DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to application filed on 7/23/2024.
Claims 1 – 8 are pending.
Priority is claimed to Japanese application JP2023-127252 (filed on 8/3/2023).
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 § 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 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea of mental process without significantly more.
Claim 1:
Under Prong 1, the claimed limitations “calculate a cloud appropriateness value using a cost when a cloud is used for a scheduling-target job and an index indicative of a quantity of all jobs that are yet to be allocated to a server and waiting to be scheduled;” and “and determine, in accordance with the cloud appropriateness value, whether or not the scheduling-target job is to be offloaded to the cloud.” are functions that can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, thus it is reasonable to identify these limitation as reciting a mental process.
Under prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements “An information processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:” merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, thus is not a practical application under Prong 2, or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 2:
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “in a case in which the index is the number of all of the jobs, calculates a cloud appropriateness value by dividing the number of all of the jobs by the cost, and determines whether or not the scheduling-target job is to be offloaded to the cloud based on the cloud appropriateness value and a preset first threshold” merely recites how the “cloud appropriateness value” calculated in claim 1, thus is also analyzed under prong 1 as a mental process. The additional element “the one or more processors” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, similar to claim 1, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Claim 3:
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “in a case in which the index is a sum of resource amounts required by all of the jobs, calculates a cloud appropriateness value by dividing the sum of the resource amounts required by all of the jobs by the cost, and determines whether or not the scheduling-target job is to be offloaded to the cloud based on the cloud appropriateness value and a preset second threshold” calculated in claim 1, thus is also analyzed under prong 1 as a mental process. The additional element “the one or more processors” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, similar to claim 1, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Claim 4:
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “in a case in which the index is the number of all of the jobs, calculates a cloud appropriateness value by dividing the number of all of the jobs by a resource amount required by the scheduling-target job, and determines whether or not the scheduling-target job is to be offloaded to the cloud based on the cloud appropriateness value and a preset third threshold” calculated in claim 1, thus is also analyzed under prong 1 as a mental process. The additional element “the one or more processors” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, similar to claim 1, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Claim 5:
Regarding claim 5, the limitation “in a case in which the index is a sum of resource amounts required by all of the jobs, calculates a cloud appropriateness value by dividing the sum of the resource amounts required by all of the jobs by a resource amount required by the scheduling-target job, and determines whether or not the scheduling-target job is to be offloaded to the cloud based on the cloud appropriateness value and a preset fourth threshold.” calculated in claims 1 and 4, thus is also analyzed under prong 1 as a mental process. The additional element “the one or more processors” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, similar to claim 1, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Claim 6:
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “each of the resource amounts is a value obtained by multiplying a required number of servers and an amount of time necessary to process a requested job, each of the jobs including the required number of servers and the amount of time necessary to process the job.” calculated in claims 1 and 4, thus is also analyzed under prong 1 as a mental process. The additional element “the one or more processors” generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(h). Thus, similar to claim 1, the additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application under Prong 2, nor amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Claim 7:
Under Prong 1, the claimed limitations “calculate a cloud appropriateness value using a cost when a cloud is used for a scheduling-target job and an index indicative of a quantity of all jobs that are yet to be allocated to a server and waiting to be scheduled;” and “and determine, in accordance with the cloud appropriateness value, whether or not the scheduling-target job is to be offloaded to the cloud.” are functions that can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, thus it is reasonable to identify these limitation as reciting a mental process.
Under prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements “An information processing method in which an information processing apparatus executes processing” merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, thus is not a practical application under Prong 2, or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 8:
Under Prong 1, the claimed limitations “calculate a cloud appropriateness value using a cost when a cloud is used for a scheduling-target job and an index indicative of a quantity of all jobs that are yet to be allocated to a server and waiting to be scheduled;” and “and determine, in accordance with the cloud appropriateness value, whether or not the scheduling-target job is to be offloaded to the cloud.” are functions that can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, thus it is reasonable to identify these limitation as reciting a mental process.
Under prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements “A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium that includes a program recorded thereon, the program including instructions that causes to carry out” merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, thus is not a practical application under Prong 2, or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chen et al (US 20240160470, hereinafter Chen).
As per claim 1, Chen discloses: An information processing apparatus comprising: at least one memory storing instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to:
calculate a cloud appropriateness value using a cost when a cloud is used for a scheduling-target job and an index indicative of a quantity of all jobs that are yet to be allocated to a server and waiting to be scheduled; (Chen [0027]: “The target edge host E1 may have one or more task queues to be processed, and each task queue has a corresponding current load, wherein the current load indicates the number of tasks to be processed of the task queue. In step S201, the decision module 11 determines whether the current load of each task queue of the target edge host E1 obtained from the monitoring module 12 is not smaller than the load alert level, wherein the load alert level indicates a maximum load of the task queue”; [0028]: “If the decision module 11 determines that there is a task queue among said one or more task queues has the current load not smaller than the load alert level, the decision module 11 uses the task queue as the first queue, which is in a situation of short-term overload… In step S203, the decision module 11 calculates the task migration number according to the history pushing rate, the history consumption rate and the full consumption rate of the first queue, wherein the task migration number indicates the number of tasks in the first queue that needed to be transferred”; [0045]: “In step S307, the decision module 11 calculates the cost of deploying the microservice(s) corresponding to the first queue at the cloud host(s) C1, wherein the number of the cloud host(s) C1 equals to the difference between the number of the available edge host(s) and the task migration number.”. Examiner notes that the claimed “cloud appropriateness value” is mapped to the difference between the number of available edge host(s) and the task migration number.)
and determine, in accordance with the cloud appropriateness value, whether or not the scheduling-target job is to be offloaded to the cloud. (Chen [0046]: “if the available edge host number is smaller than the task migration number, the decision module 11 may first calculate the cost of deploying the microservice(s) corresponding to part of the first queue at the cloud host(s) C1. If the cost is not greater than the budget, the microservice(s) that are not taken by the available edge host may be deployed at the cloud host(s) C1; if the cost is greater than the budget, the microservice(s) that are not taken by the available edge host may not be deployed at the cloud host.”)
As per claim 7, it is the method variant of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 8, it is the non-transitory computer-readable recording medium variant of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
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.
Claim(s) 2 – 4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, in view of Ghosh et al (US 20160055038, hereinafter Ghosh).
As per claim 2, Chen did not explicitly disclose:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors further: in a case in which the index is the number of all of the jobs, calculates a cloud appropriateness value by dividing the number of all of the jobs by the cost, and determines whether or not the scheduling-target job is to be offloaded to the cloud based on the cloud appropriateness value and a preset first threshold.
However, Ghosh teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors further: in a case in which the index is the number of all of the jobs, calculates a cloud appropriateness value by dividing the number of all of the jobs by the cost, and determines whether or not the scheduling-target job is to be offloaded to the cloud based on the cloud appropriateness value and a preset first threshold. (Ghosh [0074])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Ghosh into that of Chen in order to in a case in which the index is the number of all of the jobs, calculates a cloud appropriateness value by dividing the number of all of the jobs by the cost, and determines whether or not the scheduling-target job is to be offloaded to the cloud based on the cloud appropriateness value and a preset first threshold. Chen [0045] – [0046] teaches using cloud migration number and cost as basis to determine whether or not to deploy a task queue to cloud resource. One of ordinary skill in the art can easily see that other formula can be used to calculate such an appropriateness number, such as shown by Ghosh, it is therefore merely a specific design choice made by the applicant to choose a specific formula over other similar choices, as such design choice does not deviate from the general teachings made by the prior art, and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 3, Chen did not explicitly disclose:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors further: in a case in which the index is a sum of resource amounts required by all of the jobs, calculates a cloud appropriateness value by dividing the sum of the resource amounts required by all of the jobs by the cost, and determines whether or not the scheduling-target job is to be offloaded to the cloud based on the cloud appropriateness value and a preset second threshold.
However, Ghosh teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors further: in a case in which the index is a sum of resource amounts required by all of the jobs, calculates a cloud appropriateness value by dividing the sum of the resource amounts required by all of the jobs by the cost, and determines whether or not the scheduling-target job is to be offloaded to the cloud based on the cloud appropriateness value and a preset second threshold. (Ghosh [0074])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Ghosh into that of Chen in order to in a case in which the index is a sum of resource amounts required by all of the jobs, calculates a cloud appropriateness value by dividing the sum of the resource amounts required by all of the jobs by the cost, and determines whether or not the scheduling-target job is to be offloaded to the cloud based on the cloud appropriateness value and a preset second threshold. Chen [0045] – [0046] teaches using cloud migration number and cost as basis to determine whether or not to deploy a task queue to cloud resource. One of ordinary skill in the art can easily see that other formula can be used to calculate such an appropriateness number, such as shown by Ghosh, it is therefore merely a specific design choice made by the applicant to choose a specific formula over other similar choices, as such design choice does not deviate from the general teachings made by the prior art, and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 4, Chen did not explicitly disclose:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors further: in a case in which the index is the number of all of the jobs, calculates a cloud appropriateness value by dividing the number of all of the jobs by a resource amount required by the scheduling-target job, and determines whether or not the scheduling-target job is to be offloaded to the cloud based on the cloud appropriateness value and a preset third threshold.
However, Ghosh teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors further: in a case in which the index is the number of all of the jobs, calculates a cloud appropriateness value by dividing the number of all of the jobs by a resource amount required by the scheduling-target job, and determines whether or not the scheduling-target job is to be offloaded to the cloud based on the cloud appropriateness value and a preset third threshold. (Ghosh [0075])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Ghosh into that of Chen in order to in a case in which the index is the number of all of the jobs, calculates a cloud appropriateness value by dividing the number of all of the jobs by a resource amount required by the scheduling-target job, and determines whether or not the scheduling-target job is to be offloaded to the cloud based on the cloud appropriateness value and a preset third threshold. Chen [0045] – [0046] teaches using cloud migration number and cost as basis to determine whether or not to deploy a task queue to cloud resource. One of ordinary skill in the art can easily see that other formula can be used to calculate such an appropriateness number, such as shown by Ghosh, it is therefore merely a specific design choice made by the applicant to choose a specific formula over other similar choices, as such design choice does not deviate from the general teachings made by the prior art, and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 6, the combination of Chen and Ghosh further teach:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein each of the resource amounts is a value obtained by multiplying a required number of servers and an amount of time necessary to process a requested job, each of the jobs including the required number of servers and the amount of time necessary to process the job. (Chen [0049] – [0050])
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, in view of North et al (US 20230230194, hereinafter North).
As per claim 5, Chen did not explicitly disclose:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors further: in a case in which the index is a sum of resource amounts required by all of the jobs, calculates a cloud appropriateness value by dividing the sum of the resource amounts required by all of the jobs by a resource amount required by the scheduling-target job, and determines whether or not the scheduling-target job is to be offloaded to the cloud based on the cloud appropriateness value and a preset fourth threshold.
However, North teaches:
The information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors further: in a case in which the index is a sum of resource amounts required by all of the jobs, calculates a cloud appropriateness value by dividing the sum of the resource amounts required by all of the jobs by a resource amount required by the scheduling-target job, and determines whether or not the scheduling-target job is to be offloaded to the cloud based on the cloud appropriateness value and a preset fourth threshold. (North [0065])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of North into that of Chen in order to in a case in which the index is a sum of resource amounts required by all of the jobs, calculates a cloud appropriateness value by dividing the sum of the resource amounts required by all of the jobs by a resource amount required by the scheduling-target job, and determines whether or not the scheduling-target job is to be offloaded to the cloud based on the cloud appropriateness value and a preset fourth threshold. Chen [0045] – [0046] teaches using cloud migration number and cost as basis to determine whether or not to deploy a task queue to cloud resource. One of ordinary skill in the art can easily see that other formula can be used to calculate such an appropriateness number, such as shown by North, it is therefore merely a specific design choice made by the applicant to choose a specific formula over other similar choices, as such design choice does not deviate from the general teachings made by the prior art, and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang et al (US 20220210686) teaches “calculating the energy efficiency cost EEC of local computing; calculating the energy efficiency cost EEC of mobile edge computing; determining an optimal offloading decision based on the energy efficiency cost of local computing and the energy efficiency cost of mobile edge computing; determining an optimal CPU frequency and an optimal transmit power of the vehicle based on the optimal offloading decision; and determining the optimal offloading time of the vehicle based on the optimal CPU frequency and the optimal transmit power of the vehicle. The method of the present disclosure can improve the computing offloading efficiency.”;
Bernat et al (USPAT 1157311) teaches “an edge computing device obtains first telemetry information that indicates availability of local acceleration circuitry to execute a function, and obtains second telemetry that indicates availability of a remote acceleration function to execute the function. An estimated time (and cost or other identifiable or estimateable considerations) to execute the function at the respective location is identified. The use of the local acceleration circuitry or the remote acceleration resource is selected based on the estimated time and other appropriate factors in relation to a service level agreement.”
Dong (US 20210136142) teaches “receiving, by the NE, an offloading request message from a client, the offloading request message comprising task-related data describing a task associated with an application executable at the client, determining, by the NE, whether to offload the task to an edge cloud server of a plurality of edge cloud servers distributed within the MEC network based on the task-related data and server data associated with each of the plurality of edge cloud servers, transmitting, by the NE, a response message to the client based on whether the task is offloaded to the edge cloud server.”;
Arikuma et al (US 20190213052) teaches “determines, based on a first cost, being calculated based on performance information pertaining to the analysis node, of executing a task in the analysis node, and a second cost being calculated based on performance information pertaining to another of the analysis nodes different from the analysis node integrated by the performance information integration unit, and representing a cost of load distribution of distributing the task to the another analysis node and then executing the task, whether to execute the task in the analysis node, or distribute the task to the another analysis node and then execute the task.”;
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES M SWIFT whose telephone number is (571)270-7756. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 7PM.
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 5712701014. 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.
/CHARLES M SWIFT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2196
Prosecution Insights