. Depending on the location of the back-up computer, this may involve transport of the hardware resources. This is burdensome and delays the operability of the backup computer.
USPN 20180107521 - [0001] An operating system may view a processor as a logical processor or logical processing unit. The logical processor is backed by a certain socket or physical processor. The physical assignment of processors is typically determined when a machine is powered and initialized, before the operating system is loaded. Normally, once the assignment of logical-to-physical processors is made, the assignment is not modified.
[0002] However, under certain stringent conditions, the assignment of logical-to-physical processors can be modified. In particular, if a physical processor fails, the assignment can be modified, assuming a spare processor exists within the processing environment. Specifically, in situations of a failed physical processor, the assignment may be modified, such that the spare processor, instead of the failed processor, backs the logical processor(s).
USPN 20040221121 - The prior art methods of dynamic reallocation require the system administrator to recognize the need for reallocation, and then manually reallocate the resources. For example, in a system comprising a first logical partition having eight gigabytes (GB) of memory and a second logical partition also having eight GB of memory, the administrator may observe that during a peak memory-intensive period, the first logical partition is experiencing heavy paging activity while the second logical partition is experiencing light paging activity. Upon observing the disparity in memory paging activity, the administrator may manually move some amount of memory from the second logical partition to the first logical partition to improve system performance during the peak memory-intensive period.
Regarding claim 22, the limitation ‘according to the safety margin determined according to the threshold value and the histogram’ is a mental process – concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion;
the limitation ‘wherein reallocating the resources of the computer system includes reallocating hardware resources of the computer system, wherein reallocating the hardware resources improves the utilization of the hardware resources’ are simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, MPEP 2106.05(d).
USPN 20050022056 - Also, known HA management software cannot automatically migrate some peripheral hardware resources at the time of the take-over. For example, some hardware resources, such as local printers, display devices, modems and the like, are directly connected to the primary computer, do not have a network interface and cannot be automatically re-assigned to the back-up computer at the take-over. Thus, when a failure occurs in the primary computer, an operator has to manually disconnect these hardware resources from the primary computer and re-connect them to the back-up computer. Depending on the location of the back-up computer, this may involve transport of the hardware resources. This is burdensome and delays the operability of the backup computer.
USPN 20180107521 - [0001] An operating system may view a processor as a logical processor or logical processing unit. The logical processor is backed by a certain socket or physical processor. The physical assignment of processors is typically determined when a machine is powered and initialized, before the operating system is loaded. Normally, once the assignment of logical-to-physical processors is made, the assignment is not modified.
[0002] However, under certain stringent conditions, the assignment of logical-to-physical processors can be modified. In particular, if a physical processor fails, the assignment can be modified, assuming a spare processor exists within the processing environment. Specifically, in situations of a failed physical processor, the assignment may be modified, such that the spare processor, instead of the failed processor, backs the logical processor(s).
USPN 20040221121 - The prior art methods of dynamic reallocation require the system administrator to recognize the need for reallocation, and then manually reallocate the resources. For example, in a system comprising a first logical partition having eight gigabytes (GB) of memory and a second logical partition also having eight GB of memory, the administrator may observe that during a peak memory-intensive period, the first logical partition is experiencing heavy paging activity while the second logical partition is experiencing light paging activity. Upon observing the disparity in memory paging activity, the administrator may manually move some amount of memory from the second logical partition to the first logical partition to improve system performance during the peak memory-intensive period.
Regarding claim 23, the limitation ‘according to the safety margin determined according to the threshold value and the histogram’ is a mental process – concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion;
the limitation ‘wherein reallocating the resources of the computer system includes reallocating server hardware resources of the computer system’ are simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, MPEP 2106.05(d).
USPN 20050022056 - Also, known HA management software cannot automatically migrate some peripheral hardware resources at the time of the take-over. For example, some hardware resources, such as local printers, display devices, modems and the like, are directly connected to the primary computer, do not have a network interface and cannot be automatically re-assigned to the back-up computer at the take-over. Thus, when a failure occurs in the primary computer, an operator has to manually disconnect these hardware resources from the primary computer and re-connect them to the back-up computer. Depending on the location of the back-up computer, this may involve transport of the hardware resources. This is burdensome and delays the operability of the backup computer.
USPN 20180107521 - [0001] An operating system may view a processor as a logical processor or logical processing unit. The logical processor is backed by a certain socket or physical processor. The physical assignment of processors is typically determined when a machine is powered and initialized, before the operating system is loaded. Normally, once the assignment of logical-to-physical processors is made, the assignment is not modified.
[0002] However, under certain stringent conditions, the assignment of logical-to-physical processors can be modified. In particular, if a physical processor fails, the assignment can be modified, assuming a spare processor exists within the processing environment. Specifically, in situations of a failed physical processor, the assignment may be modified, such that the spare processor, instead of the failed processor, backs the logical processor(s).
USPN 20040221121 - The prior art methods of dynamic reallocation require the system administrator to recognize the need for reallocation, and then manually reallocate the resources. For example, in a system comprising a first logical partition having eight gigabytes (GB) of memory and a second logical partition also having eight GB of memory, the administrator may observe that during a peak memory-intensive period, the first logical partition is experiencing heavy paging activity while the second logical partition is experiencing light paging activity. Upon observing the disparity in memory paging activity, the administrator may manually move some amount of memory from the second logical partition to the first logical partition to improve system performance during the peak memory-intensive period.
Regarding claim 24, the limitation ‘according to the safety margin determined according to the threshold value and the histogram’ is a mental process – concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion;
the limitation ‘wherein reallocating the resources of the computer system includes reallocating server hardware resources of the computer system, wherein reallocating the server hardware resources improves the utilization of the server hardware resources’ are simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, MPEP 2106.05(d).
USPN 20050022056 - Also, known HA management software cannot automatically migrate some peripheral hardware resources at the time of the take-over. For example, some hardware resources, such as local printers, display devices, modems and the like, are directly connected to the primary computer, do not have a network interface and cannot be automatically re-assigned to the back-up computer at the take-over. Thus, when a failure occurs in the primary computer, an operator has to manually disconnect these hardware resources from the primary computer and re-connect them to the back-up computer. Depending on the location of the back-up computer, this may involve transport of the hardware resources. This is burdensome and delays the operability of the backup computer.
USPN 20180107521 - [0001] An operating system may view a processor as a logical processor or logical processing unit. The logical processor is backed by a certain socket or physical processor. The physical assignment of processors is typically determined when a machine is powered and initialized, before the operating system is loaded. Normally, once the assignment of logical-to-physical processors is made, the assignment is not modified.
[0002] However, under certain stringent conditions, the assignment of logical-to-physical processors can be modified. In particular, if a physical processor fails, the assignment can be modified, assuming a spare processor exists within the processing environment. Specifically, in situations of a failed physical processor, the assignment may be modified, such that the spare processor, instead of the failed processor, backs the logical processor(s).
USPN 20040221121 - The prior art methods of dynamic reallocation require the system administrator to recognize the need for reallocation, and then manually reallocate the resources. For example, in a system comprising a first logical partition having eight gigabytes (GB) of memory and a second logical partition also having eight GB of memory, the administrator may observe that during a peak memory-intensive period, the first logical partition is experiencing heavy paging activity while the second logical partition is experiencing light paging activity. Upon observing the disparity in memory paging activity, the administrator may manually move some amount of memory from the second logical partition to the first logical partition to improve system performance during the peak memory-intensive period.
There is no prior art rejection for claims 1-24 because of the inclusion of the following limitations: ‘generate a histogram plotting a frequency of the feedback metric using bins based on a difference between the allocated resources and the used resources, wherein data points used to generate the histogram are a pair including a difference value and a feedback metric value, the difference values being a particular difference between allocated resources and used resources when the corresponding feedback metric value was recorded; and determine a threshold value for the difference between the allocated resources and the used resources by iteratively determining, starting with a rightmost bin of the histogram, whether a number of data points in that bin indicate poor performance of the one or more software applications based on the difference between the allocated resources and the used resources, wherein the threshold value indicates a safety margin for operating the one or more software applications without performing poorly’.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The closest prior art: USPN 20080071939 – In paragraphs 0170-0182 - [0170] A.2: Preparation, Creation of the Baseline Characteristics Database [0171] The system administrator examines, in advance, histograms of memory latencies measured by a benchmark program and the performance monitor 11. The system administrator examines as many histograms as the number of combinations of a node count in an SMP server as shown in FIG. 17 and a memory access mode each representing a different arrangement in the physical memory space. In the case where the influence of the latency of a DMA read instruction issued by an I/O device to read out of the main memory 5 is to be taken into account, instead of the latency of the main memory 5, a histogram of main memory read by DMA is collected. The following description, which is given with reference to a flow chart of FIG. 18, deals only with a case in which the latency of the main memory 5 is taken into consideration. [0172] A.3: Evaluation Target System [0173] An application program (a business operation program, a benchmark program, or the like) is executed in the evaluation target SMP server 502 in the computer system 500 (Step 400 shown in FIG. 18). [0174] A.4: Histogram Measurement [0175] Next, the configuration change assistance program run in the management server 505 sends a command for operating the performance monitor 11 to the nodes 501-1 to 501-k constituting the SMP server 502 through the SVP 503, while the above application program is in operation. A memory latency histogram is thus measured. [0176] With the operation command to operate the performance monitor 11, the type of a transaction to be collected, the start or end of measurement the performance monitor 11, and the like are set in the memory mapped register 106 of FIG. 2, the type of a transaction to be examined is set in the transaction type register 108, and a value for instructing the performance monitor 11 to start or end measurement is set in the enable register 107 or the like. Results of the measurement by the performance monitor 11 are written in the register file 118 of FIG. 2. The management server 505 writes an address set in the read address register 109 of FIG. 2 through the SVP 503, writes a read address of the register file 118, and sequentially reads, out of the frequency register 110, data that is read out of the register file 118. From the read data, the configuration change assistance program of the management server 505 creates a histogram showing memory access characteristics (Step 401 shown in FIG. 18). [0177] For instance, when the graph shape of the histogram is planar rather than steep, high busy rate (high utilization ratio) of the main memory 5 or the CPU bus 4 is considered as one of the causes. Possible configuration change suggestions in this case are to switch the memory access mode from NUMA to the interleave mode and to disperse memory access by increasing the nodes constituting the SMP server in number. The CPU utilization ratio and other performance statistic information measured by a monitor in the OS may additionally be taken into account in making configuration change suggestions. [0178] A.5: Analysis of Memory Access Characteristics [0179] Next, the histogram created in Step 401 is compared with a histogram of the baseline characteristics database to analyze the characteristics of the application program by the method described in the above-mentioned (Memory Access Characteristics Analyzing Method) with reference to FIGS. 12 and 13, in regard to which of the local node and the remote node is accessed more, whether the access frequency is high or low, and the like (Step 402 shown in FIG. 18). [0180] A.6: Display of Suggested System Configurations [0181] A message window shown in FIG. 15 is displayed on a display device (not shown) of the management server 505, and the memory access characteristics of the system as well, by the time the processing of Step 400 to Step 402 shown in FIG. 18 is finished. The window shown in FIG. 15 displays the local memory and remote memory access frequencies ("Locality" shown in FIG. 15) and load measurement results which are compiled by the configuration change assistance program of the management server 505 based on results of the analysis in Step 402. This example shows that the access frequency is high and the load is heavy in the local memory whereas the access frequency is low and the load is light in the remote memory. [0182] In Step 403 of FIG. 18, an association table of FIG. 19 is searched with the memory access characteristics obtained in Step 402 as a key to select system configuration suggestions, and displays suggested system configuration changes as those shown in FIG. 20 on the display device of the management server 505. A suggested configuration change that is associated with a computer system architecture and memory access characteristics measured by the performance monitor 11 is set in the table of FIG. 19 in advance. The table of FIG. 19 is set in the management server 505 as a table preset by the configuration change assistance program, for example.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments and amendments filed 12/05/2025 have been fully considered. Concerning arguments of the new limitation ‘re-allocate resources...safety margin determined according to the threshold value and the histogram’, the limitation is rejected as being well-understood, routine, conventional activities under MPEP 2106.05(d). ‘Re-allocate resources…’ is a known method of based on the threshold. Tying the safety margin to a threshold based on a histogram and determining based on the threshold and histogram is a mental process. This reply to arguments also applies to claims 21-24. The support paragraph should be paragraph 0034 not paragraph 0035.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Yolanda L Wilson whose telephone number is (571)272-3653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (7:30 am - 4 pm).
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached on 571-272-3655. 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.
/Yolanda L Wilson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113