DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-10 are pending.
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
2. 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. CN202310524165.8, filed 5/5/2023.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The claim(s), as amended, contain the following language that is unclear:
As per claim 1, the limitations recite “taking a process among the plurality of processes that occupies the CPU resources over a preset threshold as a target process required to adjust a virtual CPU to be used, and calculating, according to the number of times the target process has been adjusted”. It is unclear what is being adjusted. Is it the vCPU to be used? Is it the target process? What is the metric being adjusted? For examination purposes, examiner interprets the limitation as anytime the process has a change in resource utilization, that is an adjustment.
Claims 2-8 are dependent on claim 1 and fail to cure the deficiencies set forth above for claim 1. Therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale above.
Regarding claim 9, it is a CPU resource control apparatus claim having similar limitations as claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale above.
Regarding claim 10, it is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim having similar limitations as claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale above.
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.
3. Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
4. Step 1:
Claims 1-8 are directed to a CPU resource control method and fall within the statutory category of processes; Claim 9 is directed to a CPU resource control apparatus and falls within the statutory category of machines; and Claim 10 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium and falls within the statutory category of articles of manufacture. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
5. Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1, 9, and 10: The limitations of “detecting CPU resources occupied by a plurality of processes in a virtual machine, wherein the virtual machine has a plurality of virtual CPUs; taking a process among the plurality of processes that occupies the CPU resources over a preset threshold as a target process required to adjust a virtual CPU to be used, and calculating, according to the number of times the target process has been adjusted, the number of virtual CPUs to be used by the target process, wherein as the number of times the target process has been adjusted increases, the number of virtual CPUs to be used by the target process decreases until it reaches 1; no longer detecting the target process when the number of virtual CPUs to be used by the target process is 1; and selecting, according to the number of virtual CPUs to be used by the target process, CPU resources occupied by the target process, and remaining resources of the plurality of virtual CPUs, at least one virtual CPU from the plurality of virtual CPUs for use by the target process”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate the number of virtual CPUs to be used by the target process. More specifically, the limitation “taking a process among the plurality of processes that occupies the CPU resources over a preset threshold as a target process required to adjust a virtual CPU to be used,” is a mere comparison. A person can mentally judge that a process that occupies the CPU resources over a preset threshold is a target process. Additionally, the limitations include “calculating, according to the number of times the target process has been adjusted, the number of virtual CPUs to be used by the target process, wherein as the number of times the target process has been adjusted increases, the number of virtual CPUs to be used by the target process decreases until it reaches 1”, recite a mathematical concept. The claim requires “calculating, according to the number of times the target process has been adjusted, the number of virtual CPUs to be used by the target process, wherein as the number of times the target process has been adjusted increases, the number of virtual CPUs to be used by the target process decreases until it reaches 1,” which are mathematical calculations.
Therefore, Yes, claim 1 recites judicial exceptions.
The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
6. Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1, 9, and 10: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional elements – “A CPU resource control method”; “A CPU resource control apparatus, comprising a memory coupled to the processor, the memory storing a computer program, wherein when the computer program is executed by the processor, the processor is caused to perform operations comprising”; and “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, storing a plurality of program codes, wherein the program codes are adapted to be loaded and run by a processor to perform a CPU resource control method, the method comprising”, which is merely recitations of generic computing components and functions merely being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Additionally, the claims recite “detecting CPU resources occupied by a plurality of processes in a virtual machine, wherein the virtual machine has a plurality of virtual CPUs” and “no longer detecting the target process when the number of virtual CPUs to be used by the target process is 1; and selecting, according to the number of virtual CPUs to be used by the target process, CPU resources occupied by the target process, and remaining resources of the plurality of virtual CPUs, at least one virtual CPU from the plurality of virtual CPUs for use by the target process.”, which merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, thus is not a practical application. Therefore, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that the claim 1 not only recites a judicial exception but that the claim is directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
7. Step 2B:
Claims 1, 9, and 10: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components and field of use/technological environment which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, Claims 1, 9, and 10 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
8. With regard to claim 2, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of “further comprising, prior to the step of taking the process among the plurality of processes that occupies the CPU resources over the preset threshold as the target process required to adjust the virtual CPU to be used: setting a corresponding threshold for each of the plurality of processes”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Defining the development environment by setting corresponding thresholds for each of the plurality of processes recites instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, claim 2 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 2 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claim 2 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
9. With regard to claim 3, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein the step of setting the corresponding threshold for each of the plurality of processes comprises: setting the corresponding threshold for each process according to a degree of dependence of a task executed by the virtual machine on each process”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Defining the development environment by setting corresponding thresholds for each of the plurality of processes according to a degree of dependence of a task executed by the virtual machine on each process recites instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, claim 3 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 3 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claim 3 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
10. With regard to claim 4, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein the step of setting the corresponding threshold for each of the plurality of processes comprises: setting the corresponding threshold for each process according to a degree of impact of each process on stability of a running system of the virtual machine,” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Defining the development environment by setting corresponding thresholds for each of the plurality of processes according to a degree of impact of each process of stability of a running system of the virtual machine recites instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, claim 4 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 4 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claim 4 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
11. With regard to claim 5, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of “performing detection again after a preset time period when it is not detected that there is a process among the plurality of processes that occupies the CPU resources over the preset threshold,” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Defining the development environment by performing detection after a preset time period when it is not detected that there is a process that occupies the CPU resources over the preset threshold recites instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, claim 5 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 5 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claim 5 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
12. With regard to claim 6, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein the step of calculating, according to the number of times the target process has been adjusted, the number of virtual CPUs to be used by the target process comprises: when the total number of the plurality of virtual CPUs is n and the number of times the target process has been adjusted is m, setting M=m+1 and the number of virtual CPUs to be used by the target process to n/2M,” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate the number of virtual CPUs to be used by the target process according to this calculation that uses the number of times the target process has been adjusted and the total number of vCPUs. Moreover, the claim requires “setting M=m+1 and the number of virtual CPUs to be used by the target process to n/2M,” which are mathematical calculations. Further, claim 6 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 6 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claim 6 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
13. With regard to claim 7, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein the step of detecting CPU resources occupied by the plurality of processes in the virtual machine comprises: querying, according to a preset configuration file recording the plurality of processes, the plurality of processes from the virtual machine and performing detection; and the step of no longer detecting the target process when the number of virtual CPUs to be used by the target process is 1 comprises: deleting the target process from the configuration file,” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Defining the development environment by querying, according to a preset configuration file recording the plurality of processes, the plurality of processes from the virtual machine and performing detection; and the step of no longer detecting the target process when the number of virtual CPUs to be used by the target process is 1 comprises: deleting the target process from the configuration file recites instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, claim 7 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 7 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claim 7 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
14. With regard to claim 8, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein the step of selecting, according to the number of CPUs to be used by the target process, CPU resources occupied by the target process, and remaining resources of the plurality of CPUs, at least one CPU from the plurality of CPUs for use by the target process further comprises: selecting the at least one virtual CPU from the plurality of virtual CPUs in an ascending order of resource usage of the plurality of virtual CPUs,” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. Defining the development environment by selecting, according to the number of CPUs to be used by the target process, CPU resources occupied by the target process, and remaining resources of the plurality of CPUs, at least one CPU from the plurality of CPUs for use by the target process further comprises: selecting the at least one virtual CPU from the plurality of virtual CPUs in an ascending order of resource usage of the plurality of virtual CPUs merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, claim 8 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 8 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, Claim 8 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
15. Therefore, Claims 1-10 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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.
16. Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Iwasa US 20220206829 A1.
17. With regard to claim 1, Iwasa teaches:
A CPU resource control method, comprising:
detecting CPU resources occupied by a plurality of processes in a virtual machine, wherein the virtual machine has a plurality of virtual CPUs ([0043] Conventionally, it is possible that CPU cores of a host (compute) are shared between all VMs installed on the host and also that one VM is occupied by a specific CPU core. FIG. 1 shows an example in which CPU cores (Core) of a host (compute) are shared between VMs installed on the host (reference sign 200A). Here, for example, two vCPUs (virtual CPUs) are set for a VM #01, and the vCPUs share the CPU cores of the host);
taking a process among the plurality of processes that occupies the CPU resources over a preset threshold as a target process required to adjust a virtual CPU to be used, and calculating, according to the number of times the target process has been adjusted, the number of virtual CPUs to be used by the target process, wherein as the number of times the target process has been adjusted increases, the number of virtual CPUs to be used by the target process decreases until it reaches 1 ([0043] Here, for example, two vCPUs (virtual CPUs) are set for a VM #01, and the vCPUs share the CPU cores of the host; [0066] This predetermined determination rule is information that is set, in advance, to the scaling determination unit 111. For example, the load information (CPU utilization, memory utilization etc.) is monitored, and [...] If the load information falls below a predetermined lower limit threshold (second threshold), the scaling determination unit 111 determines to execute scale-down; [0082] In the case of scale-down, the resource extraction selection unit 122, after calculating the CPU allocation limitation setting change number, makes an inquiry about resources that are in use to the resource management unit 121, and selects resources to be deleted. The resource extraction selection unit 122 then updates the resource management table 141 via the resource management unit 121, and outputs an instruction to delete resources (scale-down instruction) to the virtual machine control unit 123; [0120] In step S16, the scaling determination unit 111 calculates the resource amount to be deleted, based on a predetermined resource amount calculation logic. For example, if “delete one core if the CPU utilization falls below the lower limit threshold (second threshold), namely 20% (if it is determined to execute scale-down)” is set as the predetermined resource amount calculation logic, the calculated resource amount to be deleted is “one cores”; Examiner’s Note: Every time the CPU utilization falls below a threshold, a vCPU is removed. This shows that every time the number of CPUs to be used by the target process is adjusted, the number of vCPUs decrease. In the given example, when a VM has two vCPUs and a scale-down instruction of “delete one core if the CPU utilization falls below the lower limit threshold (second threshold), namely 20% (if it is determined to execute scale-down)”occurs, the number of vCPUs has decreased until 1.);
no longer detecting the target process when the number of virtual CPUs to be used by the target process is 1 ([0120] In step S16, the scaling determination unit 111 calculates the resource amount to be deleted, based on a predetermined resource amount calculation logic. For example, if “delete one core if the CPU utilization falls below the lower limit threshold (second threshold), namely 20% (if it is determined to execute scale-down)” is set as the predetermined resource amount calculation logic, the calculated resource amount to be deleted is “one cores”; [0121] Next, the scaling instruction unit 112 outputs, to the resource delivery control unit 12, scaling instruction information (scale-down instruction) that includes information regarding the VM 20 to be scaled down and information regarding the resource amount to be deleted (e.g., “one core”) (step S17), and ends the processing; Examiner’s Note: The processing is ended, which is interpreted to be no longer detecting the target process.); and
selecting, according to the number of virtual CPUs to be used by the target process, CPU resources occupied by the target process, and remaining resources of the plurality of virtual CPUs, at least one virtual CPU from the plurality of virtual CPUs for use by the target process ([0059] A resource management table 141 (resource management information) that includes information regarding the VMs 20 constructed on the computes 30 (information regarding destinations to which resources are allocated) is stored in the resource information repository 140 (see FIG. 4 etc., which will be described later). VM images, which are templates for starting up virtual instances (VMs) that include installed guest OSes, are stored in the virtual machine image repository 145; [0073] Information regarding “core ID”, “CPU allocation limitation setting”, and “allocation destination” is stored in association with “Compute ID”, which is identification information regarding the computes 30, in the resource management table 141; [0089] For example, in the case of KVM, processing of a “virsh vcpupin VM name xx yy” command is executed. Here, “xx” denotes an identification number of a vCPU, and “yy” denotes identification information regarding a CPU core for which the CPU allocation limitation setting is to be configured. In the example denoted by reference sign 301B, it is indicated by “yyyy” shown as the “CPU affinity” item that, regarding two vCPU that are set for the VM #01, a change has been made such that the CPU cores “#0”, “#1”, “#2”, and “#3” are allocated to the VM #01 (reference sign B1); [0128] Subsequently, the resource extraction selection unit 122 extracts free resources (CPU cores that are not set) by making, to the resource management unit 121, an inquiry about free resources (here, CPU cores for which the CPU allocation limitation setting is not configured) in the same compute 30 as the VM 20 to be scaled up (step S22).).
18. With regard to claim 2, Iwasa further teaches:
further comprising, prior to the step of taking the process among the plurality of processes that occupies the CPU resources over the preset threshold as the target process required to adjust the virtual CPU to be used:
setting a corresponding threshold for each of the plurality of processes ([0066] [0066] This predetermined determination rule is information that is set, in advance, to the scaling determination unit 111. For example, the load information (CPU utilization, memory utilization etc.) is monitored, and if the load information exceeds a predetermined upper limit threshold (first threshold), the scaling determination unit 111 determines to execute scale-up. If the load information falls below a predetermined lower limit threshold (second threshold), the scaling determination unit 111 determines to execute scale-down.).
19. With regard to claim 3, Iwasa further teaches:
wherein the step of setting the corresponding threshold for each of the plurality of processes comprises:
setting the corresponding threshold for each process according to a degree of dependence of a task executed by the virtual machine on each process (]0067] Specifically, in the case of monitoring the CPU utilization, for example, two cores are added if the CPU utilization exceeds 70%, which is the upper limit threshold (first threshold). A setting is made in which, for example, one core is reduced if the CPU utilization falls below 20%, which is the lower limit threshold (second threshold).).
20. With regard to claim 5, Iwasa further teaches:
further comprising:
performing detection again after a preset time period when it is not detected that there is a process among the plurality of processes that occupies the CPU resources over the preset threshold ([0109] Next, scaling execution determination processing performed by the scaling control unit 11 of the virtualization infrastructure control device 10 will be described. Note that the monitoring unit 13 (resource monitoring unit 131) of the virtualization infrastructure control device 10 collects load information such as CPU utilization and memory utilization of the computes 30 and the VMs 20 at predetermined time intervals (e.g., monitoring intervals and stores the collected load information in the storage unit 14. Note that, in the following description, the CPU utilization is collected as the load information (metric information); [0118] Here, if the load of the monitoring target does not fall below the predetermined lower limit threshold (second threshold) (step S14.fwdarw.No), the processing returns to step S10 after waiting for a predetermined time interval (e.g., a monitoring interval β) (step S15) and is continued; [0119] On the other hand, if the load of the monitoring target falls below the predetermined lower limit threshold (second threshold) (step S14.fwdarw.Yes), the processing proceeds to the next step S16.).
21. With regard to claim 6, Iwasa further teaches:
wherein the step of calculating, according to the number of times the target process has been adjusted, the number of virtual CPUs to be used by the target process comprises:
when the total number of the plurality of virtual CPUs is n and the number of times the target process has been adjusted is m, setting M=m+1 and the number of virtual CPUs to be used by the target process to n/2M ([0023] The invention according to claim 4 is the virtualization infrastructure control device according to claim 1, wherein the resource delivery control unit uses, as a conversion ratio, a value obtained by dividing a total number of CPU cores allocated to each VM installed on the same compute of the VM that is to be subjected to the scaling by a total number of CPU cores included in the compute, and calculates the change number for the number of allocated CPUs using the conversion ratio and the resource amount required for the scaling; [0024] With this configuration, the virtualization infrastructure control device can calculate the conversion ratio in accordance with status of resources of a VM installed on a compute, and appropriately calculate the change number for the number of allocated CPUs; [0043] Here, for example, two vCPUs (virtual CPUs) are set for a VM #01, and the vCPUs share the CPU cores of the host; [0066] This predetermined determination rule is information that is set, in advance, to the scaling determination unit 111. For example, the load information (CPU utilization, memory utilization etc.) is monitored, and [...] If the load information falls below a predetermined lower limit threshold (second threshold), the scaling determination unit 111 determines to execute scale-down; [0082] In the case of scale-down, the resource extraction selection unit 122, after calculating the CPU allocation limitation setting change number, makes an inquiry about resources that are in use to the resource management unit 121, and selects resources to be deleted. The resource extraction selection unit 122 then updates the resource management table 141 via the resource management unit 121, and outputs an instruction to delete resources (scale-down instruction) to the virtual machine control unit 123; [0120] In step S16, the scaling determination unit 111 calculates the resource amount to be deleted, based on a predetermined resource amount calculation logic. For example, if “delete one core if the CPU utilization falls below the lower limit threshold (second threshold), namely 20% (if it is determined to execute scale-down)” is set as the predetermined resource amount calculation logic, the calculated resource amount to be deleted is “one cores; Examiner’s Note: The number of vCPUs to be used by the target process is calculated based on the total number of vCPUs and the number of times the target process has been adjusted.).
22. With regard to claim 7, Iwasa further teaches:
wherein the step of detecting CPU resources occupied by the plurality of processes in the virtual machine comprises:
querying, according to a preset configuration file recording the plurality of processes, the plurality of processes from the virtual machine and performing detection ([0017] a step of monitoring a load of a resource that is executed by the VM and acquiring the monitored load as load information; a step of determining, based on the load information, whether or not to perform scaling to execute a resource allocation change, regarding a resource allocated VM-by-VM,); and
the step of no longer detecting the target process when the number of virtual CPUs to be used by the target process is 1 comprises:
deleting the target process from the configuration file ([0121] Next, the scaling instruction unit 112 outputs, to the resource delivery control unit 12, scaling instruction information (scale-down instruction) that includes information regarding the VM 20 to be scaled down and information regarding the resource amount to be deleted (e.g., “one core”) (step S17), and ends the processing.).
23. Regarding claim 9, it is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
24. Regarding claim 10, it is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
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.
25. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasa US 20220206829 A1, as applied in claim 1, in view of Kim et al. US 20160085571 A1.
26. With regard to claim 4, Iwasa teaches the method according to claim 2 but fails to explicitly teach wherein the step of setting the corresponding threshold for each of the plurality of processes comprises: setting the corresponding threshold for each process according to a degree of impact of each process on stability of a running system of the virtual machine.
However, in analogous art, Kim teaches:
wherein the step of setting the corresponding threshold for each of the plurality of processes comprises:
setting the corresponding threshold for each process according to a degree of impact of each process on stability of a running system of the virtual machine ([0063] In that example, the CPU scheduler considers, for example, the processing speed of one processor 102 versus another. In another example, the algorithms are weighted based on the type of process executed on the vCPU. For example, a VM 235 running with no user interface, running in the background, or executing processes that are not time sensitive, may be placed on a less than optimal processor 102, leaving space for other more critical vCPUs to be placed on under-utilized processors 102. Alternatively or in addition, the CPU scheduler may only apply weight criteria to the algorithms if the intra- and inter-node memory access latencies exceed a threshold value.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Iwasa with the teachings of Kim wherein the step of setting the corresponding threshold for each of the plurality of processes comprises: setting the corresponding threshold for each process according to a degree of impact of each process on stability of a running system of the virtual machine. Iwasa teaches of adjusting vCPU usage based on system needs. Similarly, Kim teaches of setting thresholds for different processes based on type. More critical tasks are placed on higher optimal processors. This ensures that space is for other more critical vCPUs to be placed on under-utilized processors, as discussed in Kim ([0063]). Therefore, ensuring that resources are allocated optimally to ensure the system functions efficiently.
27. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasa US 20220206829 A1, as applied in claim 1, in view of Du et al. US 20190065250 A1.
28. With regard to claim 8, Iwasa teaches the method according to claim 1 but fails to explicitly teach wherein the step of selecting, according to the number of CPUs to be used by the target process, CPU resources occupied by the target process, and remaining resources of the plurality of CPUs, at least one CPU from the plurality of CPUs for use by the target process further comprises: selecting the at least one virtual CPU from the plurality of virtual CPUs in an ascending order of resource usage of the plurality of virtual CPUs.
However, in analogous art, Du teaches:
wherein the step of selecting, according to the number of CPUs to be used by the target process, CPU resources occupied by the target process, and remaining resources of the plurality of CPUs, at least one CPU from the plurality of CPUs for use by the target process further comprises:
selecting the at least one virtual CPU from the plurality of virtual CPUs in an ascending order of resource usage of the plurality of virtual CPUs ([0015] Further, VCPU availability information may be shared between the VMM and the VMs, enabling a VM to be configured to favor highly available VCPUs, such as the VCPUs with PCPUs that are not shared with other VMs. The availability information may include current, real-time availability of PCPUs as well as a predicted time that a PCPU will be available, based on historical data. The interface by which the guest OS's cooperate and communicate with the VMM may be based on shared memory locations, simplifying the design; [0062] FIG. 6 is a schematic example 600 of folding tasks between VMs depending on loading predictions. Using the PCPU mask that identifies PCPUs currently taken by high-priority VMs, and the predictions of the availability of the PCPUs, the guest OS in a lower priority VM can adjusting workloads between VCPUs corresponding to the PCPUs. The basic policy is to use the PCPU with the highest predicted availability, when possible. In other words, instead of fairly balancing the tasks among the VCPUs, the scheduler should favor the VCPU that corresponds to a currently available or more possibly available PCPU. While the specifics of the implementation may be operating system dependent, the basic operations, however, are the same across operating systems. Based on the information for current and predicted available, as may be read from a shared memory location, the scheduler may push a task from a VCPU 602 that corresponds to a PCPU that is likely to be unavailable to a VCPU 604 that corresponds to a PCPU that is likely to be available, as indicated by arrow 606.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Iwasa with the teachings of Du wherein the step of selecting, according to the number of CPUs to be used by the target process, CPU resources occupied by the target process, and remaining resources of the plurality of CPUs, at least one CPU from the plurality of CPUs for use by the target process further comprises: selecting the at least one virtual CPU from the plurality of virtual CPUs in an ascending order of resource usage of the plurality of virtual CPUs. Iwasa teaches of adjusting vCPU usage based on system needs. Similarly, Du teaches of scheduling VMs and vCPUs. Moreover, Du teaches of a scheduler favoring a vCPU that has the highest predicted availability. This enables workload to be assigned to a vCPU rather than waiting on another to become available, as discussed in Du ([0054]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AN-AN N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6147. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 ET.
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.
/AN-AN NGOC NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2195
/Aimee Li/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2195
Prosecution Insights