DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the application filed 06/20/2024 in which claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 9 and 17 are independent form.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/20/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. The claim is directed to signal per se.
Independent claim 9 recite the following “A non-transitory computer readable medium (CRM) comprising computer readable program code, which when executed by at least one computer processor, enables the at least one computer processor to perform a method for resource allocation optimization, the method comprising:”
The recited claim language of “A non-transitory computer readable medium (CRM)”, within the specification [0035] “the storage resources may refer to any number of non-transitory computer readable storage mediums configured for the storage of various forms of computer readable information (e.g., structured and/or unstructured data) in whole or in part, and temporarily or permanently. Said non-transitory computer readable storage mediums may include optical storage (e.g., compact discs (CDs) and digital versatile discs (DVDs), magnetic storage (e.g., magnetic tapes, floppy disks, and hard disk drives (HDDs)) ….,”
As recited above, even though the specification discuss “A non-transitory computer readable medium (CRM)” but when the specification tries to ascertain the meets and bounds of the “A non-transitory computer readable medium (CRM)” within the specification specifically in [0035] states “Said non-transitory computer readable storage mediums may include…”. The specification fails to expressly disavowal such signal transmission, as a propagating or electrical or electromagnetic signal or carries wave.
Furthermore, and consistent with the well-established axiom in patent law that a patentee or applicant is free to be his or her own lexicographer, a patentee or applicant may use terms in a manner contrary to or inconsistent with one or more of their ordinary meanings, see MPEP 2173.05(a). Therefore, the term "non-transitory" is not sufficient to render a claim statutory, it must be supported by the specification. Accordingly, the claimed language is not supported by the specification.
Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to any of the statutory categories include: Products that do not have a physical or tangible form, such as information (often referred to as "data per se") or a computer program per se (often referred to as "software per se") when claimed as a product without any structural recitations, see MPEP 2106.03. Software per se is not patentable subject matter. Accordingly, the aforementioned claim(s) is/are rejected as non-statutory for failing to disclose such hardware.
Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claims 8-16 are rejected for the same reason as mentioned above regarding independent claim 9.
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-8 are directed to a method (series of steps) and therefore is a process which is one of the statutory categories of invention. Claims 9-16 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium and therefore is a manufacture which is one of the statutory categories of invention. Claims 17-20 are directed to a system and therefore is a machine which is one of the statutory categories of inventions.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claims 1,9 and 17 recited the limitations:
“selecting a resource type from resources on a host system;” This limitation is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. In within the claim “selecting a resource type from resources on a host system;” encompasses a user mentally for example the user can just pick a resource type from a set of resources on a host system based on observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2))
“computing, based on the resource type, a plurality of weights comprising a weight for each resource consumer of a plurality of resource consumers on the host system;” This limitation is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation cover performance of the limitation in the mind/ mathematical concepts but for the recitation of generic computer components. In within the claim “computing, based on the resource type, a plurality of weights comprising a weight for each resource consumer of a plurality of resource consumers on the host system” encompasses a user mentally for example the user can compute the “plurality of weight” (demand/priority) based on the resource type for each of the resource consumer (type-driven consumption workload) on the host system based on observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2))
“computing, of the resource type, a total resource usage based on the plurality of weights and a division of available resource type units;” This limitation recites mathematical concepts in the form of an equation. Per the specification [00125-00126] the phrase “total resource usage” is merely using textual replacement for the particular equation. Per the specification [00122], “division of available resource type unit” is merely using textual replacement for the particular equation. Therefore, this limitation recites a mathematical concept (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2))
“making a determination that the total resource usage equals one;” This limitation is a process under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the performance in the mind, in conjunction of a mathematical concept. In within the claim “making a determination that the total resource usage equals one” encompasses a user mentally, with the aid of pen and paper for example, after the user finish calculating the total resource usage and based on the final calculation the user can determine that resource usage equal one based on observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process/mathematical concepts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2))
“allocating, based on the determination, a number of available resource type units of the resource type amongst the plurality of resource consumers.” This limitation is a process under the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the performance in the mind. In within the claim “allocating, based on the determination, a number of available resource type units of the resource type amongst the plurality of resource consumers.” encompasses a user mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper a user can draw a sketch of resource consumer (e.g. applications, containers or virtual machines) and based on the number of available resource the user can they can just allocate/adjust resource among the plurality resource consumer based on observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion. Therefore, this limitation recites a mental process (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2))
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The “processor”, “host system”, and “non-transitory computer-readable medium” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to significantly more the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the “processor”, “host system” and “non-transitory computer-readable medium” are merely generic computer or generic computer components to apply the judicial exception, which is well-understood, routine and conventional (MPEP 2106.05(d)). Therefore, it cannot provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claim 2 recite the limitation “wherein the resource type is one of compute resources, memory resources, storage resources, networking resources, and accelerated compute resources.” (This limitation does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claim 3 recite the limitation “wherein the number of available resource type units are allocated amongst the plurality of resource consumers in accordance with the division of available resource type units.” (This amounts to a mental process based on observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2))
Dependent claim 4 recite the limitation “the method further comprising: prior to computing the total resource usage: computing the division of available resource type units based on the plurality of weights and the number of available resource type units.” (This amounts to a mental process based on observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion. /mathematical concepts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2))
Dependent claim 5 recite the limitation “wherein the method is triggered upon observation of a change in the number of available resource type units based on a monitoring of the resources on the host system.” (This amounts to a mental process based on observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Dependent claim 6 recite the limitation “wherein the method is triggered upon observation of a change in a cardinality of the plurality of resource consumers based on a monitoring of the plurality of resource consumers.” (This amounts to a mental process based on observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
Dependent claim 7 recite the limitation “wherein the method is triggered upon observation of a change in a cardinality of at least one workload supported on the host system based on a monitoring of the at least one workload.” (This amounts to a mental process based on observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2))).
Dependent claim 8 recite the limitations
“selecting a second resource type from the resources on the host system; (This amount to a is a mental process based on observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)))
computing, based on the second resource type, a second plurality of weights comprising a second weight for each resource consumer of the plurality of resource consumers on the host system; (This amount to a mathematical concept (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2))
computing, of the second resource type, a second total resource usage based on the second plurality of weights and a second division of available resource type units; (This amount to a mental process based on observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion. /mathematical concept (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2))
making a second determination that the second total resource usage is less than one; (This amount to a mental process based on observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion. /mathematical concepts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2))
computing, based on the second determination, a least upper bound of the second total resource usage; (This amount to a mental process based on observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion. /mathematical concept (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2))
adjusting, based on the least upper bound, a second number of available resource type units of the second resource type to obtain an adjusted second number of available resource type units; (This amount to a mental process based on observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2))
computing a third division of available resource type units based on the second plurality of weights and the adjusted second number of available resource type units; and (This amount to a mental process based on observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion /mathematical concepts (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2))
allocating, in accordance with the third division of available resource type units, the adjusted second number of available resource type units of the resource type amongst the plurality of resource consumers. (This amounts to a mental process based on observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2))
Dependent claim 19 recite the limitation “wherein the host system is a computing device.” (This amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Dependent claim 20, recite the limitation “wherein the host system is a hyper-converged infrastructure (HCI) cluster.” (This amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
As per claim 10, it has similar limitations as claim 2, therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 18, it has similar limitations as claim 2, therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 11, it has similar limitations as claim 3, therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 12, it has similar limitations as claim 4, therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 13, it has similar limitations as claim 5, therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 14, it has similar limitations as claim 6, therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it has similar limitations as claim 7, therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 16, it has similar limitations as claim 8, therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-3, 9-11, and 17 -19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandrashekar (US 11829792 B1), in view Hong (US 20220342689 A1).
As per claim 1 Chandrashekar disclose:
A method for resource allocation optimization, the method comprising:
selecting a resource type from resources on a host system; [col 11:25-30] “determining an availability amount for each of multiple computing resource types of the host server computing device. For example, an amount of available virtual or physical processing cores, memory, networking capability, storage, etc., can be determined.”
making a determination that the total resource usage equals one; and [col 12: 7-13] “the operations 300 include determining whether there is sufficient availability on the host computing device, for each computing resource type, for a sum of the required amount for the candidate host domain (for that computing resource type) and the maximum amount needed across the guest domains (for that computing resource type).”
Examiner note: Per the specification [0124]- [0125] “making a determination that the total resource usage equals one;” is the summation of the utilization/consumption of the resources of the resource type.
allocating, based on the determination, a number of available resource type units of the resource type amongst the plurality of resource consumers. [col 6:59-63] “A hypervisor (also referred to as a virtual machine monitor (VMM) or more generally as an “instance manager”) on a host allocates the host's hardware resources amongst various VMs on the host and monitors the execution of the VMs.” [col 12:35-43] “Turning back to FIG. 2, with the feasibility verified, at circle (2) the migration manager 112 may send one or more commands to the server computing device 104A to cause the live migration and patching to be performed. For example, the migration manager 112 may send a machine image for a new host domain 108′ or an identifier of a location from where resources for the new host domain 108′ may be obtained, which the hypervisor 106 may use in ultimately launching the host domain 108′. [col 12- 52-59] “the hypervisor 106 may cause a new host domain 108′ to be launched using the machine image, and at circle (4) being a live migration process for moving the guest domain 110A (that utilizes the old host domain 108 for access to the physical resources of the server computing device 104A) to a new guest domain 110A′ that utilizes the new host domain 108′ for access to the physical resources of the server computing device 104A.”
Chandrashekar does not specifically teach
computing, based on the resource type, a plurality of weights comprising a weight for each resource consumer of a plurality of resource consumers on the host system;
computing, of the resource type, a total resource usage based on the plurality of weights and a division of available resource type units;
However, Hong discloses
computing, based on the resource type, a plurality of weights comprising a weight for each resource consumer of a plurality of resource consumers on the host system [0052] “Resource assignment information for the system may be dynamically provided to each virtual machine by a resource manager (e.g., host resource management logic) of the system… The resource manager may update the resource assignment information by using a formula for calculating a weighted share of resources for each virtual machine and communicating the updated resource assignment information to each virtual machine.”
computing, of the resource type, a total resource usage based on the plurality of weights and a division of available resource type units [0067] “The respective service level weights of each virtual machine VM may be used to determine an amount of the storage device resources 120 to assign respectively to any number of virtual machines VM loaded onto the host computer HC by determining (e.g., calculating) (a) a resource allocation unit and (b) an amount of assigned resources for a given VM” [0074] “In some embodiments, the resource manager RM may receive, store, update, and propagate (e.g., send or transmit) resource data 210 corresponding to the storage device 100 (or a plurality of storage devices). For example, the resource manager RM may receive the storage device resource information H1 from the storage device 100 (e.g., through a vendor-specific command) and may extract and store a count of the storage device resources 120 based on the storage device resource information H1. The storage device resource information H1 may include a total amount of, a usage of, an assignment of, and/or an availability of the storage device resources 120.
Chandrashekar and Hong are in similar field of endeavor, as they are both in managing/assigning computer resources and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to modify the system of Chandrashekar to include computing, based on the resource type, a plurality of weights comprising a weight for each resource consumer of a plurality of resource consumers on the host system; and computing, of the resource type, a total resource usage based on the plurality of weights and a division of available resource type units as disclosed by Hong teaching to increase the number of resources available.
Modification would further reduce latency and increase performance by increasing the number of resources available. (Hong [0003], [0046], [0054])
As per claim 9, it has similar limitations as claim 1, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 17, it has similar limitations as claim 1, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 2, Chandrashekar further discloses
“ wherein the resource type is one of compute resources, memory resources, storage resources, networking resources, and accelerated compute resources.”[col 5: 13-22] “A provider network 100 (or, “cloud” provider network) provides users with the ability to utilize one or more of a variety of types of computing-related resources such as compute resources (e.g., executing virtual machine (VM) instances and/or containers, executing batch jobs, executing code without provisioning servers), data/storage resources (e.g., object storage, block-level storage, data archival storage, databases and database tables, etc.), network-related resources (e.g., configuring virtual networks including groups of compute resources…”
As per Claim 10, it has similar limitations as claim 2, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 18, it has similar limitations as claim 2, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 3 Chandrashekar further discloses
“The method of claim 1, wherein the number of available resource type units are allocated amongst the plurality of resource consumers in accordance with the division of available resource type units.” [col 6:59-63] “A hypervisor (also referred to as a virtual machine monitor (VMM) or more generally as an “instance manager”) on a host allocates the host's hardware resources amongst various VMs on the host and monitors the execution of the VMs.” [col 12:35-43] “Turning back to FIG. 2, with the feasibility verified, at circle (2) the migration manager 112 may send one or more commands to the server computing device 104A to cause the live migration and patching to be performed. For example, the migration manager 112 may send a machine image for a new host domain 108′ or an identifier of a location from where resources for the new host domain 108′ may be obtained, which the hypervisor 106 may use in ultimately launching the host domain 108′. [col 12- 52-59] “the hypervisor 106 may cause a new host domain 108′ to be launched using the machine image, and at circle (4) being a live migration process for moving the guest domain 110A (that utilizes the old host domain 108 for access to the physical resources of the server computing device 104A) to a new guest domain 110A′ that utilizes the new host domain 108′ for access to the physical resources of the server computing device 104A.”
As per claim 11, it has similar limitations as claim 3, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 19, Chandrashekar further discloses
“wherein the host system is a computing device.” [col 18:25-29] “In some embodiments, a system that implements a portion or all of the techniques described herein may include a general-purpose computer system that includes or is configured to access one or more computer-accessible media, such as computer system”
Claim 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandrashekar (US 11829792 B1), in view Hong (US 20220342689 A1), in view of Hu (US20190243666 A1)
As per claim 4, Chandrashekar and Hung disclose the method of claim 1 detailed above.
Chandrashekar and Hung does not explicitly disclose
“prior to computing the total resource usage:
computing the division of available resource type units based on the plurality of weights and the number of available resource type units.”
However, Hu discloses
prior to computing the total resource usage [0100] “before the determining, based on usage and a weight of each of a plurality of resources occupied by each of a plurality of applications, a resource weighted sum of each resource”
computing the division of available resource type units based on the plurality of weights and the number of available resource type units [0242] “if both the currently available CPU resource amount and the currently available memory resource amount of the system are less than or equal to respective corresponding thresholds, applications in each application set are sorted based on usage and weights of CPU and memory resources occupied by each application in the application set.”
Chandrashekar, Hong and Hu are in similar field of endeavor, as they are all in computer virtualization and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to modify the system of Chandrashekar and Hong to include prior to computing the total resource usage computing the division of available resource type units based on the plurality of weights and the number of available resource type units as disclosed by Hu to improve system performance by controlling applications. (Hu [0006])
Modification would further provide a controlled streamline for application based on utilization in real time to avoid any waste of resources. (Hu [0006], [0008])
As per claim 12, it has similar limitations as claim 4, therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 5-7 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandrashekar (US 11829792 B1), in view Hong (US 20220342689 A1), in view of Nelson (US 20140137104 A1)
As per claim 5, Chandrashekar and Hung disclose the method of claim 1 detailed above.
Chandrashekar and Hung does not explicitly disclose
“wherein the method is triggered upon observation of a change in the number of available resource type units based on a monitoring of the resources on the host system.”
However, Nelson discloses “wherein the method is triggered upon observation of a change in the number of available resource type units based on a monitoring of the resources on the host system.” [0049] “At step 416, application resource scheduler 132 modifies the amount of computing resources that the application workload scheduler 126 sees as available based on the determined amount of available resources in hosts 108.”
Chandrashekar, Hong and Nelson are in similar fields of endeavor, as they are all in distributing workload/resource in a computing system and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to modify the system of Chandrashekar and Hong to include wherein the method is triggered upon observation of a change in the number of available resource type units based on a monitoring of the resources on the host system as disclosed by Nelson to manage a cluster for distributing computing application based on workload priority.(Nelson [0002])
Modification would further improve workload performance by controlling one or more resources based on the amount available computing resource within the virtualized computing system. (Nelson [0002], [0010])
As per claim 13, it has similar limitations as claim 5, therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 6, Nelson further discloses
“wherein the method is triggered upon observation of a change in a cardinality of the plurality of resource consumers based on a monitoring of the plurality of resource consumers.” [0049] “It should be recognized that in step 416, application resource scheduler 132 continues to monitor the availability of available resources on an ongoing basis, and expands and contracts the amount of resources that application workload scheduler 126 sees as available for running its jobs based on the determined amount of available resources, as described above in conjunction with FIG. 5B.”
As per claim 14, it has similar limitations as claim 6, therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 7, Nelson further discloses
“wherein the method is triggered upon observation of a change in a cardinality of at least one workload supported on the host system based on a monitoring of the at least one workload.” [0036] “At step 410, application resource scheduler 132 modifies the amount of computing resources that the application workload scheduler 126 sees as available based on the determined amount of unreserved resources in hosts”
As per claim 15, it has similar limitations as claim 7, therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandrashekar (US 11829792 B1), in view Hong (US 20220342689 A1), in view of Wu (US 20240176669 A1), in view of Wang (US 20160380905), in view of Chin (US 20170093968 A1)
As per claim 8, Chandrashekar and Hung disclose the method of claim 1 detailed above.
Chandrashekar further discloses
selecting a second resource type from the resources on the host system [col 11:25-30] “determining an availability amount for each of multiple computing resource types of the host server computing device. For example, an amount of available virtual or physical processing cores, memory, networking capability, storage, etc., can be determined.”
Additionally, Hong further discloses
computing, based on the second resource type, a second plurality of weights comprising a second weight for each resource consumer of the plurality of resource consumers on the host system [0052] “Resource assignment information for the system may be dynamically provided to each virtual machine by a resource manager (e.g., host resource management logic) of the system… The resource manager may update the resource assignment information by using a formula for calculating a weighted share of resources for each virtual machine and communicating the updated resource assignment information to each virtual machine.”
computing, of the second resource type, a second total resource usage based on the second plurality of weights and a second division of available resource type units [0067] “The respective service level weights of each virtual machine VM may be used to determine an amount of the storage device resources 120 to assign respectively to any number of virtual machines VM loaded onto the host computer HC by determining (e.g., calculating) (a) a resource allocation unit and (b) an amount of assigned resources for a given VM” [0074] “In some embodiments, the resource manager RM may receive, store, update, and propagate (e.g., send or transmit) resource data 210 corresponding to the storage device 100 (or a plurality of storage devices). For example, the resource manager RM may receive the storage device resource information H1 from the storage device 100 (e.g., through a vendor-specific command) and may extract and store a count of the storage device resources 120 based on the storage device resource information H1. The storage device resource information H1 may include a total amount of, a usage of, an assignment of, and/or an availability of the storage device resources 120.
Chandrashekar and Hong are in similar fields of endeavor, as they are both in managing/assigning computer resources and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to modify the system of Chandrashekar to include computing, based on the resource type, a plurality of weights comprising a weight for each resource consumer of a plurality of resource consumers on the host system; and computing, of the resource type, a total resource usage based on the plurality of weights and a division of available resource type units, as disclosed by Hong to increase the number of resources available.
Modification would further reduce latency and increase performance by increasing the number of resources available. (Hong [0003], [0046], [0054])
Chandrashekar and Hong does not explicitly disclose
“making a second determination that the second total resource usage is less than one;
computing, based on the second determination, a least upper bound of the second total resource usage;
adjusting, based on the least upper bound, a second number of available resource type units of the second resource type to obtain an adjusted second number of available resource type units;
computing a third division of available resource type units based on the second plurality of weights and the adjusted second number of available resource type units; and
allocating, in accordance with the third division of available resource type units, the adjusted second number of available resource type units of the resource type amongst the plurality of resource consumers.”
However, Wu discloses “making a second determination that the second total resource usage is less than one “[0057] “Determine whether the second resource occupation amount of the cluster node in each time period is less than or equal to the total resource amount of the cluster node in the time period.” [0066] “Whether the second resource occupation amount of the cluster node in each time period is less than or equal to the total resource amount of the cluster node in the time period can be determined to determine at least one cluster node that satisfies the resource amount need, so that the target container group is scheduled to the at least one cluster node”
Examiner note: Per the specification [0125]/ [0130]- [0131] “making a second determination that the second total resource usage is less than one;” is the summation of the utilization/consumption of the resources of the resource type.
Chandrashekar, Hong, and Wu are in similar fields of endeavor, as they are all in managing plurality of resources within a system and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to modify the system of Chandrashekar and Hong to include making a second determination that the second total resource usage is less than one, as disclosed by Wu to improve universality of application resource by using resource usage configuration. (Wu [0117])
Modification would further reduce the waste of resources by scheduling the estimated resource consumption and by doing so it would allocate resources based on the schedule. (Wu [0010])
Chandrashekar in view of Hong and Wu does not explicitly disclose
“computing, based on the second determination, a least upper bound of the second total resource usage;
adjusting, based on the least upper bound, a second number of available resource type units of the second resource type to obtain an adjusted second number of available resource type units;
computing a third division of available resource type units based on the second plurality of weights and the adjusted second number of available resource type units; and
allocating, in accordance with the third division of available resource type units, the adjusted second number of available resource type units of the resource type amongst the plurality of resource consumers.”
However, Wang discloses
computing, based on the second determination, a least upper bound of the second total resource usage [0038] In one embodiment, a limit specifies the upper bound of the resources that can be allocated to a VM, a host computer, or an RP. In one embodiment, a limit is honored even when there are idle resources. As with reservations, limits can be specified in absolute units, e.g., MHz for CPU limits and MB for memory limits.
adjusting, based on the least upper bound, a second number of available resource type units of the second resource type to obtain an adjusted second number of available resource type units [0038] “Resources allocated to clients (e.g., VMs), host computers, or resource pools (RPs) can be controlled by adjusting resource allocation/control settings, which may include reservation, limit and shares parameters. In one embodiment, a reservation is the minimum amount of physical resources guaranteed to be available to a VM, a host computer, or an RP even when the resources in a host computer cluster or a computer system are over-committed. A reservation can be expressed in absolute units, e.g., MHz for CPU reservations and MB for memory reservations. In one embodiment, a limit specifies the upper bound of the resources that can be allocated to a VM, a host computer, or an RP.”
Chandrashekar, Hong, Wu and Wang are in similar as they are all in managing plurality of resource within a system and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to modify the system of Chandrashekar, Hong, and Wu to include computing, based on the second determination, a least upper bound of the second total resource usage; and adjusting, based on the least upper bound, a second number of available resource type units of the second resource type to obtain an adjusted second number of available resource type units, as disclosed by Wang to improve the resource allocation within a computer system.
Modification would further improve the system by operating at a desired or target level by allocating resources using the weight score (“priority workload” [0039]) from the host system. (Wang [0003])
Chandrashekar, Hong Wu and Wang does not explicitly disclose
computing a third division of available resource type units based on the second plurality of weights and the adjusted second number of available resource type units; and
allocating, in accordance with the third division of available resource type units, the adjusted second number of available resource type units of the resource type amongst the plurality of resource consumers.
However, Chin discloses “computing a third division of available resource type units based on the second plurality of weights and the adjusted second number of available resource type units” [0025] “In an embodiment, resources usage assessor 202 assesses the usage percentage for an active scheduling peer as the amount of multi-dimensional resources currently used by the scheduling peer and its workloads divided by the amount of multi-dimensional resources that it could gainfully use if it had access to the total resources in the pool of resources of multiprocessor system 100.”[0026] “Because adjustments made to the resource allocations of scheduling peers are based on an effect that an adjustment has on the usage percentages of the scheduling peers according to their configured share ratios, a fairness can be maintained.” [0027] “resources usage assessor 202 assesses usage percentage as the number of concurrently running workloads of a scheduling peer in a hierarchy divided by the maximum number of workloads that the scheduling peer can run if it is allocated all of the resources in the resource pool of multiprocessor system 100.”
“allocating, in accordance with the third division of available resource type units, the adjusted second number of available resource type units of the resource type amongst the plurality of resource consumers.” [0040] “if system resource assessor 201 detects that new resources have been added to multiprocessor system 100 or that resources have been freed up by completed workloads, fairness assessor 205 determines how the newly available resources are to be fairly allocated and directs resource allocation adjuster 204 to make the allocations. In an embodiment, the least-served competing peers are given priority for the newly available resources.”
Chandrashekar, Hong, Wu, Wang, and Chin are in similar as they are all in managing resource within a system/cloud and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to modify the system of Chandrashekar, Hong, Wu, and Wang to include computing a third division of available resource type units based on the second plurality of weights, and the adjusted second number of available resource type units and allocating, in accordance with the third division of available resource type units, the adjusted second number of available resource type units of the resource type amongst the plurality of resource consumers, as disclosed by Chin to allocate resource within a multiprocessing system.
Modification would further provide a fair-shared of the resource towards the multiple scheduling peer (“resource consumer” Chin, [0023]) within a multiprocessing system. (Chin [0001], [0004], [0016], [0017]).
As per claim 16, it has similar limitations as claim 8, therefore is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chandrashekar (US 11829792 B1), in view Hong (US 20220342689 A1), in view of Yardeni (US 20220156116 A1)
As per claim 20, Chandrashekar and Hong disclose the system of claim 17 detailed above.
Chandrashekar and Hong does not explicitly disclose
“wherein the host system is a hyper-converged infrastructure (HCI) cluster.”
However, Yardeni discloses “wherein the host system is a hyper-converged infrastructure (HCI) cluster.” [0022] “the invention relates to a computer system having a management system for managing computational resources (e.g., a processor, a memory, a storage I/O resource, a network I/O resource and/or I/O pathways) in an HCI cluster.” [0075] “FIG. 1 schematically shows an exemplary HCI cluster 100 including a datacenter 102 and one or more servers (or “hosts”) 104 connected thereto for providing an HCI infrastructure platform that can support a cloud computing environment.”
Chandrashekar, Hong and Yardeni are in similar fields of endeavor, as they are all in managing computational resources within a system and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to modify the system of Chandrashekar and Hong to include wherein the host system is a hyper-converged infrastructure (HCI) cluster, as disclosed be Yardeni to properly manage resource to meet the demand of computing workloads.
Modification would further reduce the poor performance of the application within the infrastructure. (Yardeni [0007])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
FEATONBY MALCOLM (WO 2020198600 A1) disclose an optimization service of a service provider network to help optimize the selection, configuration, and utilization, of virtual machine (VM) instance.
Aronovich; Lior (US 20200167195 A1) disclose a calculation is made required resources of computational resources required to complete processing a plurality of unfinished workloads that have not completed.
DI-CAIRANO - GILFEDDER; Carla (US 20180219735 A1) disclose an optimum configuration of resources in a network function virtualisation data network.
Sakdeo; Sumedh V. (US 20160380905 A1) disclose automatically allocate resources among storage system resource consumers.
Ponsford; Simon (US 20150220358 A1) an arrangement configured to allocate resources of a host system to one or more virtual machines.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHMEED ACHILLE whose telephone number is (571)272-9437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am -4pm.
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, PIERRE VITAL can be reached at (571)272-4215. 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.
/A.A./ Examiner, Art Unit 2198
/PIERRE VITAL/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2198
