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 .
This office action is in response to claims filed 07/05/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for priority from provisional application 63526675 filed 07/13/2023 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more.
Regarding Claim 1, the limitations "A method comprising: determining, […] a first performance, on a first computational device, of a compute task; determining, […] a second performance, on a second computational device, of the compute task", as drafted, are functions that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitations “and assigning […] based on the first performance and the second performance, to the first computational device, the compute task.” merely recite an insignificant extra solution activity such as updating data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, the limitations “by at least one processing circuit” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, regarding the “assigning” limitations, the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Additionally, the “by at least one processing circuit” limitations amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 2, the limitations “determining the first performance” as drafted, are functions that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitations “the compute task comprises at least one instruction […] the at least one instruction” merely recite an insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, regarding the elements “the compute task comprises at least one instruction […] the at least one instruction”, the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 3, the limitations “determining the first performance” as drafted, are functions that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitations “based on a data transfer associated with the compute task” merely recite an insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, regarding the elements “based on a data transfer associated with the compute task”, the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 4, though it does not recite an additional abstract idea, it recites additional elements since it describes “the compute task is a first portion of a computational workload; and the assigning is based on a dependency associated with the first portion of the computational workload on a second portion of the computational workload”, i.e., gathering information about the dependency. The courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 5, the limitations “determining the first performance” as drafted, are functions that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitations “based on a type of the compute resource” merely recite an insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering data, i.e., about the type of the compute resource, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Additionally, the limitations “the first computational device comprises a compute resource” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, regarding the elements “based on a type of the compute resource”, the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, the “first computational device comprises a compute resource” limitations amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 6, though it does not recite an additional abstract idea, it recites additional elements since it describes “the method further comprising configuring, based on the assigning, the configurable compute resource”, i.e., updating the configuration. The courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, the limitations “the first computational device comprises a configurable compute resource” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 7, though it does not recite an additional abstract idea, it recites additional elements since it describes “wherein the configuring comprises loading, at the first computational device, a program for the configurable compute resource”, i.e., storing data for the program. The courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 8, the limitations “determining the first performance” as drafted, are functions that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitations “based on: a characteristic of the compute task; and a configuration of the first computational device” merely recite an insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering data, i.e., about the characteristic of the compute task and configuration of the first computational device, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Additionally, the limitations “the first computational device comprises a compute resource” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, regarding the elements “based on: a characteristic of the compute task; and a configuration of the first computational device”, the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Additionally, the “first computational device comprises a compute resource” limitations amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 9, the limitations “determining the first performance” as drafted, are functions that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitations “wherein the determining the first performance is based on an operating status of the first computational device” merely recite an insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, regarding the elements “wherein the determining the first performance is based on an operating status of the first computational device”, the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 10, the limitations “determining the first performance” as drafted, are functions that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitations “wherein the determining the first performance is based on an operating status of the second computational device” merely recite an insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, regarding the elements “wherein the determining the first performance is based on an operating status of the second computational device”, the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 11, the limitations “determining the first performance” as drafted, are functions that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitations “based on an operating status of a communication connection for the first computational device” merely recite an insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, regarding the elements “based on an operating status of a communication connection for the first computational device”, the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 12, the limitations “determining the first performance” as drafted, are functions that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitations “based on an operating status of a communication connection for the second computational device” merely recite an insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, regarding the elements “based on an operating status of a communication connection for the second computational device”, the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 13, though it does not recite an additional abstract idea, it recites additional elements since it describes “the compute task comprises at least one instruction, the method further comprising compiling, based on the assigning, the at least one instruction for the first computational device”, i.e., updating and transmitting instruction data. The courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 14, the limitations “the method further comprising determining, based on the computational workload, the compute task” as drafted, are functions that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitations “the compute task is a first portion of a computational workload” merely recite an insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, regarding the elements “the compute task is a first portion of a computational workload”, the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 15, the limitations "A method comprising: determining a characteristic of a compute task; determining a first configuration of a first computational device; determining a second configuration of a second computational device", as drafted, are functions that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitations “and assigning, based on the characteristic of the compute task, the first configuration of the first computational device, and the second configuration of the second computational device, the compute task to the first computational device” merely recite an insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering and updating data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, regarding the “assigning” limitations, the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 16, though it does not recite an additional abstract idea, it recites additional elements since it describes “the assigning is based on an operating status of the first computational device”, i.e., gathering operation status data. The courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 17, though it does not recite an additional abstract idea, it recites additional elements since it describes “the assigning is based on a data transfer associated with the compute task”, i.e., gathering data transfer data. The courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 18, the limitations " assignment logic configured to assign [...] the compute task to the first computational device", as drafted, are functions that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Step 2A, Prong 1.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional limitations “based on a characteristic of a compute task, a first configuration of the first computational device, and a second configuration of the second computational device” merely recite an insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, the limitations “A system comprising: a first computational device; a second computational device” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, regarding the “based on a characteristic of a compute task, a first configuration of the first computational device, and a second configuration of the second computational device” limitations, the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Additionally, the “A system comprising: a first computational device; a second computational device” limitations amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 19, though it does not recite an additional abstract idea, it recites additional elements since it describes “the assignment logic is further configured to assign the compute task based on an operating status of the first computational device”, i.e., gathering operation status data. The courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding Claim 20, though it does not recite an additional abstract idea, it recites additional elements since it describes “the assignment logic is further configured to assign the compute task based on a data transfer associated with the first computational device”, i.e., gathering data about the data transfer. The courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well understood, routine, conventional activity, and thus it does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bingham et al. (US 20170286499 A1) in view of Guim Bernat et al. (US 20210144517 A1), hereinafter referred to as Bingham and Guim Bernat, respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Bingham discloses A method comprising: determining, by at least one processing circuit, a first performance, on a first computational device, of a compute task ([0082] A task monitor 240 can then monitor performance of the tasks and operation states (e.g., processing usage, CPU usage, etc.) of assigned resources.; [0084] an activity monitor 315, which monitors activity of hypervisor components. The activity can include, for example, when tasks were assigned, whether tasks were completed, when tasks were completed, what tasks were assigned (e.g., required processing), users that requested the task performance, whether the task was a new task or transferred from another component (in which case a source component and/or transfer time can be included in the activity).; [0240] Processors suitable for the execution of a computer program. Please note that monitoring the activity relating to task completion on assigned resources, relating to a first assigned resource and first task, corresponds to Applicant’s determining a first performance of a compute task on a first computational device. Furthermore, as is known to one of ordinary skill in the art, as this monitoring is performed in a computing system, this corresponds to Applicant’s using a processing circuit to perform the determination, i.e., the processors for the execution of the computer program.);
determining, by the at least one processing circuit, a second performance, on a second computational device, of the compute task ([0082] A task monitor 240 can then monitor performance of the tasks and operation states (e.g., processing usage, CPU usage, etc.) of assigned resources.; [0084] an activity monitor 315, which monitors activity of hypervisor components. The activity can include, for example, when tasks were assigned, whether tasks were completed, when tasks were completed, what tasks were assigned (e.g., required processing), users that requested the task performance, whether the task was a new task or transferred from another component (in which case a source component and/or transfer time can be included in the activity).; [0240] Processors suitable for the execution of a computer program. Please note that monitoring the activity relating to task completion on assigned resources, relating to a second assigned resource and second task, corresponds to Applicant’s determining a second performance of a compute task on a second computational device. Furthermore, as is known to one of ordinary skill in the art, as this monitoring is performed in a computing system, this corresponds to Applicant’s using a processing circuit to perform the determination, i.e., the processors for the execution of the computer program.);
Bingham does not explicitly disclose and assigning, by the at least one processing circuit, based on the first performance and the second performance, to the first computational device, the compute task.
However, Guim Bernat discloses and assigning, by the at least one processing circuit, based on the first performance and the second performance, to the first computational device, the compute task ([0953] The resource management circuitry is configured to track what platforms—such as other nodes, racks, blades, processors, or hardware accelerators […] the resource management circuitry is configured to detect and maintain performance metrics or other meta-data (e.g., for use by the scheduler). Please note that maintaining performance metrics for use by the scheduler via the resource management circuitry corresponds to Applicant’s assigning the compute task to the first computation device based on the first performance and the second performance, as the scheduler, known in the art to assign tasks, does so based on performance metrics.).
Bingham and Guim Bernat are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer resource management and task processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bingham to incorporate the teachings of Guim Bernat to modify the system determining first and second performances of the compute task on respective first and second devices to assign the compute task to the first computational device based on the first and second performances, allowing for efficient resource usage and task distribution, as described in Guim Bernat.
Regarding Claim 2, Bingham-Guim Bernat as described in Claim 1, Guim Bernat further discloses the compute task comprises at least one instruction; and the determining the first performance is based on the at least one instruction ([0246] The information representative of the instructions in the machine-readable medium may be processed by processing circuitry into the instructions to implement any of the operations discussed herein. For example, deriving the instructions from the information (e.g., processing by the processing circuitry) may include: […] loading […] or otherwise manipulating the information into the instructions. Please note that processing the information representative of the instructions with processing circuitry to implement the operations by deriving the instructions from the information corresponds to Applicant’s compute task comprising at least one instruction and the determining the first performance being based on the at least one instruction.).
Regarding Claim 3, Bingham-Guim Bernat as described in Claim 1, Bingham further discloses wherein the determining the first performance is based on a data transfer associated with the compute task ([0084] an activity monitor 315, which monitors activity of hypervisor components. The activity can include, for example, when tasks were assigned, whether tasks were completed, when tasks were completed, what tasks were assigned (e.g., required processing), users that requested the task performance, whether the task was a new task or transferred from another component (in which case a source component and/or transfer time can be included in the activity). Please note that monitoring activities associated with the completion of tasks including whether the task was transferred corresponds to Applicant’s determining the first performance being based on a data transfer associated with the compute task. ).
Regarding Claim 4, Bingham-Guim Bernat as described in Claim 1, Guim Bernat further discloses the compute task is a first portion of a computational workload ([0134] Workflows describe dependencies between workloads in order to deliver specific service level objectives and requirements to the end-to-end service. […] Workflow services define dependencies and relationships between resources and systems. Please note that workflow services defining dependencies between resources and workflows describing dependencies between workloads corresponds to Applicant’s compute task being a first portion of a computational workload, as a first part of the workflow that is a workload corresponds to Applicant’s compute task that is a first portion of the computational workload, i.e., the first in the sequence.);
and the assigning is based on a dependency associated with the first portion of the computational workload on a second portion of the computational workload ([0134] Workflows describe dependencies between workloads in order to deliver specific service level objectives and requirements to the end-to-end service. Please note that workflows describing dependencies between workloads corresponds to Applicant’s assigning being based on a dependency associated with the first portion of the computational workload on a second portion of the computational workload, as the dependencies between the first and section portions of the computation workload are considered in order to complete the workflow.).
Regarding Claim 5, Bingham-Guim Bernat as described in Claim 1, Bingham further discloses the first computational device comprises a compute resource; and the determining the first performance is based on a type of the compute resource ([0043] As another example, architecture provider 105 can identify that particular resources are only to be assigned tasks of a particular type or that all tasks of a particular type are to be assigned to a particular resource. Please note that particular resources being assigned to tasks of a particular type corresponds to Applicant’s first computational device comprising a compute resource and the determining the first performance being based on a type of the compute resource, as there is a task type associated with each resource type.).
Regarding Claim 6, Bingham-Guim Bernat as described in Claim 1, Bingham further discloses wherein the first computational device comprises a configurable compute resource, the method further comprising configuring, based on the assigning, the configurable compute resource ([0043] resources may be reserved such that they can only be assigned high-priority tasks or tasks from particular users. As another example, architecture provider 105 can identify that particular resources are only to be assigned tasks of a particular type or that all tasks of a particular type are to be assigned to a particular resource. Please note that resources that are to be assigned tasks corresponds to Applicant’s first computational device comprising a configurable compute resource, and configuring, based on the assigning, the configurable compute resource, as the resources are configured to carry out the tasks once assigned them. ).
Regarding Claim 7, Bingham-Guim Bernat as described in Claim 6, Guim Bernat further discloses wherein the configuring comprises loading, at the first computational device, a program for the configurable compute resource ([0246] The information representative of the instructions in the machine-readable medium may be processed by processing circuitry into the instructions to implement any of the operations discussed herein. For example, deriving the instructions from the information (e.g., processing by the processing circuitry) may include: […] loading […] or otherwise manipulating the information into the instructions. Please note that processing the information representative of the instructions with processing circuitry to implement the operations by deriving the instructions from the information by loading the instructions corresponds to Applicant’s configuring comprising loading, at the first computational device, a program for the configurable compute resource.).
Regarding Claim 8, Bingham-Guim Bernat as described in Claim 1, Bingham further discloses wherein the determining the first performance is based on: a characteristic of the compute task; and a configuration of the first computational device ([0046] A VM monitoring system 155 can monitor applicable architecture, task assignments, task-performance characteristics and resource states. For example, VM monitoring system 155 can monitor: task completion time, a percentage of assigned tasks that were completed, a resource power state, a CPU usage, a memory usage and/or network usage. Please note that monitoring task-performance characteristics and resource states corresponds to Applicant’s determining the first performance being based on a characteristic of the compute task and a configuration of the first computational device ).
Regarding Claim 9, Bingham-Guim Bernat as described in Claim 1, Bingham further discloses wherein the determining the first performance is based on an operating status of the first computational device ([0082] A task monitor 240 can then monitor performance of the tasks and operation states (e.g., processing usage, CPU usage, etc.) of assigned resources. Please note that monitoring the performance of tasks and the operation state of assigned resources associated with tasks corresponds to Applicant’s determining the first performance being based on an operating status of the first computational device. ).
Regarding Claim 10, Bingham-Guim Bernat as described in Claim 1, Bingham further discloses wherein the determining the first performance is based on an operating status of the second computational device ([0082] A task monitor 240 can then monitor performance of the tasks and operation states (e.g., processing usage, CPU usage, etc.) of assigned resources. Please note that monitoring the performance of tasks and the operation state of assigned resources associated with tasks corresponds to Applicant’s determining the first performance being based on an operating status of the second computational device, i.e., the device different than the first. ).
Regarding Claim 11, Bingham-Guim Bernat as described in Claim 1, Bingham further discloses wherein the determining the first performance is based on an operating status of a communication connection for the first computational device ([0046] A VM monitoring system 155 can monitor applicable architecture, task assignments, task-performance characteristics and resource states. For example, VM monitoring system 155 can monitor: […] network usage. Please note that monitoring task-performance characteristics and resource states including monitoring network usage corresponds to Applicant’s determining the first performance being based on an operating status of a communication connection for the first computational device, as it is known to one of ordinary skill in the art that a network being used is an instance of a communication connection for a computational device. ).
Regarding Claim 12, Bingham-Guim Bernat as described in Claim 1, Bingham further discloses wherein the determining the first performance is based on an operating status of a communication connection for the second computational device ([0046] A VM monitoring system 155 can monitor applicable architecture, task assignments, task-performance characteristics and resource states. For example, VM monitoring system 155 can monitor: […] network usage. Please note that monitoring task-performance characteristics and resource states including monitoring network usage corresponds to Applicant’s determining the first performance being based on an operating status of a communication connection for the first computational device, as it is known to one of ordinary skill in the art that a network being used is an instance of a communication connection for a computational device, that may be different from the first.).
Regarding Claim 13, Bingham-Guim Bernat as described in Claim 1, Guim Bernat further discloses wherein the compute task comprises at least one instruction, the method further comprising compiling, based on the assigning, the at least one instruction for the first computational device ([0246] The information representative of the instructions in the machine-readable medium may be processed by processing circuitry into the instructions to implement any of the operations discussed herein. For example, deriving the instructions from the information (e.g., processing by the processing circuitry) may include: compiling (e.g., from source code, object code, etc.), […] or otherwise manipulating the information into the instructions. Please note that processing the information representative of the instructions with processing circuitry to implement the operations by deriving the instructions from the information by compiling the instructions corresponds to Applicant’s compute task comprising at least one instruction, and compiling, based on the assigning, the at least one instruction for the first computational device.).
Regarding Claim 14, Bingham-Guim Bernat as described in Claim 1, Bingham further discloses wherein the compute task is a first portion of a computational workload, the method further comprising determining, based on the computational workload, the compute task ([0072] Task definer 215 can then define data-collection tasks. Each task can pertain to a portion of the overall data-collection process. For example, when data is to be continuously collected from multiple sources, task definer 215 can define individual tasks, each relating to a subset of the sources and each involving a defined time period. These tasks can be assigned to machines identified as forwarder. Please note that each task pertaining to a portion of the overall process, with individual tasks to be defined and assigned corresponds to Applicant’s compute task being a first portion of a computational workload and determining, based on the computational workload, the compute task.).
Regarding Claim 15, Bingham discloses A method comprising: determining a characteristic of a compute task ([0046] A VM monitoring system 155 can monitor applicable architecture, task assignments, task-performance characteristics and resource states. For example, VM monitoring system 155 can monitor: task completion time, a percentage of assigned tasks that were completed, a resource power state, a CPU usage, a memory usage and/or network usage. Please note that monitoring task-performance characteristics corresponds to Applicant’s determining a characteristic of a compute task. );
determining a first configuration of a first computational device ([0046] A VM monitoring system 155 can monitor applicable architecture, task assignments, task-performance characteristics and resource states. For example, VM monitoring system 155 can monitor: task completion time, a percentage of assigned tasks that were completed, a resource power state, a CPU usage, a memory usage and/or network usage. Please note that monitoring resource states, for a first resource, corresponds to Applicant’s determining a first configuration of a first computational device. );
determining a second configuration of a second computational device ([0046] A VM monitoring system 155 can monitor applicable architecture, task assignments, task-performance characteristics and resource states. For example, VM monitoring system 155 can monitor: task completion time, a percentage of assigned tasks that were completed, a resource power state, a CPU usage, a memory usage and/or network usage. Please note that monitoring resource states, for a second resource, corresponds to Applicant’s determining a second configuration of a second computational device. );
Bingham does not explicitly disclose and assigning, based on the characteristic of the compute task, the first configuration of the first computational device, and the second configuration of the second computational device, the compute task to the first computational device.
However, Guim Bernat discloses and assigning, based on the characteristic of the compute task, the first configuration of the first computational device, and the second configuration of the second computational device, the compute task to the first computational device ([0953] The resource management circuitry is configured to track what platforms—such as other nodes, racks, blades, processors, or hardware accelerators […] the resource management circuitry is configured to detect and maintain performance metrics or other meta-data (e.g., for use by the scheduler). Please note that detecting and maintaining meta-data for use by the scheduler via the resource management circuitry corresponds to Applicant’s assigning the compute task to the first computational device, as the scheduler, known in the art to assign tasks, does so based on meta-data, corresponding to doing so based on the characteristic of the compute task, the first configuration of the first computational device, and the second configuration of the second computational device, as previously disclosed by Bingham.).
Bingham and Guim Bernat are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer resource management and task processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bingham to incorporate the teachings of Guim Bernat to modify the system determining a characteristic of a task and first and second configurations of respective first and second devices to assign the compute task to the first computational device based on the characteristic of the task and the first and second configurations, allowing for efficient resource usage and task distribution, as described in Guim Bernat.
Regarding Claim 16, Bingham-Guim Bernat as described in Claim 15, Bingham further discloses wherein the assigning is based on an operating status of the first computational device ([0082] A task monitor 240 can then monitor performance of the tasks and operation states (e.g., processing usage, CPU usage, etc.) of assigned resources. Please note that monitoring the performance of tasks and the operation state of assigned resources associated with tasks corresponds to Applicant’s assigning being based on an operating status of the first computational device. ).
Regarding Claim 17, Bingham-Guim Bernat as described in Claim 15, Bingham further discloses wherein the assigning is based on a data transfer associated with the compute task ([0084] an activity monitor 315, which monitors activity of hypervisor components. The activity can include, for example, when tasks were assigned, whether tasks were completed, when tasks were completed, what tasks were assigned (e.g., required processing), users that requested the task performance, whether the task was a new task or transferred from another component (in which case a source component and/or transfer time can be included in the activity). Please note that monitoring activities associated with the completion of tasks including whether the task was transferred corresponds to Applicant’s assigning being based on a data transfer associated with the compute task. ).
Regarding Claim 18, Bingham discloses A system comprising: a first computational device ([0082] A task monitor 240 can then monitor performance of the tasks and operation states (e.g., processing usage, CPU usage, etc.) of assigned resources.; [0084] an activity monitor 315, which monitors activity of hypervisor components. The activity can include, for example, when tasks were assigned, whether tasks were completed, when tasks were completed, what tasks were assigned (e.g., required processing), users that requested the task performance, whether the task was a new task or transferred from another component (in which case a source component and/or transfer time can be included in the activity).; [0240] Processors suitable for the execution of a computer program. Please note that a first assigned resource that has its activity relating to task completion monitored corresponds to Applicant’s first computational device of the system.);
a second computational device ([0082] A task monitor 240 can then monitor performance of the tasks and operation states (e.g., processing usage, CPU usage, etc.) of assigned resources.; [0084] an activity monitor 315, which monitors activity of hypervisor components. The activity can include, for example, when tasks were assigned, whether tasks were completed, when tasks were completed, what tasks were assigned (e.g., required processing), users that requested the task performance, whether the task was a new task or transferred from another component (in which case a source component and/or transfer time can be included in the activity).; [0240] Processors suitable for the execution of a computer program. Please note that a second assigned resource that has its activity relating to task completion monitored corresponds to Applicant’s second computational device of the system.);
a characteristic of a compute task ([0046] A VM monitoring system 155 can monitor applicable architecture, task assignments, task-performance characteristics and resource states. For example, VM monitoring system 155 can monitor: task completion time, a percentage of assigned tasks that were completed, a resource power state, a CPU usage, a memory usage and/or network usage. Please note that monitoring task-performance characteristics corresponds to Applicant’s characteristic of a compute task. ),
a first configuration of the first computational device ([0046] A VM monitoring system 155 can monitor applicable architecture, task assignments, task-performance characteristics and resource states. For example, VM monitoring system 155 can monitor: task completion time, a percentage of assigned tasks that were completed, a resource power state, a CPU usage, a memory usage and/or network usage. Please note that monitoring resource states, for the first resource, corresponds to Applicant’s first configuration of the first computational device. ),
and a second configuration of the second computational device ([0046] A VM monitoring system 155 can monitor applicable architecture, task assignments, task-performance characteristics and resource states. For example, VM monitoring system 155 can monitor: task completion time, a percentage of assigned tasks that were completed, a resource power state, a CPU usage, a memory usage and/or network usage. Please note that monitoring resource states, for the second resource, corresponds to Applicant’s second configuration of the second computational device. )
Bingham does not explicitly disclose and assignment logic configured to assign, based on a characteristic of a compute task, a first configuration of the first computational device, and a second configuration of the second computational device, the compute task to the first computational device.
However, Guim Bernat discloses and assignment logic configured to assign, based on a characteristic of a compute task, a first configuration of the first computational device, and a second configuration of the second computational device, the compute task to the first computational device ([0953] The resource management circuitry is configured to track what platforms—such as other nodes, racks, blades, processors, or hardware accelerators […] the resource management circuitry is configured to detect and maintain performance metrics or other meta-data (e.g., for use by the scheduler). Please note that detecting and maintaining meta-data for use by the scheduler via the resource management circuitry corresponds to Applicant’s assignment logic configured to assign the compute task to the first computational device, as the scheduler, known in the art to assign tasks, does so based on meta-data, corresponding to doing so based on the characteristic of a compute task, a first configuration of the first computational device, and a second configuration of the second computational device, as previously disclosed by Bingham.).
Bingham and Guim Bernat are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer resource management and task processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bingham to incorporate the teachings of Guim Bernat to modify the system with first and second computational devices with respective first and second configurations and a characteristic of a compute task to assign the compute task to the first computational device based on the characteristic of the task and the first and second configurations, allowing for efficient resource usage and task distribution, as described in Guim Bernat.
Regarding Claim 19, Bingham-Guim Bernat as described in Claim 18, Bingham further discloses wherein the assignment logic is further configured to assign the compute task based on an operating status of the first computational device ([0082] A task monitor 240 can then monitor performance of the tasks and operation states (e.g., processing usage, CPU usage, etc.) of assigned resources. Please note that monitoring the performance of tasks and the operation state of assigned resources associated with tasks corresponds to Applicant’s assigning being based on an operating status of the first computational device. ).
Regarding Claim 20, Bingham-Guim Bernat as described in Claim 18, Bingham further discloses wherein the assignment logic is further configured to assign the compute task based on a data transfer associated with the first computational device ([0084] an activity monitor 315, which monitors activity of hypervisor components. The activity can include, for example, when tasks were assigned, whether tasks were completed, when tasks were completed, what tasks were assigned (e.g., required processing), users that requested the task performance, whether the task was a new task or transferred from another component (in which case a source component and/or transfer time can be included in the activity). Please note that monitoring activities associated with the completion of tasks including whether the task was transferred corresponds to Applicant’s assigning being based on a data transfer associated with the compute task. ).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Werneke et al. (US 20190286835 A1) discloses processing data for data transfers, task scheduling, characteristics for resources, and parts of a process being performed (see [0022, 0025, 0031, 0108, 0178]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARAZ T AKBARI whose telephone number is (571)272-4166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:30am-7:30pm ET.
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, April Blair can be reached at (571)270-1014. 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.
/FARAZ T AKBARI/Examiner, Art Unit 2196
/APRIL Y BLAIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2196
Prosecution Insights