DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This is a Final Office Action responsive to Applicant’s reply filed 7/24/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Amendment
Applicant has amended the claims to include new limitations not previously presented necessitating a new search.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 10, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghosh et al. (US 2017/0364831) in view of Shekhar et al. (US 2009/0172125) further in view of Kovvali et al. (US 2013/0021933).
With respect to claim 1, Ghosh discloses: receiving execution logs from a system implementing the workload and inspecting the execution logs ([0024], lines 9-11, where the initial model and initial available data corresponds to “execution logs”);
developing a model that replicates how the workload is applied by the system ([0029], training a model M corresponds to “developing a model” or the Abstract discloses “create a trusted model” which corresponds to “developing a model”);
defining a desired metric of interest ([0030], “trust related constraints” corresponds to “desired metric of interest”);
using a probabilistic model checker to evaluate the model and the desired metric of interest ([0031], where PRISM corresponds to the “probabilistic model checker”); and
producing a quantitative measure of the fairness of the workload ([0031], where “trust score” corresponds to “quantitative measure of the fairness”).
Ghosh does not specifically disclose a workload shifting policy.
However, Shekhar discloses a workload shifting policy ([0023]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate Ghosh’s machine learning trusted model to Shekhar’s workload shifting policy to improve pattern recognition of when workloads need to be moved and continuous improvement by enhancing the accuracy of moving workloads in anticipation of predicted events that may cause of a failure on the current server the workload is executing in.
Ghosh and Shekhar do not specifically disclose: including modeling workload redistribution outcomes for different users to enable evaluation of the fairness of the workload shifting policy with respect to a plurality of metrics.
However, Kovvali discloses: including modeling workload redistribution outcomes for different users to enable evaluation of the fairness of the workload shifting policy with respect to a plurality of metrics ([0145]-[0159]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate load balancing policy enforcement functions by increasing fairness to other user devices by allowing fair allocation to the resources.
With respect to claim 9, Ghosh discloses: wherein the operations are performed by a central server, wherein the system includes one or more edge servers ([0112], [0117]).
With respect to claims 10 and 18, they recite similar limitations as claims 1 and 9 and are therefore rejected under the same citations and rationale.
With respect to claim 19, it recites similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same citations and rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8, 11-17, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art, in combination with the limitations of the independent claims, does not disclose determining multiple subsequent probabilities where the first probability distribution includes the probability of a new workload is generated by the system and then determining transitions applied to new workloads by the workload shifting policy, thereafter a second probability distribution that includes probabilities that a user accepts each of the respective transitions.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WISSAM RASHID whose telephone number is (571)270-3758. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am-5:00 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, Aimee Li can be reached at (571)272-4169. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WISSAM RASHID/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195
