DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “execute at least one machine learning model to predict a measure of criticality of traffic of the node… .” Applicant’s specification does not provide sufficient details about the machine learning model to produce the result claimed and simply reciting ‘executing the model to predict…’ amounts to functional language without describing how the function is performed or the result is achieved. The specification paragraphs simply repeat the same claim limitation without further details of the model to achieve the result. Lack of description results in a failure to accurately assess the scope and breadth of this limitation without which the limitation is non-limiting and serves as a simple labeling exercise where any model/algorithm may be used to predict the metric in question. Other independent claim repeat the same limitation. Dependent claims 4, 9, and 15 allude to the machine learning model without any further details. For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
See MPEP 2161.01.I: “Similarly, original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved.” Also 2163.I.A and 2163.03.V.
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 1-20 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “execute at least one machine learning model to predict a measure of criticality of traffic of the node… .” It is not clear what machine learning model is being executed to perform this function. Other independent claims and the dependent claims repeat the same limitation and are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “measure of criticality of traffic of the node” and it is not clear which measure of criticality that the claim is referring to. The dependent claims (ex. Claim 7) as well as the Applicant’s specification refer to at least three different types of measures of criticality pertaining to the traffic of the node and it is not clear what machine learning models are executed to obtain these results.
Claim 2, 7-10, 13, and 18-19 recite terms such as workload criticality or workload dependency count or workload service availability configuration but there is no context or controlling definition for these terms and the scope and breadth of these terms are not clear because they do not have a standard meaning in the relevant technologies. To the extent the Applicant’s specification offers a definition in Par.[0086]-0088], those should be incorporated in wherein clauses in the claim recitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 11, 12-14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Min et al. (US 2016/0191412 A1, hereinafter Min).
Regarding claim 1, Min teaches a computing system comprising: one or more memories; one or more processors communicatively coupled to the one or more memories, the one or more processors being configured to, [Figure 1 and Par.[0014] the controller node 114 and/or the remote entity 116 may monitor, control, and predict traffic flows in the system 100 and provide performance modification instructions to any of the computer nodes 104-110 and the network switch 170 to better optimize performance]:
obtain workload metrics from a plurality of nodes of a cluster, [Figure 5, 504 describes node data about applications; see Par.[0014] and other associated description, Abstract for summary];
obtain network function metrics from the plurality of nodes of the cluster, [Figure 5, 516 describes network traffic information; see Par.[0014] and other associated description; Abstract for summary]; and
for each node of the plurality of nodes: execute at least one machine learning model to predict a measure of criticality of traffic of the node, [Figure 5, 522 determining optimal system parameters for resource usage such as throughput, latency in Par.[0014] and associated description, Par.[0041]-[0043]];
determine, based on the measure of criticality of traffic of the node, a power mode for at least one processing core of the node, [Par.[0014] for desired power requirements, and Par.[0042] the decision engine module 416 can calculate, among other things, … (b) a number of CPU cores to use, (c) appropriate CPU core frequencies for a specified latency requirement]; and
recommend or apply the power mode to the at least one processing core of the node, [Par.[0042] the decision engine module 416 can calculate, among other things, … (b) a number of CPU cores to use, (c) appropriate CPU core frequencies for a specified latency requirement].
Regarding claim 2, Min teaches computing system of claim 1, wherein the workload metrics comprise at least one of a workload dependency count or a workload service availability configuration, [Par.[0016] and elsewhere application related resource/memory allocation/configuration, Figure 5, 512].
Regarding claim 3, Min teaches computing system of claim 1, wherein the network function metrics comprises at least one of traffic speed, bandwidth, latency, or poll statistics, [Par.[0014 describes throughput, latency monitoring].
Regarding claim 5, Min teaches computing system of claim 1, wherein applying the power mode comprises at least one of pausing operation of the at least one processing core, changing a frequency of the at least one processing core, or moving the at least one processing core into a different processor power state, [Par.[0042] the decision engine module 416 can calculate, among other things, … (b) a number of CPU cores to use, (c) appropriate CPU core frequencies for a specified latency requirement].
Regarding claim 6, Min teaches computing system of claim 1, wherein the power mode is limited to a predetermined amount of time, [Abstract, Par.[0036] describes dynamic optimal performance adjustment which changes based on the monitored conditions].
Regarding claim 7, Min teaches computing system of claim 1, wherein the measure of criticality of traffic of the node is based on at least one of: a determined workload criticality of one or more workloads of the node, a predicted bandwidth of the node, or a predicted traffic latency of the node, [Par.[0014 describes throughput, latency monitoring and collection; Figure 5 and associated description].
Regarding claim 11, Min teaches computing system of claim 1, wherein to determine the power mode, the one or more processors are configured to determine the power mode based on a mapping of the measure of criticality of traffic of the node to the power mode, [Par.[0042] the decision engine module 416 can calculate, among other things, … (b) a number of CPU cores to use, (c) appropriate CPU core frequencies for a specified latency requirement].
Claim 12 corresponds to claim 1 and is rejected as above.
Claim 13 corresponds to claim 2 and is rejected as above.
Claim 14 corresponds to claim 3 and is rejected as above.
Claim 16 corresponds to claim 5 and is rejected as above.
Claim 17 corresponds to claim 6 and is rejected as above.
Claim 18 corresponds to claim 7 and is rejected as above.
Claim 20 corresponds to claim 1 and is rejected as above.
Examiner’s note: while claims 8-10, and 18 are not allowable as recited, the subject matter from these claims may be incorporated into independent claims when the 112 a/b rejections explained in this office action are remedied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PADMA MUNDUR whose telephone number is (571)272-5383. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30 AM to 6:00 PM.
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at 571 272 3889. 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.
/PADMA MUNDUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2441