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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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 1-16 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.
Regarding independent claims the limitations assigns a task, as drafted, recites functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a function that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitations as cited above as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process.
Thus, these limitation falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional limitations: a card, server, memory, processor. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f), and steps of receiving do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (Ex. v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements 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 of a card, server, memory, processor, amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. Furthermore, the limitations directed to receiving, the courts have identified mere data gathering is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d) (Ex. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;).
The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and mere data gathering do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 2, 3, 4 the limitation of task server, accelerator card, receiving information, transferring information, are considered mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception Accordingly, the additional element recited in claim 3 fails to provide a practical application under prong 2, or amount to significantly more under step 2B.
Regarding claim 5, 6 transferring information is considered mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception Accordingly, the additional element recited in claim 3 fails to provide a practical application under prong 2, or amount to significantly more under step 2B. Generating information can be reasonably performed in the human mind, thus, additional mental process defined in the claims.
Regarding claim 7, 8, 9, the limitations updating, assigning, producing a task, are functions that can be reasonably performed in the human mind, thus, additional mental process defined in the claims. The claim does not include any additional element, thus, no limitation that needs to be analyzed under prong 2 for practical application, or under step 2B for significantly more.
Regarding claim 10, 11 the limitations of migrating a task are nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity which is not a practical application under prong 2. Under step 2B, the courts of identified the generic function of gathering/storing data, the results of the judicial exception, is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).
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 therejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in anapplication for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent orapplication, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effectivefiling date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 8, 10-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable by Kelkar (Pub. No. US 2023/0153159).
Claim 1, 12, 16 Kelkar teaches “a method performed by a control server of a cloud system, the method comprising: receiving, from a function accelerator card included in at least one unit task server of the cloud system, a list of acceleration functions that are capable of being performed by the function accelerator card ([0066] In response to receiving the request from the processor 118, the compute complex 212 of the HW accelerator card 118 may query and receive a listing of acceleration services from memory 214 of the HW accelerator card (or memory of the accelerators), as illustrated by arrows 625 and 627, respectively.); and assigning a first task to the function accelerator card in consideration of the acceleration function list ([0070] As illustrated by arrow 729, the HW accelerator indicates that it is capable of providing compression services. Upon receiving the acceleration services, the processor 112 may provide a workload instruction including an indication of a location storing data and an instruction to the HW accelerator card 118 to compress the data, as shown by arrow 731.)”.
Claim 2, 13, Kelkar teaches “the method of claim 1, wherein each of the function accelerator card and the unit task server is configured to serve as a separate task node in the cloud system ([Fig. 8, 818] as a separate task node [0028] The technology described herein relates to systems and methods for service aggregation that aggregates and exposes acceleration services provided by accelerators of hardware (HW) accelerator cards. With service aggregation, a HW accelerator card attached to a computer device may be able to serve and expose acceleration services from locally and remotely connected HW accelerator cards to the computing device.).
Claim 3, 14 Kelkar teaches “the method of claim 1, wherein the function accelerator card is configured to be assigned second identification information distinct from first identification information of the unit task server, and the control server is configured to receive the acceleration function list from the function accelerator card by using the second identification information ([0055] FIG. 5 illustrates example acceleration service listings 510-540 of acceleration services provided by HW accelerators in computing devices 410-440, respectively. Like listings 328a-328c in FIG. 3, which identify the acceleration services provided by accelerators of computing device 110, acceleration service listings 510-540 include the capabilities and functionalities provided by accelerators of HW accelerator cards 418-448 within computing devices 410-440, respectively. Each acceleration service provided by an accelerator of a HW accelerator card attached to a communication interface of a computing device is identified with a “(local)” label. For instance, the HW accelerator card 418 within computing device 410 may provide networking and compression acceleration services. Similarly, the HW accelerator card 428 within computing device 420 may provide networking and encoding acceleration services, the HW accelerator card 438 within computing device 430 may provide networking and hashing acceleration services, and the HW accelerator card 448 within computing device 440 may provide networking and encryption services. [0056] Listings 510-540 also include the acceleration services of other computing devices on the network 470 identified via service aggregation. These remotely available acceleration services are identified in FIG. 5 with a “(remote)” label. For instance, listing 510 identifies encoding provided by a HW accelerator card within computing device 320, hashing provided by a HW accelerator card within computing device 330, and encryption provided by a HW accelerator card within computing device 340 as aggregated acceleration services available to computing device 310. Although FIG. 5 illustrates each computing device as being able to use all acceleration services provided by all connected computing devices, in some instances, acceleration services provided by a remote device may be blocked from remote access. For instance, computing device 340 may prevent the local encryption acceleration service from being made available by service aggregation.)”.
Claim 4, Kelkar teaches “the method of claim 1, wherein the acceleration function list is generated using an agent installed and driven in the function accelerator card, and is transmitted to the control server ([0057] The acceleration service listing of each computing devices may be generated by ASM software running on one or more HW accelerator cards. For example, during the initialization of a HW accelerator card, such as HW accelerator card 418 of computing device 410, the compute complex of the HW accelerator card may execute the ASM. The ASM may prepare a listing of acceleration services that may be served through HW accelerator card, including local and remote acceleration services. This acceleration service listing may be provided by an operating system executing on computing device 410 or from a configuration file stored within memory on the HW accelerator card 418, computer device 410, or some other location.)”.
Claim 8, 15, Kelkar teaches “the method of claim 1, wherein the control server is configured to produce a second task corresponding to the first task, based on predetermined criteria, and assign the second task to the unit task server in which the function accelerator card is included ([0070] As illustrated by arrow 729, the HW accelerator indicates that it is capable of providing compression services. Upon receiving the acceleration services, the processor 112 may provide a workload instruction including an indication of a location storing data and an instruction to the HW accelerator card 118 to compress the data, as shown by arrow 731. The compute complex 212 of the HW accelerator card may then confirm the instruction and provides an ID that the processor 112 may communicate with to get status updates on the compression by the HW accelerator card 118 as shown by arrow 733. The processor 112 may then request and receive a status of the compression as shown by arrows 735 and 737, respectively. Once a polling request indicates that compression is complete, communication between the processor 112 and HW accelerator card 118 may cease or further tasks may be sent from the processor 112 to the HW accelerator card. Although FIG. 7 illustrates a compression service, the processing performed by the HW accelerator can be any type of operation or combination of operations.)”.
Claim 10, Kelkar teaches “the method of claim 1, wherein a part of the first task assigned to the function accelerator card is migrated to and processed by the unit task server in which the function accelerator card is included ([0070] As illustrated by arrow 729, the HW accelerator indicates that it is capable of providing compression services. Upon receiving the acceleration services, the processor 112 may provide a workload instruction including an indication of a location storing data and an instruction to the HW accelerator card 118 to compress the data, as shown by arrow 731. The compute complex 212 of the HW accelerator card may then confirm the instruction and provides an ID that the processor 112 may communicate with to get status updates on the compression by the HW accelerator card 118 as shown by arrow 733. The processor 112 may then request and receive a status of the compression as shown by arrows 735 and 737, respectively. Once a polling request indicates that compression is complete, communication between the processor 112 and HW accelerator card 118 may cease or further tasks may be sent from the processor 112 to the HW accelerator card. Although FIG. 7 illustrates a compression service, the processing performed by the HW accelerator can be any type of operation or combination of operations. [0036] The data 116 can be retrieved, stored, or modified by the processor 112 in accordance with the instructions 117 or other such instructions. For instance, although the system and method are not limited by a particular data structure, the data 116 can be stored in computer registers, in a distributed storage system as a structure having a plurality of different fields and records, or documents, or buffers.)”.
Claim 11, Kelkar teaches “the method of claim 10, wherein in case that performance of the first task does not meet predetermined target performance, a part of the first task is migrated to and processed by the unit task server ([0016] In some examples, identifying the unhealthy acceleration services includes: determining, by the ASM, a failure to process the workload instruction by the at least one of the acceleration services of the second set of acceleration services. [0017] In some examples, pruning the unhealthy acceleration services includes: marking the at least one of the acceleration services of the second set of acceleration services as unhealthy; or removing the at least one of the acceleration services of the second set of acceleration services from the listing of acceleration services. [0018] In some instances, after determining the failure to process the workload instruction, sending, by the ASM, an updated workload instruction to a different HW accelerator card for processing by at least one of the acceleration services of the different HW accelerator.)”.
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 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over) in view of Wrabetz (Pat. No. US 5,442,791).
Claim 5, Kelkar may not explicitly teach the limitation of the claim.
Wrabetz teaches “the method of claim 4, wherein the agent is configured to generate available resource information regarding a status of available resources of the function accelerator card and transmit the available resource information to the control server ([Col. 12, Lines 50-68] (8) The resource management component 40 is separate from the remote execution interface 30 and operates on a new type of hybrid resource management model that includes a publish-based resource information database, RIB 42, and a query-based resource query module, RQM 44. The publish-based RIB 42 is preferably located on a processor 10 or file server 14 that has sufficient CPU capacity to execute the resource management component 40 in a timely manner. In the preferred embodiment, the resource management component uses an interface 41 that is essentially identical to the remote execution interface 30 as the conduit for transferring information to and from the resource management component 40. One or more agents 48 operating as daemons on at least one of the processors 10 periodically collect the items of information about the resources that are available to perform remote execution services and providing the items of information to the RIB 42 via the interface 41.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Wrabetz with the teachings of Kelkar in order to provide a system that teaches obtaining additional resource information. The motivation for applying Wrabetz teaching with Kelkar teaching is to provide a system that allows for improved resource usage for the purposes of design choice. Kelkar, Wrabetz are analogous art directed towards resource allocation. Together Kelkar, Wrabetz teaches every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Wrabetz with the teachings of Kelkar by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim 6, Kelkar teaches “the method of claim 4, wherein the agent is configured to generate state information regarding an operation state of the function accelerator card at predetermined periods ([0059] The ASM executing on HW accelerator card 418 may manage the acceleration service listing. In this regard, the ASM may determine which acceleration services are healthy (e.g., operational, available to process workloads, have sufficient processing capabilities for workloads, etc.) The ASM may monitor the operation of the acceleration services in the acceleration service listing to determine the state of the acceleration services (e.g., healthy, unhealthy/busy, unavailable, etc.) For instance, the ASM may request status updates from other ASMs to determine the status of the acceleration services offered by those other HW accelerator cards. The ASM may prune the acceleration service listing to remove acceleration services identified by the other ASMs as unavailable (e.g., not reachable). In another example, the ASM may mark acceleration services identified as being unhealthy (e.g., operating inefficiently/slowly,) or busy (e.g., processing other workloads, reserved for other workloads, etc.,) so that the ASM does not send workloads to these busy/unhealthy acceleration services. Examiner notes, as evidence by Wrabetz, it would be obvious to one of ordinarily skilled in the art, the state information may be collected periodically for the purposed of situational awareness. See teaching [Col. 15, Lines 52-56] Periodically, the agent 48 sends one or more resource data structures 62 corresponding to one or more of the resources it is monitoring to the RIB 42 with the latest state information about those resources) and transmit the state information to the control server)”.
Claim 7, the combination teaches the claim, wherein Kelkar teaches “the method of claim 6, wherein the control server is configured to: update the state of the function accelerator card, based on the state information periodically transmitted from the agent; and assign a task to the function accelerator card in consideration of the state of the function accelerator card ([0059] The ASM executing on HW accelerator card 418 may manage the acceleration service listing. In this regard, the ASM may determine which acceleration services are healthy (e.g., operational, available to process workloads, have sufficient processing capabilities for workloads, etc.) The ASM may monitor the operation of the acceleration services in the acceleration service listing to determine the state of the acceleration services (e.g., healthy, unhealthy/busy, unavailable, etc.) For instance, the ASM may request status updates from other ASMs to determine the status of the acceleration services offered by those other HW accelerator cards. The ASM may prune the acceleration service listing to remove acceleration services identified by the other ASMs as unavailable (e.g., not reachable). In another example, the ASM may mark acceleration services identified as being unhealthy (e.g., operating inefficiently/slowly,) or busy (e.g., processing other workloads, reserved for other workloads, etc.,) so that the ASM does not send workloads to these busy/unhealthy acceleration services.)”.
Claim/s 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kelkar in view of Kweon (Pub. No. US 2021/0373947).
Claim 9, Kelkar may not explicitly teach the limitation of the claim.
Kweon teaches “the method of claim 8, wherein the control server is configured to produce the second task, based on network traffic generated between the first task and the second task, and assign the second task to the unit task server ([0023] The at least one processor according to some embodiments may be further configured to, in case that a second task of the plurality of tasks has a dependency relationship with a first task, allocate the second task to a first computation server to which the first task is allocated, and in case that the second task is un-allocatable to the first computation server, allocate the second task to a second computation server having a shortest transmission latency from the first computation server from among computation servers to which the second task is allocatable based on the information of transmission latency.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Kweon with the teachings of Kelkar in order to provide a system that teaches scheduling of tasks based upon latency. The motivation for applying Kweon teaching with Kelkar teaching is to provide a system that allows for forward progress. Kelkar, Kweon are analogous art directed towards resource allocation. Together Kelkar, Kweon teaches every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Kweon with the teachings of Kelkar by known methods and gained expected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WYNUEL S AQUINO whose telephone number is (571)272-7478. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached at 571-272-3759. 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.
/WYNUEL S AQUINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights