DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-10 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.
As to claims 1-10, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Under the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), the analysis proceeds as follows:
As to claim 1,
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory category?
Yes, the claim recites a series of steps and, therefore, is a process.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claim recites limitations of evaluating tasks (to identify a target task), adjusting a target task parameter, and determining the target task parameter. These limitations, as drafted, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind. A person can mentally evaluate tasks to identify a target task, adjust target task parameters corresponding to the target task, and determine the target task parameter in response to a speculation effect. Thus, the claims recite a mental process involving evaluation, judgement, and decision-making.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No. The claim recites additional elements of executing the target task parameter (by virtual scheduling to perform global scheduling speculation) and executing the target task based on the target task parameter. These steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means to execute the results of the evaluation, adjustment, and determination steps) and amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer functions (virtual scheduling, target task). Simply implementing the abstract ideas using generic computer functions is not a practical application of the abstract ideas. “Global scheduling speculation” describes the desired analytical result rather than a particular technological technique.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to nor more than mere instructions to apply exception using generic computer functions. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e. mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer functions. It relates to well-understood, routine, and conventional matters and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. The claim does not recite a particular way of implementing the virtual scheduling or a specific improvement to computer functionality. In addition, the executing the target task merely applies the parameter selected and is related to post-solution activity. For this reason, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and it is thus ineligible.
As to claims 2-6, the claims further recite an abstract idea with additional limitations that merely refine the information and criteria used in the analysis and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or improve computer functionality.
As to claim 7, the claim further recites establishing an execution model by fitting the influencing factor of a target task for virtual scheduling to perform global scheduling speculation. These limitations merely implement the abstract idea and do not recite a specific technological improvement to computer functionality, and therefore, fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As to claim 8, the limitation merely redirects the statutory category to an apparatus or a machine. Claim 8 is also ineligible.
As to claim 9, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 10, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-10 are 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.
As to claim 1, the limitation of “a speculation effect of the global scheduling speculation meeting an expectation” is indefinite. The term “expectation” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “expectation” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
As to claims 2-8, they are rejected as being dependent on rejected claim 1 and failing to cure its deficiencies.
As to claims 9 and 10, they are rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 1.
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
Xu et al (hereinafter XU) (CN 110825522 – see English Translation) in view of Zhang et al (hereinafter ZHANG) (US 20240103907 A1).
As to claim 1, XU teaches a parameter optimization method comprising adjusting a target task parameter (claim 1 Step 101 - Spark parameters) corresponding to the target task (claim 1 - Steps 101 & 102 - Spark task), executing the target task parameter by virtual scheduling (claim 1 Step 2 - Spark task simulation) to perform global scheduling speculation (claim 1, Step 2 – calculation of execution time of the stage under different parameter combinations), and determining the target task parameter in response to a speculation effect (claim 1, Step 3 – determine the final optimized parameter combination) of the global scheduling speculation (claim 1, Step 3 – predicted stage execution time) meeting an expectation ([0085] – parameter combinations that have shorter execution times being better).
XU fails to teach evaluating tasks to identify a target task to be optimized and executing the target task based on the target task parameter.
However, ZHANG teaches evaluating tasks to be optimized (claim 1 - performing execution condition detection on a non-candidate subtask, determining the non- candidate subtask that meets execution conditions as a candidate subtask). ZHANG also teaches executing the target task based on the target task parameter (claim 1 – scheduling the candidate subtask in the task queue based on the target scheduling action).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified XU to incorporate the teachings of ZHANG for the methods of evaluating tasks to be optimized to determine whether the tasks meet the execution condition ([0072-0074]), and to execute the target task based on the target task parameter given that the target task is an optimized scheduling action ([0094]), to increase response speed to users’ demands ([0003]), and to reduce the time required to complete task requirements ([0004]).
As to claim 2, XU ([0028][ [0046]) in view of ZHANG ([0062]; claim 1) teaches the method of claim 1, wherein evaluating tasks to identify a target task to be optimized comprises: acquiring static information and dynamic information of the tasks, wherein the static information is configuration information of the tasks, and the dynamic information is historical execution information of the tasks; establishing an evaluation model for the tasks based on the static information and the dynamic information; and identifying the target task to be optimized according to an evaluation result of the evaluation model.
As to claim 3, XU teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the static information comprises at least one of: a task input table; or a task output table; or a task resource ratio; or a task priority; or a task scheduling period (claim 3; [0046]).
As to claim 4, XU teaches the method of claim 2, wherein the dynamic information comprises at least one of: a historical average execution time of the task; or an average start-up delay of the task; or an average data processing volume of the task; or a degree to which the task is relied upon (claim 3, [0028]).
As to claim 5, XU (claims 1 and 5; [0044]) and ZHANG ([0062]) teaches the method of claim 2, wherein establishing an evaluation model for the tasks based on the static information and the dynamic information comprises: determining an evaluation dimension of the tasks and an influencing factor of the tasks based on the static information and the dynamic information; and establishing the evaluation model according to the evaluation dimension and the influencing factor.
As to claim 6, XU teaches the method of claim 5, wherein adjusting a target task parameter corresponding to the target task comprises: determining an optimization direction of the target task, wherein the optimization direction is the evaluation dimension for which the target task is to be improved; and adjusting the target task parameter corresponding to the target task according to the optimization direction of the target task (claims 5 and 6).
As to claim 7, XU teaches the method of claim 6, wherein executing the target task parameter by virtual scheduling to perform global scheduling speculation comprises: establishing an execution model for the target task, wherein the execution model is obtained by fitting the influencing factor of the target task; and executing the target task parameter by virtual scheduling using the execution model to perform the global scheduling speculation (Claim 1, setp 2).
As to claim 8, Zhang teaches a task optimization apparatus, comprising a memory (Memory 102), a processor (Processor 101), and a computer program (instructions for any application or method) stored in the memory and executable by the processor, wherein the computer program, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform the task optimization method of claim 1 ([0177]; Fig. 4).
As to claim 9, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 10, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2009/0254774 discloses a method/system for run-time scheduling database operations that are executed in hardware;
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH TANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3772. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-3PM.
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, Bradley Teets can be reached at 571-272-3338. 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.
/KENNETH TANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights