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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. IN202411015819, filed on 03/06/2024.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding independent claims 1, 14, and 17, the limitations “obtaining a graph”, “partitioning the graph … “, “segmenting the plurality of subgraphs … “, “determining that at least a first segmented subgraph … and a second segmented subgraph … are redundant to one another, resulting in a first redundancy”, and “eliminating the first redundancy” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. These limitations ecompass a human mind carrying out these functions through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. For example, a person could look at a diagram of a network, mentally divide it into smaller groups, mentally compare these groups to identify two that are substantially the same, and decide to only schedule a single instance of a workload associated with the groups. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The only additional elements are generic computer components recited at a high level of generality: “non-transitory machine-readable medium”, “executable instructions”, and “processing system including a processor”, and “by a processing system including a processor”. These elements do nothing more than recite a generic computer used as a tool to apply the abstract idea, without reciting any particular technical mechanism by which the graph is partitioned, segmented, or compared. Claim 17’s recitation of “a first hash value” and “a second hash value” likewise does not integrate the exception into a practical application, because hashing is invoked only as an off-the-shelf, generic technique for representing and comparing data for equality, without any recitation of a specific or improved hashing algorithm. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claims are therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. A generic processor executing generic stored instructions to receive, manipulate, compare, and discard data is well-understood, routine, conventional computer functionality. The use of hash value as a means of comparing data for equality is likewise a well-known, off-the-shelf technique long used for exactly this purpose and does not, by itself, supply an inventive concept. The Specification’s assertion that eliminating redundant workloads/outputs “represents significant improvements to technology” because it conserves computing, storage, and power resources does not compel a different conclusion. The resource savings described flow directly from the abstract idea itself – i.e., from the concept of not doing (or storing) the same work twice – rather than from any improvement to how the processor, memory, or network operates. Therefore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more and cannot provide an inventive concept.
Regarding dependent claims 2 and 15, the limitation “scheduling only a single instance … “and “scheduling … does not satisfy the partition size” recite additional abstract idea of a mental process, since deciding to process only one of two workloads on duplicate subgraphs is a function a human mind could perform through observation, evaluation, and judgment. The recited “scheduling” does not specify any particular technical scheduling mechanism and is not indicative of either a practical application under Prong 2, or an inventive concept under Step 2B, for the reasons explained in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding dependent claim 3, the additional element “allocating the workload to at least one machine of a cloud computing framework for the processing of the workload” merely recites a generic cloud computing environment and a generic “machine” as a tool for carrying out the abstract idea. This is not indicative of either a practical application or an inventive concept.
Regarding dependent claims 4, 5, 18, 19, and 20, the limitations “wherein the graph corresponds to at least a portion of a communication network or system”, “wherein the portion includes a fiber link”, “wherein the first subgraph … communication network”, “wherein the communication network … fiber communication network”, and “wherein the communication network … wireless communication network” merely limit the abstract idea to a particular field of use or technological environment without imposing any meaningful limit on how the partitioning, segmenting, comparing, or eliminating is actually performed. Generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use is not indicative of either a practical application or an inventive concept.
Regarding dependent claim 6, the limitations “scheduling … segmented subgraphs”, “obtaining … outputs”, “determining … resulting in a second redundancy”, and “eliminating the second redundancy” recite the same abstract process identified in the rejection of claim 1, applied a second time to the outputs of the processing rather than to the initial subgraphs. Thus, this is not indicative of either a practical application, or an inventive concept.
Regarding dependent claim 7, the limitation “storing only a single instance … second output” is mere data storage, which is insignificant extra-solution activity that courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functionality. This is not indicative of either a practical application, or an inventive concept.
Regarding dependent claim 8, the limitations “wherein the first output is generated prior to the second output”, “querying … output is stored”, and “determining … matches the first output” recite additional abstract idea of a mental process, since checking whether a new item matches something in an existing database is a function a human mind could perform. This is not indicative of either a practical application, or an inventive concept.
Regarding dependent claim 9, the limitation “wherein the partitioning … allowed in each partition of the graph” recites additional abstract idea of a mental process, since traversing a graph and grouping items so that no group exceeds a maximum size that could be performed through observation and manual counting, or with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this is not indicative of either a practical application, or an inventive concept.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “wherein the traversal … partition size” further characterizes the mental process of claim 9 and does not recite any additional elements. The further limitation “scheduling for processing workloads is insignificant extra-solution activity/generic computer function and is not indicative of either a practical application or an inventive concept.
Regarding dependent claims 11 and 16, the limitations “extracting at least … accordance with the extracting” and “extracting first features … first features and second features” recite additional abstract idea of a mental process, since noting characteristics of two groups and comparing those characteristics is a function a human mind could perform through observation, evaluation, and judgment. This is not indicative of either a practical application, or an inventive concept.
Regarding dependent claim 12, the additional elements “generating a first hash value based on … first … second segmented subgraph” and “comparison is based on the first hash value and second hash value” recite a well-known, off-the-shelf mathematical technique used for its conventional purpose of comparing two items. This is not indicative of either a practical application or an inventive concept.
Regarding dependent claim 13, the limitation “wherein the determining … are within a threshold of one another” recites additional abstract idea of mental processes, since judging whether two things are close enough to be considered the same is a function a human mind could perform through observation, evaluation, and judgment. This is not indicative of either a practical application or an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 10528367 B1 (hereinafter referred to as Liu).
As per claim 17 – Liu teaches a non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by processing system including a processor, facilitate performance of operations, the operations comprising: determining, based on a comparison of a first hash value associated with a first subgraph and a second hash value associated with a second subgraph, that the first subgraph and the second subgraph are duplicates of one another (Data with the same and/or similar (e.g. same except with a different datestamp/timestamp) content will have the same hash. Steps that perform the same operation will also have the same hash – [col. 22; lines 30-33]; Determining hash similarity based on data content teaches generating the has values based on a “feature” of the segmented subgraph); and based on the determining, performing deduplication by scheduling a single instance of a workload for processing, the workload being associated with each of the first subgraph and the second subgraph; and processing the workload based on the scheduling (A “cache hash” is computed for each intermediate step in the workflow as described above and in FIG. 3D and FIG. 3E. The system looks up the hash in the CMDB (224), and in the event the hash matches a previously executed sequence of steps, the steps leading up to the matching hash are annotated as “cached” and may be skipped during the execution of the workflow. The results from the previous execution of the steps may be used as input to any subsequent steps – (col. 28; lines 17-28); Skipping the steps leading up to the matching has correspond to “deduplication”).
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) 1-5, 11-14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240291747 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Hecht) in view of Liu
As per claim 1 – Hecht teaches a non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by processing system including a processor, facilitate performance of operations (The memory 220 may be a volatile or non-volatile, magnetic, semiconductor, tape, optical, removable, non-removable, or other type of storage device or tangible or non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores one or more program(s) 230 such as server apps 232 and operating system 234, and data 240 – [0045]), the operations comprising: obtaining a graph (The method can include observations. The observations can include obtaining a network graph representing the communication network – [0005]) partitioning the graph to generate a plurality of subgraphs (Certain network edges can be associated with certain logical partitions of the communications network – [0055]).
Hecht does not teach these limitations:
segmenting the plurality of subgraphs to obtain a plurality of segmented subgraphs; determining that at least a first segmented subgraph of the plurality of segmented subgraphs and a second segmented subgraph of the plurality of segmented subgraphs are redundant to one another, resulting in a first redundancy.
However, Liu, in the analogous art of workflow execution, teaches them below:
segmenting the plurality of subgraphs to obtain a plurality of segmented subgraphs; determining that at least a first segmented subgraph of the plurality of segmented subgraphs and a second segmented subgraph of the plurality of segmented subgraphs are redundant to one another, resulting in a first redundancy (Data with the same and/or similar (e.g. same except with a different datestamp/timestamp content will have the same hash. Steps that perform the same operation will also have the same hash – [col. 22; lines 30-33]); and eliminating the first redundancy (A “cache hash” is computed for each intermediate step in the workflow as described above and in FIG. 3D and FIG. 3E. The system looks up the hash in the CMDB (224), and in the event the hash matches a previously executed sequence of steps, the steps leading up to the matching hash are annotated as “cached” and may be skipped during the execution of the workflow. The results from the previous execution of the steps may be used as input to any subsequent steps – [col. 28; lines 20-28]; Skipping the steps leading up to the matching has correspond to “eliminating the first redundancy”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the redundant workload reusage aspect of Liu to the overall communication network analysis system of Hecht. This combination would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because of the explicitly mentioned benefit in Liu: “This not only permits the disclosed techniques to recognize common steps and cache intermediate data to improve efficiency, it also allows for efficient automated re-execution of steps when a node in the distributed system goes through temporarily or permanently failure” [col. 3; lines 62-66].
As per claim 2 – The combination of Hecht and Liu teach the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1. Liu further teaches:
wherein the eliminating of the first redundancy comprises scheduling only a single instance of a workload for processing, wherein the workload is associated with each of the first segmented subgraph and the second segmented subgraph (Using workflow definitions associated with a set of workflows to implement a state machine of an application is disclosed. Recognizing common steps in the set of workflows is disclosed – [col. 2; lines 23-25]; Intuit’s premise is that steps performing the same operation produced the same content-based has. If the first and second segmented subgraphs hash identically, the underlying computational work they call for is, by definition, the same workload).
As per claim 3 – The combination of Hecht and Liu teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 2. Liu further teaches:
wherein the scheduling comprises allocating the workload to at least one machine of a cloud computing framework for the processing of the workload (FIG. 2A is a block diagram illustrating an embodiment of a system for workflow execution. Workflows (202) associated with a distributed application are run on a plurality of containers (204); There may be a plurality of nodes (206) of which a master node (208) is used to manage and/or coordinate as per a container orchestration service (210) such as Kubernetes, Mesos, and/or Docker Swarm – [col. 6; lines 21-30]).
As per claim 4 - The combination of Hecht and Liu teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1. Hecht further teaches:
wherein the graph corresponds to at least a portion of a communication network or system (The method can include observations. The observations can include obtaining a network graph representing the communication network – [0005]).
As per claim 5 - The combination of Hecht and Liu teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1. Hecht further teaches:
wherein the portion includes a fiber link (Nodes 120 may be connected to one another via copper wire, coaxial cable, optical fiber, microwave links, or other satellite or radio communication components – [0035]).
As per claim 11 - The combination of Hecht and Liu teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1. Liu further teaches:
wherein the segmenting of the plurality of subgraphs comprises: extracting at least one feature from each subgraph of the plurality of subgraphs, wherein the determining is based on a comparison of a respective at least one feature of the first segmented subgraph and a respective at least one feature of the second segmented subgraph in accordance with the extracting (Data with the same and/or similar (e.g. same except with a different datestamp/timestamp) content will have the same hash. Steps that perform the same operation will also have the same hash – (248); Determining hash similarity based on data content teaches generating the has values based on a “feature” of the segmented subgraph).
As per claim 12 - The combination of Hecht and Liu teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 11. Liu further teaches:
wherein the operations further comprising: generating a first hash value based on the respective at least one feature of the first segmented subgraph; and generating a second hash value based on the respective at least one feature of the second segmented subgraph, wherein the comparison is based on the first hash value and the second hash value (Data with the same and/or similar (e.g. same except with a different datestamp/timestamp) content will have the same hash. Steps that perform the same operation will also have the same hash – [col. 22; lines 30-33]; Determining hash similarity based on data content teaches generating the has values based on a “feature” of the segmented subgraph).
As per claim 13 - The combination of Hecht and Liu teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1. Liu further teaches:
wherein the determining comprises determining that a first output associated with the first segmented subgraph and a second output associated with the second segmented subgraph are within a threshold of one another (Data with the same and/or similar (e.g. same except with a different datestamp/timestamp) content will have the same hash. Steps that perform the same operation will also have the same hash – [col. 22; lines 30-33]; The fact that similar content can result in the same hash teaches a threshold).
As per claim 14 – Hecht teaches a method, comprising: obtaining, by a processing system including a processor, a graph (The method can include observations. The observations can include obtaining a network graph representing the communication network – [0005]); partitioning, by the processing system, the graph to generate a plurality of subgraphs (Certain network edges can be associated with certain logical partitions of the communications network – [0055]).
Hecht does not teach these limitations:
segmenting, by the processing system, the plurality of subgraphs to obtain a plurality of segmented subgraphs; determining, by the processing system, that at least a first segmented subgraph of the plurality of segmented subgraphs and a second segmented subgraph of the plurality of segmented subgraphs are redundant to one another, resulting in a first redundancy; and eliminating, by the processing system, the first redundancy.
However, Liu, in the analogous art of workflow execution, teaches them below:
segmenting, by the processing system, the plurality of subgraphs to obtain a plurality of segmented subgraphs; determining, by the processing system, that at least a first segmented subgraph of the plurality of segmented subgraphs and a second segmented subgraph of the plurality of segmented subgraphs are redundant to one another, resulting in a first redundancy; and eliminating, by the processing system, the first redundancy (Data with the same and/or similar (e.g. same except with a different datestamp/timestamp content will have the same hash. Steps that perform the same operation will also have the same hash – [col. 22; lines 30-33]); and eliminating the first redundancy (A “cache hash” is computed for each intermediate step in the workflow as described above and in FIG. 3D and FIG. 3E. The system looks up the hash in the CMDB (224), and in the event the hash matches a previously executed sequence of steps, the steps leading up to the matching hash are annotated as “cached” and may be skipped during the execution of the workflow. The results from the previous execution of the steps may be used as input to any subsequent steps – [col. 28; lines 20-28]; Skipping the steps leading up to the matching has correspond to “eliminating the first redundancy”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the redundant workload reusage aspect of Liu to the overall communication network analysis method of Hecht. This combination would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because of the explicitly mentioned benefit in Liu: “This not only permits the disclosed techniques to recognize common steps and cache intermediate data to improve efficiency, it also allows for efficient automated re-execution of steps when a node in the distributed system goes through temporarily or permanently failure” [col. 3; lines 62-66].
As per claim 16 – The combination of Hecht and Liu teaches the method of claim 14. Liu further teaches:
wherein the segmenting comprises extracting first features from a first subgraph of the plurality of subgraphs and second features from a second subgraph of the plurality of subgraphs, the first subgraph being associated with the first segmented subgraph and the second subgraph being associated with the second segmented subgraph, and wherein the determining is based on a comparison of the first features and the second features (Data with the same and/or similar (e.g. same except with a different datestamp/timestamp) content will have the same hash. Steps that perform the same operation will also have the same hash – [col. 22; lines 30-33]; Determining hash similarity based on data content teaches generating the has values based on a “feature” of the segmented subgraph).
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hecht in view of Liu further in view of US 7953706 B2 (hereinafter referred to as Prahlad).
As per claim 6 – The combination of Hecht and Liu teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1. However, it does not teach these limitations:
wherein the operations further comprise: subsequent to the eliminating of the first redundancy, scheduling for processing a plurality of workloads associated with a remainder of the plurality of segmented subgraphs; based on the scheduling, obtaining a plurality of outputs; determining that at least a first output of the plurality of outputs and a second output of the plurality of outputs are redundant to one another, resulting in a second redundancy; and eliminating the second redundancy.
However, Prahlad, in the analogous art of redundancy elimination, teaches them below:
wherein the operations further comprise: subsequent to the eliminating of the first redundancy, scheduling for processing a plurality of workloads associated with a remainder of the plurality of segmented subgraphs; based on the scheduling, obtaining a plurality of outputs; determining that at least a first output of the plurality of outputs and a second output of the plurality of outputs are redundant to one another, resulting in a second redundancy; and eliminating the second redundancy (A method and system for reducing storage requirements and speeding up storage operations by reducing storage of redundant data, referred to as single instancing, first receives a request that identifies one or more data objects on which to perform a storage operation … For each data object, the storage system determines if the data object contains data that matches another data object that was the subject of a previous storage operation. For example, if the storage operation is a backup of data files, then the storage system determines if backup data from a previous backup operation already contains a particular file to be backed up by the current operation. If the data objects do not match, then the storage system performs the storage operation in a usual manner. However, if the data objects do match, then the storage system may avoid performing the storage operation. – [col. 3; lines 1-18]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the redundant result removal aspect of Prahlad to the workload processing system of Hecht and Liu. This combination would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because of the explicitly mentioned negative impacts of the storage of redundant items in Prahlad: “As a result of the amount of redundant information in an organization, secondary copies of an organization's information are often very large and can require the purchase of expensive storage devices and storage media. The restoration of data in the event of data loss is also slowed by the large size of the secondary copies” [col. 2; lines 3-8].
As per claim 7 - The combination of Hecht, Liu, and Prahlad teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 6. Prahlad further teaches:
wherein the eliminating of the second redundancy comprises storing only a single instance of the first output and the second output (For each data object, the storage system determines if the data object contains data that matches another data object that was the subject of a previous storage operation. For example, if the storage operation is a backup of data files, then the storage system determines if backup data from a previous backup operation already contains a particular file to be backed up by the current operation. If the data objects do not match, then the storage system performs the storage operation in a usual manner. However, if the data objects do match, then the storage system may avoid performing the storage operation. – [col. 3; lines 15-25]).
