CTNF 18/586,000 CTNF 87233 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. 07-34-05 Claims 9 and 18 recite the limitation "operations". There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in the claims. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA 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) . 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. 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 . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 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. 13-03-01 AIA 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 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Kwiatkowska et al. (“Probabilistic Model Checking: Advances and Applications”, Springer international Publishing 2018): Probabilistic model checking is an automated technique for formally verifying quantitative properties of stochastic systems. This involves the construction of a mathematical model that represents the behavior of a system over time, i.e. the possible states that it can be in, the transitions that can occur between states, and information about the likelihood or timing of these transitions. Properties specifying the required behavior of these systems are then formally specified in temporal logic and a systematic exploration and analysis of the system model is then performed to ascertain whether the properties are satisfied . 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 Application/Control Number: 18/586,000 Page 2 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/586,000 Page 3 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/586,000 Page 4 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/586,000 Page 5 Art Unit: 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/586,000 Page 6 Art Unit: 2195
Prosecution Insights