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 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to Application No. 18/716,028 filed on 3 June 2024. This application claims 371 priority to PCT/IB2022/061378 filed on 24 November 2022, and claims FOR priority to IT10/2021/0000-31202 filed on 13 December 2021. Claims 1-10 are presented for examination.
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 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because these claims are directed towards a “computer program for …” as recited in the preamble of the claim. However, the specification did not define what type of medium is included in a computer program. According to MPEP 2111, examiner obliged to give the terms or phrases their broadest interpretation definition awarded by one of an ordinary skill in the art unless applicant has provided some indication of the definition of the claimed terms or phrases. Therefore, examiner interprets the computer program including software. Software per se is directed to a non-statutory subject matter. Thus, claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for directing to a non-statutory subject matter. Applicant is advised to amend to “a computer program product installed in the memory of [a server/a user equipment], and may comprise a plurality of instructions” to overcome this rejection.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the computer program" in the preamble. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PGPUB 2020/0236161 A1 to Devilbiss et al and in view of NPL Distributed Multi-Dimensional Pricing for Efficient Application Offloading in Mobile Cloud Computing (hereafter Kun et al).
Regarding Claim 1, Devilbiss discloses a method for sharing a resource in a cloud computing system, said cloud computing system comprising a plurality of servers operatively connected to one another by means of a telecommunications network, each server of said cloud computing system comprising one or more shared resources (0034 provides for sharing resources among multiple servers), said method comprising the following steps: transmitting over said telecommunications network, by said at least one server, a reply message at a predetermined instant of transmission (0031 and 0041 provides for transmitting a notification when the threshold is exceeded); wherein said predetermined instant of transmission is computed as a function of a utilization index of said one or more shared resources comprised in said at least one server (0046-0047 provides for failing over a backup VNIC server based on priority/resource prediction). Devilbiss doesn’t explicitly disclose receiving on at least one server a message requesting said resource. Kun, in a similar field of endeavor, discloses receiving on at least one server a message requesting said resource (FIG. 2 and page 928, “Section 3 Problem and Models” discloses offloading cloudlet partitions to better support delay-sensitive applications). One of ordinary skill in the art before the effectively filed date of the claimed invention would have recognized the ability to utilize the teachings of Kun for resource renegotiation. The resource renegotiation of Kun, when implemented with the dynamic cloud balancing of the Devilbiss system, will allow one of ordinary skill in the art to generate notifications in order to respond to resource utilization thresholds. Therefore, the examiner concludes it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to utilize the resource renegotiation of Kun with the dynamic cloud balancing of the Devilbiss system for the desirable purpose of load balancing data across a virtual network.
Regarding Claim 2, the Devilbiss/Kun system discloses the method for sharing a resource in a cloud computing system according to claim 1, further comprising the following steps: computing said utilization index as a function of a total number of said one or more shared resources comprised in said at least one server and a number of said one or more shared resources currently in use (Devilbiss, 0031 provides for resource utilization metrics and notifications generated in response).
Regarding Claim 3, the Devilbiss/Kun system discloses the method for sharing a resource in a cloud computing system according to claim 1, further comprising the following steps: determining an instant of reception of said resource request message (Devilbiss, 0031 provides for resource utilization metrics and notifications generated in response); computing a transmission delay as a function of said utilization index of said one or more shared resources; determining said instant of transmission based on said transmission delay and said instant of reception (Kun, page 928, “Section 3 Problem and Models” discloses delay-sensitive applications). Same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4, the Devilbiss/Kun system discloses the method for sharing a resource in a cloud computing system according to claim 1, wherein said reply message comprises information about the availability of said resource (Devilbiss, 0031 provides for resource utilization metrics and notifications generated in response).
Regarding Claim 5, Devilbiss discloses a method for selecting a resource in a cloud computing system, said cloud computing system comprising a plurality of servers and at least one user equipment operatively connected to one another by means of a telecommunications network, each server of said cloud computing system comprising one or more shared resources (0034 provides for sharing resources among multiple servers), said method comprising the following steps: transmitting over said telecommunications network, by said user equipment, a message requesting said resource (0031 provides for the rate of requests being serviced); receiving on said user equipment, from a first server comprised in said plurality of servers, a first reply message at a first instant of reception (0032 provides for transmitting notifications); wherein said method further comprises the following steps: selecting at least one provider server providing said resource between said first server and said second server as a function of said first instant of reception and said second instant of reception (0046-0047 provides for failing over a backup VNIC server based on priority/resource prediction; transmitting to said at least one provider server, over said telecommunications network, a message allocating said resource (0031 and 0041 provides for transmitting a notification when the threshold is exceeded). Devilbliss doesn’t explicitly disclose receiving on said user equipment, from a second server comprised in said plurality of severs, a second reply message at a second instant of reception. Kun, in a similar field of endeavor, discloses receiving on said user equipment, from a second server comprised in said plurality of severs, a second reply message at a second instant of reception (FIG. 2 and page 928, “Section 3 Problem and Models” discloses offloading cloudlet partitions to better support delay-sensitive applications). Same motivation as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 6, similar rejection where the method of claim 1 teaches the server of claim 6.
Regarding Claim 7, similar rejection where the method of claim 5 teaches the user equipment of claim 7.
Regarding Claim 8, similar rejection where the method of claim 1 teaches the cloud computing system of claim 8.
Regarding Claim 9, similar rejection where the method of claim 1 teaches the computer program of claim 9.
Regarding Claim 10, similar rejection where the method of claim 5 teaches the computer program of claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US PGPUB 2018/0352024 A1 to Ni et al discloses server resource utilization.
US Patent 11,528,322 B1 to Chaudhary et al discloses a pool of shared services and resources to monitoring services and generating reports.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCHQUITA GOODWIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5477. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am - 5pm EST.
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, Tonia Dollinger can be reached on (571) 272-4170. 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.
/SCHQUITA D GOODWIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2459
Prosecution Insights