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 .
In response to the restriction requirement, Applicant elected claims 1-2 and 11-14 (with no traverse statement) for further examination. As a result, claims 3-10 are withdrawn from further prosecution.
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 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
Eligibility Step 1 (MPEP 2106. 3, subsection II): The claims, after reviewing the entire application disclosure, considered as a whole, are determined to be directed to one of the statutory category (processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter): A method/apparatus/system.
Eligibility Step 2A (MPEP 2106. 4, subsection II):
Prong One: The claims recite the limitation of deriving allocation a task based on the environment metrics from an execution log. This limitation is analyzed including concepts directed to math and mental steps that falls within at least one of the groupings of abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(a) Abstract Ideas: The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas: Mathematical concepts, Certain methods of organizing human activity, Mental processes). As a result, the claims recite a judicial exception.
Prong Two: The additional steps/actions/elements recited in the claims:
- monitoring and transitioning a resource usage amount - (Insignificant post solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g))
When viewed in combination of as a whole, the recited additional steps/actions/elements do no more than add insignificant extra-solution to the judicial exception. As a result, these additional steps/actions/elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. These claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Eligibility Step 2B (MPEP 2106. 5: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more):
The additional steps/actions/elements recited in the claims, monitoring and transitioning a resource usage amount, are well known in the field as addressed in the rejection below, do not add an inventive concept to the claim because they do is no more than adding insignificant pre-solution and post-solution activities to the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding to the claim citation “a transition of the resource usage amount”, the Specification as filed simply states “the metrics extraction unit 21 executes a process of extracting transition data of a CPU usage ratio from a monitoring log of a CPU resource” (paragraph [0047], US 2025/0225050) without further describing how the transition takes place or what the transition is about so that one of ordinary skill in the art would know how to perform the transition of the usage data.
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) 1-2, 11-12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto (WO 2020/0004380) in view of Crabtree (CN 109588054).
Regarding to claims 1 and 14:
Morimoto discloses a task allocation apparatus, comprising:
a processor to execute a program, and a memory to store the program which, when executed by the processor, performs processes of (FIGs. 4-5),
performing a cooperation operation between at least a cloud server and an edge device (FIG. 4: The cloud server 20 and the edge devices 10-1, 10-2);
extracting environment metrics as an index for evaluating a non-functional requirement in the cooperation operation from an execution log as the execution result (page 5, 2nd paragraph: The CPU usage rate reads on the claimed metrics as a non-functional requirement); and
deriving at least one allocation of a task executing the cooperation operation based on the environment metrics which have been extracted (page 5, 2nd paragraph: The allocation device 30 changes the task allocation between the edge server and the cloud server based on the CPU usage rate), wherein
the execution log includes a monitoring log of a resource usage amount in each of at least the cloud server and the edge device, and the environment metrics include a transition of the resource usage amount in at least the cloud server and the edge device extracted from the monitoring log (page 5, 3rd paragraph: The load on the edge server reads on the claimed resource usage amount. Page 11, lines 37-44: The load on the sever corresponds (transition) to the CPU usage rate).
Morimoto, however, is silent wherein the performing of operation between the cloud server and the edge device is simulation.
Crabtree suggests performing a simulation of driving a network to output a prediction of decision and planning to dynamically allocating network bandwidth (page 7, last paragraph to page 8, 1st paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Morimoto’s method to perform the simulation of operation of the cloud server and the edge device to predict the network acitivity in order to be able to dynamically allocate network bandwidth as taught by Crabtree (page 7, last paragraph to page 8, 1st paragraph).
Morimoto also teaches the following claims:
Regarding to claim 2: wherein the simulation of the cooperation operation includes simulating an operation of the cloud server (FIG. 4, element 20), an edge device simulation execution unit simulating an operation of the edge device (FIG. 4, elements 10), a gateway simulation execution unit simulating an operation of a gateway, and a network simulation execution unit simulating an operation of network (FIG. 4 shows the gateway and network in the communication between the cloud server 20 and the edge servers 10), and at least two of the simulation of the operation of the cloud server, the simulation of the operation of the edge device, the simulation of the operation of the gateway, and the simulation of the operation of network simulate the cooperation operation (FIG. 4 shows the edge-cloud-allocation operation via the network).
Regarding to claims 11-12: wherein the derivation of the simulation environment metrics includes deriving a limitation condition of network targeted by the simulation of the operation of the network based on at least one network configuration which is previously defined, wherein the derivation of the allocation of the task includes deriving the allocation based on a limitation condition of the network (page 12, lines 20-22: The allocation is based on the data size (load), the performance requirement, and the network bandwidth).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is 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 and the 112 rejection of the parent claim (claim 1) is cleared.
The primary reasons for the indication of the allowability of the claim is the inclusions therein, in combination as currently claimed, of the limitation that the output of the allocation includes outputting at least the simulation environment metrics and the allocation in a comparative manner for the plurality of network configurations is neither disclosed nor taught by the cited prior art of record, alone or in combination.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAM S NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2151.
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, DOUGLAS RODRIGUEZ, can be reached on 571-431-0716. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAM S NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2853
Prosecution Insights