DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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, 4-13, 15, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikhil et al. (US 2021/0157642) in view of Gray et al. (US 2002/0082856).
With respect to claim 1, Nikhil discloses: receiving, by a device, a resource request for a domain with resource types ([0028]);
assigning, by the device, a classification to the resource request ([0023]);
determining, by the device, resource parameters for the resource request based on resource characteristics ([0028], lines 6-16);
processing, by the device, the resource parameters and optimized parameter values, with a resource optimizer model, to generate optimized resource parameters ([0022], [0029]);
processing, by the device, the resource types of the domain, with one or more resource scheduling models and based on the optimized resource parameters, to generate a consumption schedule for the resource types([0035], [0036], [0041]) ; and
servicing, by the device, the resource request based on the consumption schedule for the resource types (Fig. 3, “350”, [0078]-[0079]).
Nikhil does not specifically disclose: identifying, by the device, a queue position for the resource request.
However, Gray discloses: identifying, by the device, a queue position for the resource request ([0130]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Gray to ensure fair and predictable resource allocation which is important in shared or time sensitive systems.
With respect to claim 4, Nikhil discloses: wherein assigning the classification to the resource request comprises one of: assigning, to the resource request, a first classification associated with connectivity and control resources of the domain; assigning, to the resource request, a second classification associated with an application resource of the domain ([0022]-[0023] “software licenses”); or assigning, to the resource request, a third classification associated with an orchestration application resource of the domain, wherein the first classification takes priority over the second classification and the third classification, and the second classification takes priority over the third classification.
With respect to claim 5, Nikhil discloses: wherein the resource parameters include parameters associated with one or more of: an available size or a component size of a resource ([0023] “requesting 100 GB Memory”), a utilization of a resource, a maximum geographical distance to a source of the resource request, a minimum geographical distance to the source of the resource request, an average geographical distance to the source of the resource request, a processor speed of a resource, bandwidth of a resource interface, or a memory or storage read and write speed of a resource.
With respect to claim 6, Nikhil discloses: wherein the optimized parameter values include consumer-defined parameter value boundaries ([0024], [0035]-[0038], the heuristic model takes account of the consumer consumption which defines the parameter boundaries).
With respect to claim 7, Nikhil discloses: wherein the resource request includes a request for one or more of: a compute resource of the domain, a memory resource of the domain ([0028]), a storage resource of the domain, a network resource of the domain, a connectivity resource of the domain, or an application resource of the domain.
With respect to claims 8 and 9, they recite similar limitations as claims 1 and 6, respectively, and are therefore rejected under the same citations and rationale.
With respect to claim 10, Nikhil discloses: wherein the one or more processors, to process the resource parameters and the optimized parameter values, with the resource optimizer model, to generate the optimized resource parameters, are configured to: iteratively adjust the optimized resource parameters by removing one or more of the resource parameters until the optimized parameter values are satisfied ([0025]).
With respect to claim 11, Nikhil discloses: wherein the one or more resource scheduling models includes one or more of: a resource scheduling model that schedules resources of the domain based on an available size or a component size of a resource ([0023]), a resource scheduling model that schedules resources of the domain based on a utilization of a resource, a resource scheduling model that schedules resources of the domain based on a maximum geographical distance to a source of the resource request, a resource scheduling model that schedules resources of the domain based on a minimum geographical distance to the source of the resource request, a resource scheduling model that schedules resources of the domain based on an average geographical distance to the source of the resource request, a resource scheduling model that schedules resources of the domain based on a processor speed of a resource, a resource scheduling model that schedules resources of the domain based on a resource interface bandwidth, or a resource scheduling model that schedules resources of the domain based on a memory or storage read and write speed of a resource.
With respect to claim 12, Nikhil discloses: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: modify the consumption schedule for the resource types based on a change to an available size or a component size of a resource of the domain ([0044]-[0045]).
With respect to claim 13, Nikhil discloses: wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: modify the consumption schedule for the resource types based on a change to a utilization of a resource of the domain (id.).
With respect to claim 15, it recites similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same citations and rationale.
With respect to claim 18, Nikhil discloses: wherein the one or more instructions further cause the device to: modify the consumption schedule for the resource types based on a change to a processor speed of a resource of the domain ([0023]).
With respect to claim 19, Nikhil discloses: wherein the one or more instructions further cause the device to: modify the consumption schedule for the resource types based on one of a change to a bandwidth of a resource of the domain or a change to a memory or storage read and write speed of a resource ([0023]).
With respect to claim 20, Nikhil discloses: wherein the one or more instructions, that cause the device to service the resource request based on the consumption schedule for the resource types, cause the device to: cause the domain to provide the resource types to a source of the resource request based on the consumption schedule (Fig. 3).
Claim(s) 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nikhil et al. (US 2021/0157642) in view of Gray et al. (US 2002/0082856) further in view of Bachmutsky et al. (US 2019/0317802).
With respect to claim 2, Nikhil and Gray do not specifically disclose: wherein identifying the queue position for the resource request comprises one of: utilizing a round robin technique to identify the queue position for the resource request; or utilizing a weighted round robin technique to identify the queue position for the resource request.
However, Bachmutsky disloses: wherein identifying the queue position for the resource request comprises one of: utilizing a round robin technique to identify the queue position for the resource request; or utilizing a weighted round robin technique to identify the queue position for the resource request ([0028]-[0030]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate round robin technique to identify a request to execute to ensure fairness, equal opportunity, and consistent participation in scheduling of processing resources
With respect to claim 3, Bachmutsky discloses: wherein the weighted round robin technique serves a first resource request with a first priority before a second resource request with a second priority when the first priority is higher than the second priority ([0030]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14, 16, and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art, alone or in any reasonable combination, does not disclose modifying the consumption schedule for the resource types based on a change to a maximum geographical distance to a source of the resource request. Even if the prior art would teach such a technique, combining such a technique with the limitations of the independent claims would be engaging in impermissible hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bhagavatula et al. (US 2021/0119933): a deployment model that provides an optimized resource allocation solution from the point of view of both a resource pool embodying computational resources, storage resources, network resources, and security resources, and industrial equipments and applications requesting access to the resource pool.
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
Prosecution Insights