DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 06/21/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-4, 5, 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
-- the obtaining indicator -- should be -- obtaining the indicator -- in claim 3 lines 1, 8.
-- a completion time range, a cluster identifier, an indicator item -- should be -- the completion time range, the cluster identifier, the indicator item -- in claim 3.
-- the invoking a polling data interface -- should be -- invoking the data polling interface -- in claim 4 line 3.
-- the determining an elastic -- should be -- determining the elastic -- in claim 4 line 11.
-- determining elastic -- should be -- determining the elastic -- in claim 4 line 13.
-- a data completion interface -- should be -- the data completion interface -- in claim 5 line 3.
-- a cache space -- should be -- the cache space -- in claim 7 line 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following minor informalities:
The abstract should not repeat the information given in the title.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
-- redis -- should be -- Redis-- in [0141].
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawing
The drawings are objected to because of the following minor informalities:
Figs. 3-4 are not legible.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following claim language is not clearly understood:
Claim 1 recites “method, applied to a cluster management device and comprising”. It is unclear if “the method …comprising” or “device …comprising”.
Claim 1 recites “cache space”. It is unclear what constitutes the cache space.
Claim 1 recites “polling triggering condition” and further recites “polling interval”. It is unclear if polling is invoked when the trigger condition is met or when the polling interval has ended/begin or both.
Claims 10 and 19 recite elements of claim 1 and have similar deficiency as claim 1. Therefore, they are rejected for the same rational. Remaining dependent claims 2-9 and 11-18 are also rejected due to similar deficiency inherited from the rejected independent claims.
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.
Claim 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Independent claim 19 recites a “computer readable medium”, which may be signal medium, according to the specification ([0184]). Transitory propagating signals are non-statutory subject matter. Applicant is advised to amend the claim to recite “non-transitory computer readable medium” to overcome 35 USC 101 non-statutory subject matter rejections.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more or integrating into practical application.
claims 1-19 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. Examples of abstract ideas include at least Mathematical concepts, Mental process and Certain Methods of organizing human activity.
Step 1
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claim 1 recites a method, which falls within the “process” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 10 recites “electronic device comprising a processor and memory, which falls within the “machine” category of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Claim 19 recites a computer readable medium, which doesn’t fall within the four category of statutory subject matter of 35 U.S.C. § 101. Thus, the analysis determines whether the claims recite a judicial exception and fail to integrate the exception into practical application. If both elements are satisfied, the claims are directed to a judicial exception under the first step of the Alice/Mayo test, See id.
Step 2A Prong One
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2A of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-78, 101 USPQ2d at 1967-68).
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
claim elements
i
1. A data processing method, applied to a cluster management device and comprising:
method with intended use
ii
after an elastic scaling rule for a target cluster is created, configuring a cache space corresponding to the target cluster according to the elastic scaling rule,
mental process abstract
iii
wherein the elastic scaling rule comprises a load type rule item;
describing the mental process idea
iv
obtaining indicator detection state data of the load type rule item within a completion time range according to a cluster identifier of the target cluster and an indicator item identifier carried by the load type rule item, and
mental process abstract idea / information gathering
v
storing the indicator detection state data to the cache space corresponding to the target cluster,
common computing method
vi
wherein the completion time range is determined based on an indicator detection time period carried by the load type rule item and a triggering time of previous polling;
mental process abstract idea
vii
determining whether a polling triggering condition is met, and if yes,
mental process abstract idea
viii
obtaining an indicator detection update result corresponding to the target cluster and
information gathering / mental process abstract idea
ix
updating a storage content in the cache space corresponding to the target cluster according to the indicator detection update result corresponding to the target cluster,
mental process abstract idea
x
wherein the indicator detection update result is used for describing an indicator detection state update presented by the elastic scaling rule during a polling interval; and
describing mental process abstract idea
xi
determining an elastic scaling decision-making result corresponding to the target cluster according to the storage content in the cache space corresponding to the target cluster, and
mental process abstract idea
xii
continuing to perform the step of determining whether the polling triggering condition is met.
repeating the above steps (mental process abstract idea)
The overall process described by steps ii, iv, vi, vii, ix, xi and xii describes “concepts performed in the human mind” or “observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion.” Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg, 52. Thus steps ii, iv, vi, vii, ix, and xi recite the abstract concept of [m]ental processes.” Id. For example, step [ii] recites “after an elastic scaling rule for a target cluster is created, configuring a cache space corresponding to the target cluster according to the elastic scaling rule”, i.e. “cache space corresponding to the target cluster according to rule” is directed to mental process abstract idea because the correspondence between cache space and target cluster based on the rule, is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, can be performed by human mind alone or with the help of pen and paper. claim 1 step iv recites “obtaining indicator detection state data of the load type rule item within a completion time range according to a cluster identifier of the target cluster and an indicator item identifier carried by the load type rule item”, which is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, can be performed by human mind alone or with the help of pen and paper. Claim 1 step vi recites “wherein the completion time range is determined based on an indicator detection time period carried by the load type rule item and a triggering time of previous polling”, which is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, can be performed by human mind alone or with the help of pen and paper. Similarly, steps vi, vii, ix, xi, and xii are directed to mental process abstract idea because these are combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, can be performed by human mind alone or with the help of pen and paper. Therefore, steps ii, iv, vi, vii, ix, xi and xii resembles the idea of performing observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion according to the broadest reasonable interpretations of the claim elements and can be performed by human mind alone or with the aid of pen and paper. The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Thus, claim 1 recites a judicial exception. For these same reasons, claim 10 and 19 recite judicial exception.
Step 2A, Prong Two
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2A of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the first part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217-18, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77-78, 101 USPQ2d at 1967-68).
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which examiners determine in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then determine in Prong Two if the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Because claims 1, 10 and 19 recite a judicial exception, Analysis determines if the claims recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into practical application.
In addition to the limitations of claim 1 discussed above that recite the abstract concepts, claim 1 also recites additional steps [i], [iii], [v], [viii], and [x]. Claim 1 in step [i] recites “ data processing method, applied to a cluster management device”, which is common computing method and may not be considered an improvement in the functioning of a computer or technology or technical field. Claim 1 in step [iii] recites “wherein the elastic scaling rule comprises a load type rule item”, which further describe the scaling rule without further imposing limitations in such a manner to make the claim patent eligible. Claim 1 in step [v] recites “storing the indicator detection state data to the cache space corresponding to the target cluster”, which is directed to storing information and is commonly performed in the field of computing as recognized by one of ordinary skills in the art. Claim 1 in step [viii] recites “obtaining an indicator detection update result corresponding to the target cluster and”, which is directed to information gathering and is considered insignificant extra solution activity. Claim 1 in step [x] recites “wherein the indicator detection update result is used for describing an indicator detection state update presented by the elastic scaling rule during a polling interval”, which describes the indicator update result without further limiting the scope of the claim to integrate the abstract idea into practical application. The Specification doesn’t provide additional details that would distinguish the additional limitations recited in claim 1 from a generic implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, the additional claim elements, under broadest reasonable interpretation, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Thus, claim 1 recites a judicial exception without integrating into practical application. For these same reasons and based on similar analysis as above, claims 10 and 19 also recites judicial exception without integrating into practical application.
Step 2B
As described in MPEP § 2106, subsection III, Step 2B of the Office’s eligibility analysis is the second part of the Alice/Mayo test, i.e., the Supreme Court’s "framework for distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those concepts." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 101 USPQ2d 1961 (2012)).
Step 2B asks: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Because claims 1, 10 and 19 are directed to judicial exception, analysis must determine, according to Alice, whether these claims recite an element, or combination of elements that is enough to ensure that the claim is directed to significantly more than a judicial exception.
The Memorandum, Section III (B) (footnote 36) states:
In accordance with existing guidance, an Examiner’s conclusion that an additional element (or combination of elements) is well understood, routine, conventional activity must be supported with a factual determination. For more information concerning evaluation of well-understood, routine, convention activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d), as modified by the USPTO Berkheimer Memorandum.
The Berkheimer Memorandum, Section III(A)(1) states:
A Specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements as well-understood or routine or conventional (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, on in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 §U.S.C. 112(a). A finding that an element is well-understood, routine, or conventional cannot be based only on the fact that the specification is silent with respect to describing such element.
As recognized under prong TWO, claim 1, in addition to the limitations that recite the abstract concepts, claim 1 also recites additional steps [i], [iii], [v], [viii], and [x]. Claim 1 in step [i] recites “ data processing method, applied to a cluster management device”, which is common computing method applied to cluster system as recognized by one of ordinary skills in the art and do not amount to significantly more. Claim 1 in step [iii] recites “wherein the elastic scaling rule comprises a load type rule item”, which further describe the scaling rule, and is well-understood, routine and conventional (Spec [0003]-[0004]).
Claim 1 in step [v] recites “storing the indicator detection state data to the cache space corresponding to the target cluster”, which is directed to storing information and is commonly performed in the field of computing as recognized by one of ordinary skills in the art, and therefore do not amount to significantly more. Claim 1 in step [viii] recites “obtaining an indicator detection update result corresponding to the target cluster and”, which is directed to information gathering and is considered insignificant extra solution activity. Claim 1 in step [x] recites “wherein the indicator detection update result is used for describing an indicator detection state update presented by the elastic scaling rule during a polling interval”, which is directed to updating information and is common computing method as recognized by one of ordinary skills in the art. Further, the Specification does not provide additional details that would distinguish the recited components from generic implementation of the abstract idea and do not amount to significantly more.
As such, it has been recognized by court that receiving, processing, and storing data as well as receiving or transmitting data over a network are a well-understood, routine and conventional activities. Mortg. Grader, Inc. v. First choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (generic computer components, such as interface, “network”, and “database,” fail to satisfy the inventive concept requirement); see also TLI Commc’ns, 823 F.3d 607; Elec. Power, 830 F.3d at 1350. There is no indication that the recited claim elements override the conventional use of known features or involve an unconventional arrangement or combination of elements such that the particular combination of generic technology results in anything beyond well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and output. Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”) See also Customedia Techs. LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1366(Fed. Cir. 2020) (“[T]he invocation of ‘already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance…amounts to a recitation of what is well-understood, routine, and conventional.”)(quoting SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898F3.d 1161, 1170 (Fed. Cir. 2018)); and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355(Fed. Cir 2014)(“That a computer receives and sends the information over a network -- with no further specification -- is not even arguably inventive.”).
Thus, Claims 1, 10 and 19 are directed to mental process abstract idea without integrating into practical application and do not amount to significantly more than a patent ineligible concept.
Claim 2 recites “wherein before the elastic scaling rule for the target cluster is created, the cluster management device is configured to perform elastic scaling decision-making processing on at least one cluster to be managed using a same polling mechanism; the triggering time of previous polling refers to a triggering moment of a previous polling process under the polling mechanism; and the polling triggering condition refers to a condition set for the polling mechanism in advance and used for triggering a polling process”, which is directed to polling the system based on certain trigger condition and performing scaling decision. Performing scaling decision based on polling is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion and is considered mental process abstract idea. Polling in itself is well-understood, routine and conventional to one of ordinary skills in the art.
Claim 3 recites “transferring the cluster identifier of the target cluster, the indicator item identifier carried by the load type rule item, and the completion time range to a data completion interface (i.e. information transfer-common method), and invoking the data completion interface to obtain the indicator detection state data of the load type rule item within the completion time range (i.e. information gathering/receiving) ; and the obtaining an indicator detection update result corresponding to the target cluster comprises: invoking a polling data interface to obtain the indicator detection update result corresponding to the target cluster (i.e. information gathering/receiving)”, which is directed to information transfer/gathering and is considered insignificant extra solution activity.
Claim 4 recites wherein the cluster management device is configured to manage a plurality of clusters; the plurality of clusters comprise the target cluster (i.e. technology environment);
the invoking a polling data interface to obtain the indicator detection update result corresponding to the target cluster comprises:
invoking the polling data interface to obtain indicator detection update results corresponding to the plurality of clusters (i.e. information gathering);
the updating a storage content in the cache space corresponding to the target cluster according to the indicator detection update result corresponding to the target cluster comprises:
updating storage contents in cache spaces corresponding to the clusters according to the indicator detection update results corresponding to the clusters (i.e. mental process abstract idea); and
the determining an elastic scaling decision-making result corresponding to the target cluster according to the storage content in the cache space corresponding to the target cluster comprises:
determining elastic scaling decision-making results corresponding to the clusters according to the storage contents in the cache spaces corresponding to the clusters (i.e. mental process abstract idea); which is directed to mental process abstract idea of scaling decision making results and information gathering activity.
Claim 5 recites “reading a previous invoking time of the polling data interface from a preset cache area as the triggering time of previous polling; and determining the completion time range based on the indicator detection time period carried by the load type rule item and the triggering time of previous polling”, which is a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion.
Claim 6 recites “updating data stored in a preset cache area using a current invoking time of the polling data interface” is directed to update stored information and is considered information gathering activity.
Claim 7 recites “parsing the elastic scaling rule to obtain a rule tree (i.e. mental process abstract idea), wherein the elastic scaling rule comprises a plurality of rule expression objects (i.e. well-understood, routine, conventional according to one of ordinary skills in the art); the plurality of rule expression objects comprise the load type rule item (i.e. well-understood, routine, conventional according to one of ordinary skills in the art ); and the rule tree comprises nodes corresponding to the plurality of rule expression objects (i.e. well-understood, routine, conventional data structure according to one of ordinary skills in the art); and configuring the cache space corresponding to the target cluster according to the rule tree (i.e. mental process abstract idea), wherein the cache space comprises cache areas corresponding to the plurality of rule expression objects (i.e. well-understood, routine, conventional according to one of ordinary skills in the art )”, which is directed to mental process abstract idea and elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional according to one of ordinary skills in the art.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the cache space corresponding to the target cluster comprises a cache area corresponding to the load type rule item (i.e. mental process abstract idea); and the storing the indicator detection state data to the cache space corresponding to the target cluster comprises: storing the indicator detection state data to the cache area corresponding to the load type rule item (i.e. information gathering)”, which is directed to mental process abstract idea i.e. a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion, and elements that are well-understood, routine, conventional according to one of ordinary skills in the art.
Claim 9 recites “determining whether a triggering time of current polling is within a time range characterized by the time type rule item to obtain a determination result (i.e. mental process abstract idea); and the determining an elastic scaling decision-making result corresponding to the target cluster according to the storage content in the cache space corresponding to the target cluster comprises: determining the elastic scaling decision-making result corresponding to the target cluster according to the determination result and the storage content in the cache space corresponding to the target cluster (i.e. mental process abstract idea)”, which is directed to a combination of observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion.
Based on similar analysis as above, dependent claims 11-18 recite claim elements that are either abstract idea or additional claim elements, that individually or in combination, are either generic computing methods/components or insignificant pre-post solution activity and neither integrate into practical application nor amount to significantly more.
Therefore, the claim(s) 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to judicial exception without integrating into practical application or significantly more.
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.
Claims 1-6, 8-15 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyata et al. (US 2011/0099403 A1, hereafter Miyata) in view of Laribi et al. (US 2013/0297802 A1, hereafter Laribi).
Laribi was cited in the IDS field on 01/24/2025.
As per claim 1, Miyata teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a data processing method, applied to a cluster management device and comprising ([0020] managing a plurality of cluster systems [0056] data and instructions, processing tasks, data):
after an elastic scaling rule for a target cluster is created ([0081] fig. 6 threshold table 601 scale-in/scale-out judgement criteria, judgement conditions [0028] cluster system’s scale-in/scale-out), configuring a cache space corresponding to the target cluster according to the elastic scaling rule ([0080] threshold table 601, held, data 152, storage device 111), wherein the elastic scaling rule comprises a load type rule item ([0081] judgement condition #1, operation kinds, scale-in, scale-out, workload consolidation [0080] information, processing wait queue number, database connection number, garbage collection occurrence frequency, session number);
obtaining indicator detection state data of the load type rule item within a completion time range according to a cluster identifier of the target cluster and an indicator item identifier carried by the load type rule item ([0113] acquires workload state within a specified time period e.g. once per hour, finish time [0112] load variation data, operative virtual server number, per-cluster system [0114] load factor, cluster system [0071] physical server #1…#3, virtual servers A1…C3), and
storing the indicator detection state data to the cache space corresponding to the target cluster ([0021] collecting load information of a cluster system, configuration information; [0089] configuration information, stored, storage device [0071] physical server #1…#3, virtual servers A1…C3; fig. 1 125 142 111),
