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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claim 1 is directed to a method comprising: a series of steps, and is therefore directed to a process, which is one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One:
Claim 1 recites the limitations:
[…] responsive to receiving a request requesting execution of a workload;
identifying one or more host machines of the plurality of host machines as being available for executing the workload;
identifying linkage information of the one or more host machines; […]
all of which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process.
Accordingly, claim 1 recites a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong Two:
The additional elements recited in claim 1 include:
storing, […], hierarchical locality information for the host machine, the hierarchical locality information for a host machine identifying at least a rack comprising the host machine, and a block of a plurality of blocks hosting the rack, the host machine being associated with one or more graphical processing units (GPUs), and wherein GPUs included in a first block operate at a first speed and GPUs included in a second block operate at a second speed that is different than the first speed;
for each host machine of a plurality of host machines
obtaining, for each of the one or more host machines, the hierarchical locality information for the host machine;
and providing the hierarchical locality information and the linkage information of the one or more host machines in response to the request.
Regarding the additional element (i), the limitation recited amounts to the well understood, routine, and conventional functions of storing and retrieving information in memory, as it is one that the courts have specifically labeled as such, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding the additional element (ii), the limitation recited is mere instructions to implement the limitations which can be performed in the human mind, i.e., the judicial exception, on a computer, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and 2106.05(f).
There is no combination of additional elements to consider, therefore there is no combination that could integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Regarding the additional element (iii), the limitation recited amounts to the insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering, and is therefore insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Regarding the additional element (iv), the limitation recited amounts to the well understood, routine, and conventional functions of storing and retrieving information in memory, as it is one that the courts have specifically labeled as such, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Even when these elements are considered in combination with the other additional elements, the additional elements here comprise mere instructions to apply the exception, insignificant extra-solution activity, and well-understood, routine, and conventional functions.
Step 2B:
Regarding the additional element (i), the limitation is further considered to be the well-understood, routine and conventional activity identified by the courts of storing and retrieving in memory. See 2106.05(d).
Regarding the additional element (ii), the limitation is reciting generic computing components performing the steps which can be performed in the human mind, which is mere instructions to apply the exception. The courts have found adding mere instructions to apply the exception is not enough to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(a) and 2106.05(f).
Regarding the additional element (iii), the limitation is further considered to be the well-understood, routine and conventional activity identified by the courts of receiving and transmitting data over a network. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding the additional element (iv), the limitation is further considered to be the well-understood, routine and conventional activity identified by the courts of storing and retrieving in memory. See 2106.05(d).
The combination of these additional elements amounts to a method comprising steps which can be performed mentally implemented by generic computing components, and comprising steps of both insignificant extra-solution activity and well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Therefore, the additional elements, when considered individually and in combination, fail to add an inventive concept to the claim.
Consequently, claim 1 as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions and the claim is not eligible.
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Further, claim 2 recites The method of claim 1, wherein the hierarchical locality information for the host machine comprises information including at least a rack identifier of the rack comprising the host machine, and a block identifier of the block hosting the rack, which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process.
Claim 2 recites no additional elements beyond those recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 2 is not eligible.
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 2, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 2. Further, claim 3 recites The method of claim 2, wherein the hierarchical locality information for the host machine includes an identifier of a first tier switch in the block that is communicatively coupled to the rack, which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process.
Claim 3 recites no additional elements beyond those recited in claim 2.
Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 2, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 3 is not eligible.
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Further, claim 4 recites The method of claim 1, wherein the linkage information of the one or more host machines corresponds to a logical topology formed by the one or more host machines, which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process.
Claim 4 recites no additional elements beyond those recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 4 is not eligible.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 4, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 4. Further, claim 5 recites The method of claim 4, wherein the logical topology formed by the one or more host machines is a ring topology, which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process.
Claim 5 recites no additional elements beyond those recited in claims 1 and 4.
Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 4, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 5 is not eligible.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Further, claim 6 recites The method of claim 1, wherein the hierarchical locality information for the host machine is obtained from an instance metadata service, the hierarchical locality information being stored in the host machine by the instance metadata service via a network virtualization device associated with the host machine, which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process.