As per claim 8 – The combination of Hecht, Liu, and Prahlad teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 6. Prahlad further teaches:
wherein the first output is generated prior to the second output, and wherein the determining that the first output and the second output are redundant to one another comprises: querying a database where the first output is stored; and determining, based on the querying, that the second output matches the first output (For each data object, the storage system determines if the data object contains data that matches another data object that was the subject of a previous storage operation. For example, if the storage operation is a backup of data files, then the storage system determines if backup data from a previous backup operation already contains a particular file to be backed up by the current operation. If the data objects do not match, then the storage system performs the storage operation in a usual manner. However, if the data objects do match, then the storage system may avoid performing the storage operation – [col. 3; lines 15-25]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hecht in view of Liu further in view of “An Algorithm for Generating All Connected Subgraphs with k Vertices of a Graph” (hereinafter referred to as Karakashian, published Jun. 2013).
As per claim 9 - The combination of Hecht and Liu teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 1. It does not teach these limitations:
wherein the partitioning comprises a traversal of the graph to identify a first plurality of subgraphs included in the plurality of subgraphs that satisfy a partition size, the partition size representing a maximum number of participating vertices included in the graph that is allowed in each partition of the graph.
However, Karakashian, in the analogous art of graph analysis, teaches them below:
wherein the partitioning comprises a traversal of the graph to identify a first plurality of subgraphs included in the plurality of subgraphs that satisfy a partition size, the partition size representing a maximum number of participating vertices included in the graph that is allowed in each partition of the graph (In this paper, we propose, discuss, and evaluate ConSubg, an algorithm for this purpose. The two main features of our approach are the construction of a combination tree T and the definition of an operator ⊗t. The combination tree T rooted at a vertex v ∈ G has the property that the depth-first tree rooted at v of every G, where G is a connected subgraph induced on G by at most k vertices including v, is isomorphic to a subgraph of T rooted at v. The operator ⊗t generates from T, without duplication, all connected subgraphs of G of size k including v – [“Introduction”]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the subgraph discovery process of Karakashian to the overall communication network analysis system of Hecht and Liu. This combination would have been obvious because of the explicitly mentioned benefit in Karakashian: “this problem is a crucial step in enforcing higher consistency levels in Constraint Processing” [“Introduction”].
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Hecht.
As per claim 18 – Liu teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 17. Liu does not teach this limitation:
wherein the first subgraph and the second subgraph are representations of portions of a communication network.
However, Hecht, in the analogous art of communication network analysis, teaches them below:
wherein the first subgraph and the second subgraph are representations of portions of a communication network (The method can include observations. The observations can include obtaining a network graph representing the communication network – [0005]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teaching of creating a network graph of Hecht to the workload processing system of Liu. This combination would have been obvious because it allows the Liu system to capture the relevant nodes and links in order to optimize network performance before scaling to the full network.
As per claim 19 – The combination of Liu and Hecht teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 18. Hecht further teaches:
wherein the communication network includes a fiber communication network (Nodes 120 may be connected to one another via copper wire, coaxial cable, optical fiber, microwave links, or other satellite or radio communication components – [0035]).
As per claim 20 - The combination of Liu and Hecht teaches the non-transitory machine-readable medium of claim 19. Hecht further teaches:
wherein the communication network includes a wireless communication network (Nodes 120 may be connected to one another via copper wire, coaxial cable, optical fiber, microwave links, or other satellite or radio communication components – [0035]).
Examiner’s Note
Claim(s) 10 and 15 have no prior art rejections. However, they would be allowable if the aforementioned 35 USC 101 rejection is overcome and if written in independent form including all the limitations of the base claims.
Conclusion
Prior art not directly relied upon but considered pertinent to the rejection is listed here:
US 12204944 B2 discloses discovering the optimal network subgraph to execute a workload based on past workload executions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH MAXEN LANE whose telephone number is (571)272-8027. The examiner can normally be reached M-F from 8:30 A.M. - 4:30 P.M..
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, April Y. Blair can be reached at (571) 270-1014. 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.
/JOSEPH MAXEN LANE/Examiner, Art Unit 2196
/APRIL Y BLAIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2196
Prosecution Insights