wherein the completion time range is determined based on an indicator detection time period carried by the load type rule item and a triggering time of previous polling ([0113] acquires, workload state, within specified time period e.g. once per hour; load finish time, load start time [0112] [past load variation [0114] past load state [0142] time period, present time t1 to a time point t2 [0143] load variation tendency within a prediction time period t2-t1);
determining whether a polling triggering condition is met, and if yes ([0113] workload state within a specified time period e.g. once per hour i.e. trigger condition is passing of an hour), obtaining an indicator detection update result corresponding to the target cluster ([0113] load variation, workload state, acquire within a specified time period e.g. once per hour [0114] load factor, cluster, per cluster [0071] physical server #1…#3, virtual servers A1…C3) and updating a storage content in the cache space corresponding to the target cluster according to the indicator detection update result corresponding to the target cluster ([0080] threshold table 601, held, data 152, storage device 111 [0062] load information collection unit, stores, data 152; [0113] load variation, workload state, acquire within a specified time period e.g. once per hour [0071] physical server #1…#3, virtual servers A1…C3),
wherein the indicator detection update result is used for describing an indicator detection state update presented by the elastic scaling rule during a polling interval ( [0113] load variation, workload state, acquire within a specified time period e.g. once per hour [0071] physical server #1…#3, virtual servers A1…C3; [0166] fig. 19 operation policy, policy kind, judgement criterion, scale-in/out, threshold [0172] configuration change judgement unit 121, configuration change target selection unit 122, acquire the operation policy table 1901, select policy kind, [0173] perform case-sensitive categorization in order to perform different processing operations for scale-in/out and/or workload consolidation); and
determining an elastic scaling decision-making result corresponding to the target cluster according to the storage content in the cache space corresponding to the target cluster ([0021] judging from the load information whether scale-in [0021] judging the necessity of the scale-out from the load information [0068] judging whether scale-in/out, configuration change target selection unit, selecting virtual/physical server, scale-in/scale-out; fig. 20 S2001-S2002-S2003-S2004/S2010/S2016 [0081] fig. 6 threshold table 601 scale-in/scale-out judgement criteria, judgement conditions [0028] cluster system’s scale-in/scale-out ([0021] collecting load information of a cluster system, configuration information; [0089] configuration information, stored, storage device [0071] physical server #1…#3, virtual servers A1…C3; fig. 1 125 142 111), and
continuing to perform the step of determining whether the polling triggering condition is met ([0113] acquire workload state within a specified time period e.g. one per hour [0114] average load, arithmetically, same time point every day/ week / month, year [0068] judging whether scale-in/out, configuration change target selection unit, selecting virtual/physical server, scale-in/scale-out).
Miyata doesn’t specifically teach polling, cache.
Laribi, however, teaches polling ([0110] ping/send status inquiry on a periodic basis [0255] repeating polling), cache space (fig. 1 cache 140).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine the teachings of Miyata with the teachings of Laribi of ping / repeated polling on a periodic basis, cache memory space to improve efficiency and allow using polling and cache space to the method of Laribi as in the instant invention. The combination would have been obvious because substituting the memory space and acquire load within per hour as taught by Miyata with the cache space and pinging/polling taught by Laribi to yield expected result and improved efficiency and reduced latency.
As per claim 2, Miyata teaches wherein before the elastic scaling rule for the target cluster is created ([0081] fig. 6 threshold table 601 scale-in/scale-out judgement criteria, judgement conditions [0028] cluster system’s scale-in/scale-out), the cluster management device is configured to perform elastic scaling decision-making processing on at least one cluster to be managed using a same polling mechanism ([0020] managing, plurality of cluster system, controlling amount of computing resources to be used by a cluster system, activation / deactivation, virtual servers [0113] workload state within specified time period e.g. once per hour, judge cluster system i.e. independent of threshold table and could be performed before or after);
the triggering time of previous polling refers to a triggering moment of a previous polling process under the polling mechanism ([0113] time period e.g. once per hour i.e. triggers every hour); and
the polling triggering condition refers to a condition set for the polling mechanism in advance and used for triggering a polling process ([0105] average value of the number of virtual server operating in the cluster system, at specific time point t of every day / week / month, set alone or combined together).
Laribi teaches remaining claim elements of polling ([0110] ping/send status inquiry on a periodic basis [0255] repeating polling).
As per claim 3, Miyata teaches wherein the obtaining indicator detection state data of the load type rule item within a completion time range according to a cluster identifier of the target cluster and an indicator item identifier carried by the load type rule item comprises:
to obtain the indicator detection state data of the load type rule item within the completion time range ([0063] load information collection unit 124, arranged to receive the load information of the cluster system [0113] acquires workload state within a specified time period e.g. once per hour, finish time [0112] load variation data, operative virtual server number, per-cluster system [0114] load factor, cluster system [0071] physical server #1…#3, virtual servers A1…C3); and
the obtaining an indicator detection update result corresponding to the target cluster comprises ([0063] load information collection unit 124, arranged to receive the load information of the cluster system [0113] acquires workload state within a specified time period e.g. once per hour, finish time [0112] load variation data, operative virtual server number, per-cluster system [0114] load factor, cluster system [0071] physical server #1…#3, virtual servers A1…C3).
Laribi teaches remaining claim elements of transferring the cluster identifier of the target cluster, the indicator item identifier carried by the load type rule item, and the completion time range to a data completion interface, and invoking the data completion interface to obtain ([0052] server, receives requests from client, responds to the request by the client, enumeration of application available to the client i.e. cluster identifier, indicator item, completion time range etc., using web interface [0072] monitoring service/agent, performs performance measurement, request or responses related to application, monitors and measures any method, function or application programming interface (API) call; fig. 2A user space 202 GUI 202 [0110] health monitoring program 216, monitor/check/report network system functioning properly, call API [0252] load monitors 784);
invoking a polling data interface to obtain the indicator detection update result corresponding to the target cluster ([0252] load monitors [0255] periodically request an update, repeating polling until receiving notification, [0072] monitoring service/agent, performs performance measurement, request or responses related to application, monitors and measures any method, function or application programming interface (API) call).
As per claim 4. Miyata teaches wherein the cluster management device is configured to manage a plurality of clusters ([0020] managing a plurality of cluster systems [0056] data and instructions, processing tasks, data);
the plurality of clusters comprise the target cluster ([0071] physical server #1…#3, virtual servers A1…C3; fig. 1 125 142 111 [0066] virtual / physical server, target object);
the invoking a polling data interface to obtain the indicator detection update result corresponding to the target cluster comprises ([0063] load information collection unit 124, arranged to receive the load information of the cluster system [0113] acquires workload state within a specified time period e.g. once per hour, finish time [0066] virtual / physical server, target object):
invoking the polling data interface to obtain indicator detection update results corresponding to the plurality of clusters ([0063] load information collection unit 124, arranged to receive the load information of the cluster system [0113] acquires workload state within a specified time period e.g. once per hour, finish time, [0071] physical server #1…#3, virtual servers A1…C3; fig. 1 125 142 111);
the updating a storage content in the cache space corresponding to the target cluster according to the indicator detection update result corresponding to the target cluster comprises ([0021] collecting load information of a cluster system, configuration information; [0089] configuration information, stored, storage device [0063] load information collection unit 124, arranged to receive the load information of the cluster system [0113] acquires workload state within a specified time period e.g. once per hour, finish time [0066] virtual / physical server, target object [0113] acquires workload state within a specified time period e.g. once per hour, finish time [0066] virtual / physical server, target object):
updating storage contents in cache spaces corresponding to the clusters according to the indicator detection update results corresponding to the clusters (0113] acquires workload state within a specified time period e.g. once per hour, finish time [0066] virtual / physical server, target object [0071] physical server #1…#3, virtual servers A1…C3; fig. 1 125 142 111); and
the determining an elastic scaling decision-making result corresponding to the target cluster according to the storage content in the cache space corresponding to the target cluster comprises ([0021] judging from the load information whether scale-in [0021] judging the necessity of the scale-out from the load information [0068] judging whether scale-in/out, configuration change target selection unit, selecting virtual/physical server, scale-in/scale-out; fig. 20 S2001-S2002-S2003-S2004/S2010/S2016 [0081] fig. 6 threshold table 601 scale-in/scale-out judgement criteria, judgement conditions [0028] cluster system’s scale-in/scale-out ([0021] collecting load information of a cluster system, configuration information; [0089] configuration information, stored, storage device [0071] physical server #1…#3, virtual servers A1…C3; fig. 1 125 142 111 [0066] virtual / physical server, target object):
determining elastic scaling decision-making results corresponding to the clusters according to the storage contents in the cache spaces corresponding to the clusters ([0089] configuration information, stored, storage device [0071] physical server #1…#3, virtual servers A1…C3; [0021] judging from the load information whether scale-in [0021] judging the necessity of the scale-out from the load information [0066] judges, configuration change, cluster, select from the information collected by the configuration information , virtual /physical server, target object [0068] judging whether scale-in/out, configuration change target selection unit, selecting virtual/physical server, scale-in/scale-out).
Laribi teaches remaining claim elements of polling ([0110] ping/send status inquiry on a periodic basis [0255] repeating polling), cache space (fig. 1 cache 140).
As per claim 5, Miyata teaches before the transferring the cluster identifier of the target cluster, the indicator item identifier carried by the load type rule item, and the completion time range to a data completion interface, further comprising:
reading a previous invoking time of the polling data interface from a preset cache area as the triggering time of previous polling ([0113] acquires workload state within a specified time period e.g. once per hours i.e. previous polling triggering time [0104] load information save/acquisition unit [0105] average value of the number of virtual server operating at a specific time point t, load information, with its timing); and
determining the completion time range based on the indicator detection time period carried by the load type rule item and the triggering time of previous polling ([0113] acquires workload state within a specified time period e.g. once per hours i.e. previous polling is known; obtain a difference between a load amount at the finish time i.e. completion time and at the start time).
Laribi teaches remaining claim elements of polling ([0110] ping/send status inquiry on a periodic basis [0255] repeating polling), cache space (fig. 1 cache 140).
As per claim 6,Miyata teaches updating data stored in a preset cache area using a current invoking time of the polling data interface ([0113] acquires workload state within a specified time period e.g. once per hours [0089] configuration information, stored, storage device).
Laribi teaches remaining claim elements of polling ([0110] ping/send status inquiry on a periodic basis [0255] repeating polling), cache space (fig. 1 cache 140).
As per claim 8, Miyata teaches wherein the cache space corresponding to the target cluster comprises a cache area corresponding to the load type rule item ([0080] threshold table 601, held, data 152, storage device 111 [0062] load information collection unit, stores, data 152 [0113] load variation, workload state, acquire within a specified time period e.g. once per hour [0071] physical server #1…#3, virtual servers A1…C3); and
the storing the indicator detection state data to the cache space corresponding to the target cluster comprises ([0062] load information collection unit, stores, data 152 [0113] load variation, workload state, acquire within a specified time period e.g. once per hour [0071] physical server #1…#3, virtual servers A1…C3 [0066] virtual / physical server, target object):
storing the indicator detection state data to the cache area corresponding to the load type rule item ([0062] load information collection unit, stores, data 152 [0113] load variation, workload state, acquire within a specified time period e.g. once per hour).
Laribi teaches remaining claim elements of cache space (fig. 1 cache 140).
As per claim 9, Miyata teaches the elastic scaling rule further comprises a time type rule item ([0113] acquire workload state within a specified time period e.g. once per hour);
the data processing method further comprises:
determining whether a triggering time of current polling is within a time range characterized by the time type rule item to obtain a determination result ([0113] workload state, once per hour, load amount at the finish time and load at the start time, difference positive/negative, upward/downward trend); and
the determining an elastic scaling decision-making result corresponding to the target cluster according to the storage content in the cache space corresponding to the target cluster comprises:
determining the elastic scaling decision-making result corresponding to the target cluster according to the determination result and the storage content in the cache space corresponding to the target cluster ([0021] judging from the load information whether scale-in [0021] judging the necessity of the scale-out from the load information [0068] judging whether scale-in/out, configuration change target selection unit, selecting virtual/physical server, scale-in/scale-out; fig. 20 S2001-S2002-S2003-S2004/S2010/S2016 [0081] fig. 6 threshold table 601 scale-in/scale-out judgement criteria, judgement conditions [0028] cluster system’s scale-in/scale-out [0021] collecting load information of a cluster system, configuration information; [0062] load information collection unit, stores, data 152 [0113] load variation, workload state, acquire within a specified time period e.g. once per hour [0089] configuration information, stored, storage device [0071] physical server #1…#3, virtual servers A1…C3; fig. 1 125 142 111 [0066] virtual / physical server, target object)).
Laribi teaches remaining claim elements of cache space (fig. 1 cache 140).
Claim 10 recites an electronic device, comprising a processor and a memory, wherein the memory is configured to store instructions or a computer program; and the processor is configured to execute the instructions or the computer program in the memory to cause the electronic device to perform a data processing method applied to a cluster management device and comprising elements similar to claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 11 recites electronic device for elements similar to claim 2. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 12 recites electronic device for elements similar to claim 3. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 13 recites electronic device for elements similar to claim 4. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 14 recites electronic device for elements similar to claim 5. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 15 recites electronic device for elements similar to claim 6. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 17 recites electronic device for elements similar to claim 8. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 18 recites electronic device for elements similar to claim 9. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claim 19 recites computer readable medium in which instructions or a computer program are/is stored, wherein the instructions or the computer program, when run on a device, cause(s) the device to perform a data processing method applied to a cluster management device and comprising elements similar to claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Claims 7, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyata in view of Laribi, as applied to above claims, and further in view of Garg et al. (US 2015/0058449 A1, hereafter Garg).
As per claim 7, Miyata teaches wherein the configuring a space corresponding to the target cluster according to the elastic scaling rule created for the target cluster comprises ([0080] threshold table 601, held, data 152, storage device 111 [0066] virtual / physical server, target object):
parsing the elastic scaling rule to obtain a rule, wherein the elastic scaling rule comprises a plurality of rule expression objects (fig. 6 judgement conditions [0166] fig. 19 operation policy, written in judgement criterion, policy for increasing usage / reduce surplus computing resource, giving margin to the resource to be assigned, fault tolerance);
the plurality of rule expression objects comprise the load type rule item (fig. 19 judging conditions, CPU / memory usage, number of servers, scale in/out, load consolidation [0166] fig. 19 operation policy, written in judgement criterion, policy for increasing usage / reduce surplus computing resource, giving margin to the resource to be assigned, fault tolerance); and
configuring the space corresponding to the target cluster according to the rule, wherein the space comprises areas corresponding to the plurality of rule expression objects ([0166] policy table, held, part of the data 152 in the storage device 111 ).
Laribi teaches remaining claim elements of cache space (fig. 1 cache 140; fig. 5c global cache 580); configuring the cache space, wherein the cache space comprises cache areas ([0224] global cache 580, sectioned into individual memory sections, each section can be dedicated to particular core 505 [0227] determining which core should receive network traffic i.e. different section of global cache for storing different data).
Miyata and Laribi, in combination, do not specifically teach parsing the rule to obtain a rule tree; and the rule tree comprises nodes corresponding to the plurality of rule expression objects.
Garg, however, teaches parsing the rule to obtain a rule tree ([0048] fig. 3, rule tree 70); and
the rule tree comprises nodes corresponding to the plurality of rule expression objects ([0048] rule tree 70 set of nodes 72 [0049] each node 72 of the rule tree, include subset of rules 38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine the teachings of Miyata and Laribi with the teachings of Garg of rule tree comprising plurality of nodes, each of which may include a subset of rules to improve efficiency and allow parsing the rule to obtain a rule tree; and the rule tree comprises nodes corresponding to the plurality of rule expression objects to the method of Miyata and Laribi as in the instant invention.
The combination would have been obvious because applying the known method of creating rule tree comprising nodes of subset of rules as taught by Garg to the method of cluster management rules taught by Miyata and Laribi to yield expected result of building rule tree comprising rules corresponding to the rule expression objects and improved efficiency and reduced latency.
Claim 16 recites electronic device for elements similar to claim 7. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationale.
Examiners Note
Applicant is further reminded of that the cited paragraphs and in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant(s) and although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider all of the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Khan et al. (US 12,596,593 B1) teaches user-configured multi-location service deployment and scaling.
Lee et al. (US 2014/0189101 A1) teaches auto-configuration server and management method of customer premises equipments
Maegawa et al. (US 2009/0063678 A1) teaches equipment set generation support apparatus
Sabin et al. (US 2012/0222041 A1) teaches techniques for cloud bursting
Kim (US 2016/0294643 A1) teaches system for service orchestration in distributed cloud environment
Sundararaman et al. (US 2023/0188433 A1) teaches selecting low priority PODS for guaranteed runs
Ando (US 2022/0050724 A1) teaches information processing system performing load distribution and scaling across clusters
Authorization for Internet Communication
Applicant is encouraged to submit an authorization to communicate with the Examiner via the internet by making the following statement (MPEP 502.03)
“Recognizing that internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only by submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner’s Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABU GHAFFARI whose telephone number is (571)270-3799. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 14:00 - 15:00 Hrs.
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 Lee can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABU ZAR GHAFFARI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195
Prosecution Insights