Claim 6 recites the additional elements instance metadata service and network virtualization device, which is reciting generic computing components performing the steps that can be performed in the human mind, which is mere instructions to apply the exception. The courts have found adding mere instructions to apply the exception is not enough to amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. See MPEP 2106.05(a) and 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 6 is not eligible.
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1. Further, claim 7 recites the method of claim 1, further comprising: […] selecting a subset of the one or more host machines for executing the workload, the selecting being performed based on one or more constraints associated with the workload; and executing the workload on the subset of the one or more host machines, which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process.
Claim 7 recites the additional claim element receiving, by a customer, the hierarchical locality information and the linkage information of the one or more host machines; which is reciting the well-understood, routine and conventional activity identified by the courts of receiving and transmitting data over a network. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 7 is not eligible.
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 7, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 7. Further, claim 8 recites The method of claim 7, wherein one or more constraints includes a first constraint corresponding to a latency threshold associated with workload, a second constraint associated with a desired degree of availability in executing the workload, and/or a third constraint associated with types of GPUs required to execute the workload, which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process.
Claim 8 recites no additional elements beyond those recited in claims 1 and 7.
Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 7, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 8 is not eligible.
Claim 9 is dependent on claim 7, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 7. Further, claim 9 recites The method of claim 7, wherein selecting the subset of the one or more host machines is further based on the linkage information of the one or more host machines, which can be performed in the human mind through observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and are therefore reciting a mental process.
Claim 9 recites no additional elements beyond those recited in claims 1 and 7.
Accordingly, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 7, the additional elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, nor do they amount to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions. Thus, claim 9 is not eligible.
Claim 10 recites One or more computer readable non-transitory media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, cause: the steps of the method of claim 1. Thus, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, claim 10 is rejected because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
For clarity of the record, the additional elements recited above amount to mere instructions to apply the exception, which is neither indicative of integration into a practical application nor amounts to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions.
Claims 11-18 recite substantially the same limitations as those recited in claims 2-9, respectively, applied to the computer readable non-transitory media of claim 10. Thus, for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 2-9, claims 11-18 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are not eligible.
Claim 19 recites A computing device comprising: one or more processors; and a memory including instructions that, when executed with the one or more processors, cause the computing device to, at least: perform the method of claim 1. Thus, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1, claim 19 is rejected because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
For clarity of the record, the additional elements recited above amount to mere instructions to apply the exception, which is neither indicative of integration into a practical application nor amounts to significantly more than the recited judicial exceptions.
Claim 20 recites substantially the same limitations as those recited in claim 2, applied to the computing device of claim 19. Thus, for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 2, claim 20 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is not eligible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 have potentially allowable subject matter, if the aforementioned rejections are overcome.
The following is an examiner’s statement for reasons for potential allowable subject matter:
There was no art, nor combination of prior art which taught the limitation “the hierarchical locality information for a host machine identifying at least a rack comprising the host machine, and a block of a plurality of blocks hosting the rack” as recited in claim 1, when considered in combination with the other limitations recited in claim 1.
The closest prior art found with respect to the above limitation was Venugopal et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0014344), which teaches nodes organized into tor switches, with a cache in each tor switch. (See fig. 3) The cache holds information, but the purpose of the cache is to hold a miniature batch of a remote dataset to reduce fetch times (see claim 15)
While Venugopal suggests “a block hosting a rack” and “a rack hosting a node”, they fail to teach a “hierarchal locality information for a host machine identifying” the rack and block that the host machine is present on.
Claim 10 recites substantially the same limitation, applied to a computer readable non-transitory media, and is therefore, for reasons similar to those presented with respect to claim 1, also potentially allowable.
Claim 19 recites substantially the same limitation, applied to a computing device, and is therefore, for reasons similar to those presented with respect to claim 1, also potentially allowable.
Claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 depend from claims 1, 10, and 19, respectively. Accordingly, claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 are allowed for the same reasons presented with respect to claim 1.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Connor Imiola Blackburn whose telephone number is (571)272-6547. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Young can be reached at (571) 270 - 3180. 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.
/C.I.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2194 /KEVIN L YOUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights