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 1-20 are pending.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because of the following minor informalities:
The language of the abstract should not repeat the information given in the title.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
-- Persistence MEMory (PMEM) -- should be -- Persistent Memory (PMEM) – in [0032].
– Ghz – should be – GHz – in [0036], [0040].
– supports – should be – support – in [0073].
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following terms lack proper antecedent basis:
– the performance – in claim 6 line 2, claim 12 line 2 and claim 19 line 2.
The following claim language is not clearly understood:
Claim 1 recites “plurality of resource devices”. It is unclear what constitutes the “resource” or “resource devices”.
Claim 1 recites “workload capabilities of a first workload” without clearly reciting what constitutes the workload capabilities and /or workload capabilities is referring to workload requirements e.g. resource requirements or workload abilities i.e. workload performance parameters.
Claim 1 recites a DAG that maps the workload capabilities to a first subset of pluralities of resource devices that are configures to provide the workload capabilities, and to Service Level Agreement (SLA) monitoring functionality”. It is unclear which portion (i.e. node or edge) of the DAG maps to the workload capability to the resource device and which portion (i.e. node or edge) of the DAG maps to SLA monitoring functionality.
Claim 1 recites “SLA monitoring functionalities” without clearly reciting which metrics are being monitored or what is being monitored that represents SLA monitoring.
Claim 1 recites “configure, based on the SLA monitoring functionality, an SLA monitoring subsystem that is configured”. It is unclear if the SLA monitoring subsystem is configured in response to the SLA monitoring functionality or in response to violation of SLA based on the values of monitored metrics.
Claim 1 recites “report SLA information” without clearly recites what constitutes the SLA information.
Claims 7 and 14 recite elements of claim 1 and have similar deficiency as claim 1. Therefore, they are rejected for the same rationale. Remaining dependent claims 2-6, 8-13 and 15-20 are also rejected due to similar deficiency inherited from the rejected independent claims.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Independent claim 1 recites “a system comprising a plurality of resource devices, a client device, and a resource management system”. Resource device, client device, and resource management system, can be made entirely of software / hardware and/or combination of hardware or software per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of these terms. System entirely made of software is not considered statutory subject matter. Applicant is advised to amend the claim to include a hardware e.g. system comprising a processor or resource devices comprising processor / memory etc.
Claims 2-6 are dependent claims of claim 1 and do not cure the deficiency of the independent claim. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Independent claim 1 recites a “IHS comprising a processing system and a memory system without specifically reciting a hardware such as processor, memory, processor and/or memory. Processing system and memory system can be entirely made of software or hardware or combination of hardware and software. According to the specification, processing system may include a processor, and memory system may include a memory ([0031] ) and therefore provide non-limiting definition. Therefore, IHS may entirely be made of software or hardware or combination of hardware and software. IHS made entirely of software doesn’t fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter and therefore rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claims 8-13 are dependent claims of claim 7 and do not cure the deficiency of the independent claim. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reason.
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 1-12, 14-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metsch et al. (US 2022/0124009 A1, hereafter Metsch) in view of Galdy et al. (US 9,407,944 B1, hereafter Galdy).
As per claim 1, Metsch teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a workload Service Level Agreement (SLA) satisfaction system ([0029] SLA, satisfy, target ), comprising:
a plurality of resource devices ([0039] fig. 1 multiple entities, devices, and equipment instances, compute, memory and storage resources);
a client device ([0039] fig. 1 endpoint – consumer and producer 160); and
a resource management system that is coupled to the client device and each of the plurality of resource devices ([0061] fig. 4 controller, partitioning and allocation of containers and resources, orchestrator 460, edge nodes 422 container pod 428 [0054]client endpoint 410 [0131] fig. 10 orchestrator control plane 1000 resource managers 1006), wherein the resource management system is configured to ([0061] fig. 4 controller, orchestrator 460, [0131] fig. 10 orchestrator control plane 1000 resource managers 1006):
receive a workload intent that identifies workload capabilities of a first workload ([0115] intents, received, higher level objective [0038] intent e.g. latency, throughput and reliability, intent driven orchestration [0173] workload request, business level constraints, e.g. in the form of intent and workload);
generate a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) that maps the workload capabilities to a first subset of the plurality of resource devices that are configured to provide the workload capabilities ( [0038] intent e.g. latency, throughput and reliability, intent driven orchestration [0116] intent, mapped, lower level settings, such as profile assignment / resource allocation [0147] orchestrator and resource managers, compute, network, memory and other resources), and to Service Level Agreement (SLA) monitoring functionality ([0036] intent, mapped to nested/graduated SLA rules, monitored and enforced );
configure the first subset of the plurality of resource devices to perform the first workload ([0173] determine hardware or resources needed, conform to, intent, determine resource configuration) and report SLA information according to the SLA monitoring functionality (fig. 14 monitor telemetry 1412 [0191] fig. 15 monitor workload performance and collect telemetry 1510, report the real-time telemetry); and
configure, based on the SLA monitoring functionality, an SLA monitoring subsystem that is configured, during performance of the first workload by the first subset of the plurality of resource devices (fig. 15 resource allocation 1504 deploy the workload 1508 monitor workload performance and collect telemetry 1510 [0173] determine hardware or resources needed, conform to, intent, determine resource configuration), to receive the SLA information (fig. 14 monitor telemetry 1412 [0191] fig. 15 monitor workload performance and collect telemetry 1510, report the real-time telemetry [0150]) and perform a management operation based on the SLA information ([0192] fig. 15 modify rules and deployment plan based on telemetry , migrate portion of workloads to different compute node [0117] dynamically adapt to changing conditions [0046] missing SLA, understand the impact of the SLA violation, augment other components in the system to resume overall transaction SLA [0118] dynamicity, catch with SLA).
Metsch doesn’t specifically teach generate a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG).
Galdy, however, teaches generate a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) (col 14 lines 5-15 task graph, directed acyclic graph) that maps the workload capabilities to a first subset of the plurality of resource devices (col 14 lines 5-15 DAG of tasks for processing, task to be performed by one or more workers, task group, corresponds to a portion of the task graph into to meet the computational resource requirement).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine the teachings of Metsch with the teachings of Galdy of DAG of tasks to be performed by one of more workers and task group corresponding to a portion of task graph to meet the computational resource requirement to improve efficiency and allow generating a directed acyclic graph for mapping the workload capabilities to the plurality of resources to the method of Metsch as in the instant invention.
The combination would have been obvious because applying the task DAG comprising task nodes to be performed by the workers and meet the resource requirement of the task as taught by Galdy to the method of Metsch to yield expected result and improved efficiency.
As per claim 2, Metsch teaches wherein the first subset of the plurality of resource devices minimizes the plurality of resource devices used to perform the first workload ([0202] minimum required resources [0173] determine hardware or resources needed, conform to, intent, determine resource configuration ).
As per claim 3, Metsch teaches wherein the management operations include reporting a violation of an SLA that is included in at least one of the workload capabilities ([0173] determine hardware or resources needed, conform to, intent, determine resource configuration; report the real-time telemetry [0175] violations, telemetry/alerts, fed back, modify the rules ).
As per claim 4, Metsch teaches wherein the management operations include: modifying the DAG to map the workload capabilities to a second subset of the plurality of resource devices that are different than the first subset of the plurality of resource devices and that are configured to provide the workload capabilities ([0038] intent e.g. latency, throughput and reliability, intent driven orchestration [0116] intent, mapped, lower level settings, such as profile assignment / resource allocation [0147] orchestrator and resource managers, compute, network, memory and other resources; fig. 12 initiate remedial operation 1208; [0182] fig. 14 revised rules for revised resource selection 1414); and
configuring the second subset of the plurality of resource devices to perform the first workload ([0182] fig. 14 implement revised deployment plan 1416 [0116] intent, mapped, lower level settings, such as profile assignment / resource allocation [0192] modifying the rules for resource allocation).
Galdy teaches remaining claim elements of modifying the DAG (col 14 lines 10-20 DAG, task graph is divided into a plurality of task group).
As per claim 5, Metsch teaches wherein the management operations include:
determining, prior to modifying the DAG and based on the SLA information ([0029] SLA), that the second subset of the plurality of resource devices are configured to satisfy at least one SLA that is included in the workload capabilities (fig. 14 monitor telemetry 1412 revised rules/resource selection 1414 implement revised deployment plan 1416 [0192] modifying, rules, resource allocation, real-time telemetry, improve compliance with the intent-based SLO [0123] policy non-compliance) and that is not satisfied by the first subset of the plurality of resource devices (fig. 14 rules for resource selection 1404 deployment 1410 [0046] missing agreed SLA).
Galdy teaches remaining claim elements of prior to modifying the DAG (col 14 lines 10-20 DAG, tasks for processing client video, task graph is divided into a plurality of task group).
As per claim 6, Metsch teaches wherein the management operations include modifying the performance of a second workload by at least some of the plurality of resource devices ([0038] intent e.g. latency, throughput and reliability, intent driven orchestration [0033] intent, flow, bidirectionally, auto-corrective/indicative, service-objectives and service-quality-objectives [0035] latency-10ms, 20 ms[0173] workload request, business level constraints, e.g. in the form of intent and workload [0044] reduce the latencies, low latency).
Claim 7 recites an Information Handling System (IHS), comprising: a processing system; and a memory system that is coupled to the processing system and that includes instructions that, when executed by the processing system, cause the processing system to provide a resource management engine that is configured to perform elements similar to claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationales.
Claim 9 recites elements similar to claim 3. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationales.
Claim 10 recites elements similar to claim 4. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationales.
Claim 11 recites elements similar to claim 5. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationales.
Claim 12 recites elements similar to claim 6. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationales.
Claim 14 recites a method for satisfying a Service Level Agreement (SLA) for a workload, comprising elements performing limitations similar to claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationales.
Claim 15 recites elements similar to claim 2. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationales.
Claim 16 recites elements similar to claim 3. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationales.
Claim 17 recites elements similar to claim 4. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationales.
Claim 18 recites elements similar to claim 5. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationales.
Claim 19 recites elements similar to claim 6. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationales.
Claims 13 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metsch in view of Galdy, and further in view of McGrath et al. (US 2020/0296155 A1, hereafter McGrath).
As per claim 13, Metsch teaches wherein the workload intent and the workload capabilities are provided via a Topology Orchestration Specification for Cloud Applications (TOSCA) subsystem ([0115] intents, received, higher level objective [0038] intent e.g. latency, throughput and reliability, intent driven orchestration [0173] workload request, business level constraints, e.g. in the form of intent and workload).
Metsch and Galdy, in combination, do not specifically teach specifying via a Topology Orchestration Specification for Cloud Applications (TOSCA) subsystem.
McGrath, however, teaches a Topology Orchestration Specification for Cloud Applications (TOSCA) subsystem ([0225] uses the Topology and Orchestration Specification for Cloud Applications (TOSCA) language to specify).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to combine the teachings of Metsch and Galdy with the teachings of McGrath of uses TOSCA to for specifying the resource requirements, operational behaviors for the workload to improve efficiency and allow specifying via a Topology Orchestration Specification for Cloud Applications (TOSCA) subsystem to the method of Metsch and Galdy as in the instant invention.
The combination would have been obvious because applying TOSCA to describe the requirements of the workload as taught by McGrath to the method of Metsch and Galdy to yield expected result and improved efficiency and management.
Claim 20 recites elements similar to claim 13. Therefore, it is rejected for the same rationales.
Examiners Note
Applicant is further reminded of the cited paragraphs and in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant(s) and although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of 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 from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider all of the references in 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Babu et al. (US 2019/0370146 A1) teaches system for data application performance management
Bartfai-Walcott et al. (US 2012/0173708 A1) teaches identifying optimal platforms for workload placement in a networked computing environment
Browne et al. (US 2024/0031219 A1) teaches method for mapping active assurance intents to resource orchestration and life cycle management
Chan et al. (US 2019/0288921 A1) teaches service level management of a workload defined environment
Narsude et al. (US 9,563,486 A1) teaches formula based load evaluation in distributed streaming platform for real-time application
Sahay et al. (US 2020/0028935 A1) teaches workload rebalancing in heterogeneous resource environment
Authorization for Internet Communication
Applicant is encouraged to submit an authorization to communicate with the Examiner via the internet by making the following statement (MPEP 502.03)
“Recognizing that internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only by submitted via Central Fax (not Examiner’s Fax), Regular postal mail, or EFS Web using PTO/SB/439.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABU GHAFFARI whose telephone number is (571)270-3799. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 14:00 - 15:00 Hrs.
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, Aimee Lee can be reached on 571-272-4169. 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.
/ABU ZAR GHAFFARI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195
Prosecution Insights