Detailed Action
This action is in response to application filed on 04/12/2024 which is a National Stage entry of PCT/JP2021/045074 , International Filing Date: 12/08/2021
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-8 are canceled.
Claims 9-28 are pending.
Claims 9-28 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 05/08/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 04/12/2024 are accepted.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code, see specification paragraph 0006. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01.
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 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Representative claim 9 is directed to a computing machine, comprising:
a memory storage configured to store instructions; and one or more processors in communication with the memory storage, wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to:
acquire state information indicating a state of the computing machine; and
estimate, based on the state of the computing machine, a change in processing performance of the computing machine when dynamic addition or deletion of a computational resource from outside of the computing machine, an increase in data amount of input data input from the outside of the computing machine, or an increase in data amount of output data output to the outside of the computing machine occurs.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely,
Mental processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper (see, October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update, 84 Fed. Reg. 55,942, hereinafter “PEG”).
Mathematical Concepts including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and/or mathematical calculations
For instance, humans can mentally and/or via aid of pen/paper using various mathematical formulas/calculations to estimate, based on the state of the computing machine, a change in processing performance of the computing machine when dynamic addition or deletion of a computational resource from outside of the computing machine, an increase in data amount of input data input from the outside of the computing machine, or an increase in data amount of output data output to the outside of the computing machine occurs.
Per prong 2, Step 2A, the additional non-emphasized elements as noted above, are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. For instance,
“computing machine, comprising: a memory storage configured to store instructions; and one or more processors in communication with the memory storage, wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to” are merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
“acquire state information indicating a state of the computing machine” are mere data gathering/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results and does not sufficiently tie any limitations or combination of limitation to any improvement (if any) to the functionality of the electronic device or achieving improved technical results.
Per Step 2B, the additional non-emphasized elements as noted above, are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). . For instance,
“computing machine, comprising: a memory storage configured to store instructions; and one or more processors in communication with the memory storage, wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to” are merely adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
“acquire state information indicating a state of the computing machine” are mere data gathering/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
Accordingly, claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 16, and 23 are medium and method claims corresponding to machine claim 9 and are of substantially same scope.
Accordingly, claims 16, and 23 are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claim 9.
Dependent claims 10-15, 17-22, and 24-28 when considered individually or in combination per steps as noted above are rejected under the same rational as set forth above for claims 9, 16, and 23, and the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results. In particular,
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 9 further incorporated, further recites. wherein: the state of the computing machine includes a state of the input data, a state of the output data, a processing content and a processing speed of a computational resource currently provided in the computing machine, or a load applied to the computing machine.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 11, the rejection of claim 9 further incorporated, further recites wherein the instructions include further instructions to determine whether to dynamically add or delete the computational resource from the outside of the computing machine based on the estimated change in processing performance.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 12, the rejection of claim 9 further incorporated, further recites further comprising: an output configured to output the estimated change in processing performance to the outside of the computing machine.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 13, the rejection of claim 9 further incorporated, further recites wherein the instructions include further instructions to: in a case where the estimated change in processing performance falls within a required performance required of the computing machine, output, to the outside of the computing machine, information indicating that addition or deletion of the computational resource or an increase in the data amount of the input data or the output data is possible.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 14, the rejection of claim 9 further incorporated, further recites wherein the instructions include further instructions to: monitor an internal state of the computing machine, and request an external device that is the outside of the computing machine to add or delete the computational resource in accordance with the internal state being monitored.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claim 15, the rejection of claim 9 further incorporated, further recites wherein the instructions include further instructions to: monitor an internal state of the computing machine; and notify an external device that is the outside of the computing machine of an allowable data amount of processing target data input to the computing machine in accordance with the internal state being monitored.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely, Mental Processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper.
Per prong 2, Step 2A and 2B, the additional elements (e.g. non-emphasized elements) are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h).
As per claims 17-22, and 24-28:
Claims 17-22 and 24-28 are medium and method claims corresponding to system claims 10-15 and are of substantially same scope.
Accordingly, claims 17-22 and 24-28 are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claims 10-15.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 9-14, 16-21, and 23-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min et al. (US 20180088997 A1, referred hereinafter as D1) in view of Sinonis et al. (US 20220351107 A1, referred hereinafter as D2).
As per claim 1, D1 discloses,
A computing machine, comprising, (D1, title, abstract).
a memory storage configured to store instructions; and one or more processors in communication with the memory storage, wherein the one or more processors execute the instructions to, (D1, figure 2, 0032 discloses processors/memory/cache).
acquire state information indicating a state of the computing machine, (D1, 0028-0030, 0031, figure 5 and accompanying text discloses acquire state/performance information indicating a state of the computing machine/virtual machines/CPU etc.).
and estimate, based on the state of the computing machine, a change in processing performance of the computing machine when dynamic addition or deletion of a computational resource… , an increase in data amount of input data input from the outside of the computing machine, or an increase in data amount of output data output to the outside of the computing machine occurs, (D1, 0031, 0034, 0036, 0040, figure 5 and accompanying text discloses acquire state/performance information indicating a state of the computing machine/virtual machines/CPU etc., and estimate, based on the state of the computing machine/performance data, a change/impact in/of processing performance of the computing machine when dynamic addition or deletion of a computational resource (e.g. consolidation of resources/cpu/cache)…, an increase in data amount of input data input from the outside of the computing machine, or an increase in data amount of output data output to the outside of the computing machine occurs).
D1 fails to expressly disclose- [resource] from outside of the computing machine.
D2 (0028-0032) discloses requesting/using resource from outside/external/third party of the computing machine.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D2 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results of requesting additional external resources in response to spike in requests for a service as disclosed by D2.
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 9 further incorporated, D1 discloses
wherein: the state of the computing machine includes a state of the input data, a state of the output data, a processing content and a processing speed of a computational resource currently provided in the computing machine, or a load applied to the computing machine, (D1, 0028-0030, 0031, 0085-0086, figure 5 and accompanying text discloses acquire state/performance information indicating a state of the computing machine/virtual machines/CPU etc including a state of the input data, a state of the output data, a processing content and a processing speed of a computational resource currently provided in the computing machine, or a load applied to the computing machine (e.g. CPU, core load and cash loading).).
As per claim 11, the rejection of claim 9 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the instructions include further instructions to determine whether to dynamically add or delete the computational resource… .based on the estimated change in processing performance, (D1, 0031, 0034, 0036, 0040, figure 5 and accompanying text discloses acquire state/performance information indicating a state of the computing machine/virtual machines/CPU etc., and estimate, based on the state of the computing machine/performance data, a change/impact in/of processing performance of the computing machine and determine whether to dynamically add or delete/consolidation of the computational resource… .based on the estimated change in processing performance (e.g. see step 514 of figure 5).).
D1 fails to expressly disclose – [resource] from the outside of the computing machine.
D2 (0028-0032) discloses requesting/using resource from outside/external/third party of the computing machine.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D2 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results of requesting additional external resources in response to spike in requests for a service as disclosed by D2.
As per claim 12, the rejection of claim 9 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
further comprising: an output configured to output the estimated change in processing performance, (D1, 0031, 0034, 0036, 0040, figure 5 and accompanying text discloses acquire state/performance information indicating a state of the computing machine/virtual machines/CPU etc., and estimate/output, based on the state of the computing machine/performance data, a change/impact in/of processing performance of the computing machine and determine whether to dynamically add or delete/consolidation of the computational resource… .based on the estimated change in processing performance (e.g. see step 514 of figure 5).).
D1 disclose estimated changes; however, D1 fails to expressly disclose – [output estimated changes] to the outside of the computing machine.
However, the examiner takes official notice that outputting calculated data/information to third party/external devices was notoriously well known before effective filing of the invention. For instance, D2 (0028-0032) discloses sending requests to external service provider.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, to include output estimated changes to the outside of the computing machine. This would have been obvious with predicable results of sending outputs to external devices as known in the art.
As per claim 13, the rejection of claim 9 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the instructions include further instructions to: in a case where the estimated change in processing performance falls within a required performance required of the computing machine, output… , information indicating that addition or deletion of the computational resource or an increase in the data amount of the input data or the output data is possible, (D1, 0031, 0034, 0036, 0040, figure 5 and accompanying text discloses acquire state/performance information indicating a state of the computing machine/virtual machines/CPU etc., and estimate/output, based on the state of the computing machine/performance data, a change/impact in/of processing performance of the computing machine and output/determine information indicating that addition or deletion of the computational resource or an increase in the data amount of the input data or the output data is possible (e.g. see step 514 of figure 5).).
D1 fails to expressly disclose - output, to the outside of the computing machine.
D2 (0028-0032) discloses requesting (e.g. output request to outside/third party) resource from outside/external/third party of the computing machine.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D2 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results of requesting additional external resources in response to spike in requests for a service as disclosed by D2.
As per claim 14, the rejection of claim 9 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the instructions include further instructions to: monitor an internal state of the computing machine, and… add or delete the computational resource in accordance with the internal state being monitored, (D1, 0031, 0034, 0036, 0040, figure 5 and accompanying text discloses acquiring/monitoring internal state/performance information indicating a state of the computing machine/virtual machines/CPU etc., and estimate/output, based on the state of the computing machine/performance data, a change/impact in/of processing performance of the computing machine and add or delete the computational resource in accordance with the internal state being monitored (e.g. see step 514-516 of figure 5).).
D1 fails to expressly disclose - request an external device that is the outside of the computing machine to [provide resource].
D2 (0028-0032) discloses requesting (e.g. output) resource from outside/external/third party of the computing machine.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D2 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results of requesting additional external resources in response to spike in requests for a service as disclosed by D2.
As per claims 16-21, and 23-27:
Claims 16-21, and 23-27 are medium and method claims corresponding to machine claims 9-14 and are of substantially same scope.
Accordingly, claims 16-21, and 23-27 are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claims 9-14.
Claims 15, 22, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Min et al. (US 20180088997 A1, referred hereinafter as D1) in view of Sinonis et al. (US 20220351107 A1, referred hereinafter as D2) in view of Shin et al. (US 20170195401 A1, referred hereinafter as D3).
As per claims 15, and 22, the rejection of claims 9, and 16 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the instructions include further instructions to: monitor an internal state of the computing machine, (D1, 0031, 0034, 0036, 0040, figure 5 and accompanying text discloses acquiring/monitoring internal state/performance information indicating a state of the computing machine/virtual machines/CPU etc., and estimate/output, based on the state of the computing machine/performance data, a change/impact in/of processing performance of the computing machine and add or delete the computational resource in accordance with the internal state being monitored (e.g. see step 514-516 of figure 5).).
D1 discloses performing various functions in accordance with the internal state being monitored; however, D1 fails to expressly disclose - and notify an external device that is the outside of the computing machine of an allowable data amount of processing target data input to the computing machine…
D3 (0176) discloses known methods that notify an external device (e.g. user device) that is the outside of the computing machine (e.g. Cloud storage) of an allowable data amount (e.g. available storage capacity) of processing target data input to the computing machine. Furthermore, the examiner notes that alert/notification that indicates “an allowable data amount of processing target data input to the computing machine” is merely non-functional descriptive material.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D3 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results of sending outputs to external devices indicating capacity of storage device as disclosed by D3.
As per claim 28, the rejection of claim 23 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
monitoring an internal state of the computing machine, and… to add or delete the computational resource in accordance with the internal state being monitored (D1, 0031, 0034, 0036, 0040, figure 5 and accompanying text discloses acquiring/monitoring internal state/performance information indicating a state of the computing machine/virtual machines/CPU etc., and estimate/output, based on the state of the computing machine/performance data, a change/impact in/of processing performance of the computing machine and add or delete the computational resource in accordance with the internal state being monitored (e.g. see step 514-516 of figure 5).).
D1 fails to expressly disclose - request an external device that is the outside of the computing machine to [provide resource].
D2 (0028-0032) discloses requesting (e.g. output) resource from outside/external/third party of the computing machine.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D2 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results of requesting additional external resources in response to spike in requests for a service as disclosed by D2.
D1 discloses performing various functions in accordance with the internal state being monitored. D1 fails to expressly disclose - and notify an external device that is the outside of the computing machine of an allowable data amount of processing target data input to the computing machine…
D3 (0176) discloses known methods that notify an external device (e.g. user device) that is the outside of the computing machine (e.g. Cloud storage) of an allowable data amount (e.g. available storage capacity) of processing target data input to the computing machine. Furthermore, the examiner notes that alert/notification that indicates “an allowable data amount of processing target data input to the computing machine” is merely non-functional descriptive material.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, disclosed in D1, to include the teachings of D3 as noted above. This would have been obvious with predicable results of sending outputs to external devices indicating capacity of storage device as disclosed by D3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Multiple Resource Control-advisor For Management Of Distributed Or Web-based Systems
DOCUMENT ID
US 20070283016 A1
DATE PUBLISHED
2007-12-06
Abstract
A system and method are provided for autonomic system management in a computing system containing system resources including network resources and multiple resource demands, or processes. The computing system may be a stream-processing system or other real-time computer management system, such as workload management, or a virtualization engine. The system and method enables achieving a better level of performance than would occur in the computing system using only existing mechanism. It permits, with very low computational overhead, achieving or driving the system closer to a user-defined system performance objective. To do so, a system performance equation is defined to determine a level of performance of the system as a function of the allocation of two or more system resources among a plurality of system resource demands or processes. From this system performance equation, a plurality of resource-specific change equations is derived. Each resource-specific change equation is capable of calculating changes in the level of performance of the system attributable to changes in the allocation of one of the system resources. The resource-specific change equation yielding the greatest change in the level of system performance at a given allocation of all of the system resources and the system resource associated with the identified resource-specific change equation are identified. The allocation of the identified associated system resource to at least one system resource demand to provide the largest increase in the level of performance of the system, and allocations for all system resources are adjusted in accordance with the modified allocation of the identified associated system resource.
See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAFA A AMIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3181. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Young, can be reached on 571-270-3180. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MUSTAFA A AMIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights