DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in response to the application 18/803,132 filed on August 13, 2024 in which claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 1, 11, and 20 are in independent form.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “application interface 721” as described in the specification in Paragraph 0069. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph [0017] recites “maximize the efficient” which it appears “maximize the efficiency” was intended.
Paragraphs [0021] and [0023] recites “a request to placing the information” which it appears “a request to place the information” was intended.
Paragraph [0023] recites “subsequences may be exist” which it appears “subsequences may exist” was intended.
Paragraph [0027] recites “the point 105 indicates a consumption limit 12 and a corresponding actual consumption 1115” which it appears “the point 105 indicates a consumption limit 125 and a corresponding actual consumption 115” was intended.
Paragraph [0029] recites “after sorted by” which it appears “after being sorted by” was intended.
Paragraphs [0029] and [0034] recites “consumption limit 123 of the point 101” which is inconsistent with FIG. 1.
Paragraph [0030] recites “client device 108” which is inconsistent with FIG. 1 which it appears “computing device 108” was intended.
Paragraphs [0033] and [0037] recites “the effective and” which it appears “the effectiveness and” was intended.
Paragraph [0040] recites “expected consumption limit” twice which it appears “expected consumption” was intended.
Paragraph [0047] recites “Return back to block 308” which it appears “Returning back to block 308” was intended.
Paragraph [0058] recites “adjust the point 03” which it appears “adjust the point 503” was intended.
Paragraph [0059] recites “the point 04) next to the point 03” which it appears “the point 504) next to the point 503” was intended.
Paragraph [0061] recites “the points 501, 02, 503” which it appears “the points 501, 502, 503” was intended.
Paragraph [0061] recites “adjusted to the points 501, 522, 503, 524” which it appears “adjusted to the points 501, 522, 523, 524” was intended.
Paragraph [0063] recites “The target consumption may be allocated” which it appears “The target consumption limit may be allocated” was intended.
Paragraph [0063] recites “adjacent pairs of consumption limit” which it appears “adjacent pairs of consumption limits” was intended.
Paragraphs [0063] and [0064] recites “fitting function of consumption limit and actual consumption” which it appears “fitting function of consumption limits and actual consumptions” was intended.
Paragraph [0070] recites “the processing device 500” which it appears “the processing device 700” was intended.
Paragraph [0071] recites “one or more communication connections” which it appears “one or more communication connections 716” was intended.
Paragraph [0072] recites “system memory 904” which it appears “system memory 704” was intended.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 7-10, and 17-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 7 and 17, “determin[ing] a second updated consumption” should read “determin[ing] a second updated consumption limit”
In claims 8 and 18, “pairs of consumption limit and actual consumption” should read “pairs of consumption limits and actual consumptions”
In claims 9 and 19, “allocat[ing] the target consumption” should read “allocat[ing] the target consumption limit”
In claim 10, “adjacent pairs of consumption limit” should read “adjacent pairs of consumption limits”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 recite the limitation “the adjusted plurality of pairs”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. The claims earlier recite “adjust[ing] the consumption limits” but never refer to adjusting the plurality of pairs, so it is unclear if adjusting the consumption limits refer to an adjusted plurality of pairs or the adjusted plurality of pairs refer to a separate plurality. For examination purposes, the limitation “the adjusted plurality of pairs of consumption limits and actual consumptions” is interpreted as “the plurality of pairs of adjusted consumption limits and actual consumptions.”
Claims 2-10, which depend from claim 1, claims 12-19, which depend from claim 11, inherit the indefinite limitations of their respective independent claims and are similarly rejected.
Claim 10 also recites the limitation “and actual consumptions comprises; and”. The recitation of “comprises” in the context of the claim as a whole implies the step of “generating” is comprised of a combination of elements. However, the limitation fails to particularly point out the elements of which the “generating” step is comprised of and the recitation of “comprises” in the step as drafted renders the claim indefinite. For examination purposes, the limitation “and actual consumptions comprises; and” is interpreted as “and actual consumptions; and”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-10 are directed to a method (series of steps) and therefore is a process which is one of the statutory categories of inventions. Claims 11-19 are directed to an electronic device and therefore is a machine which is one of the statutory categories of inventions. Claim 20 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium and therefore is a manufacture which is one of the statutory categories of inventions.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claims 1, 11, and 20 recite the limitation “adjust[ing] the consumption limits in the plurality of pairs such that the adjusted consumption limits are monotonic in the case that the plurality of pairs are sorted by the actual consumptions.” This limitation as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a “processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. For example, “adjusting” in the context of this claim encompasses a person such as a bartender mentally, and with the aid of pen and paper writing down a record of pairs of alcohol consumptions and respective limits associated with bar patrons and judge which limits to modify based on alcohol consumptions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas (concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion.) (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
The claims also recite the limitation “allocat[ing] a target consumption limit for placement of target information based on the plurality of pairs of adjusted consumption limits and actual consumptions.” This limitation as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a “processor”, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being practically performed in a human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. The example provided above also applies here, as the limitation encompasses a bartender mentally, with the aid of pen and paper, assigning a limit of alcohol consumption to a particular bar patron based on the record of alcohol consumptions and respective limits. This limitation recites a mental process since “allocating” is a function that can be reasonably performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Step 2A, Prong 2:
The claims recite additional elements: “obtain[ing] a plurality of pairs of consumption limits and actual consumptions within a period of time, the consumption limits in the plurality of pairs being not monotonic in a case that the plurality of pairs are sorted by actual consumptions.” This limitation amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional elements “an electronic device” (claim 11), “a memory” (claim 11), “a processor” (claim 11), “a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions” (claim 20), these limitations amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The limitations “an electronic device” (claim 11), “a memory” (claim 11), “a processor” (claim 11), “a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions” (claim 20) are merely generic computer or generic computer components to apply the judicial exception, which cannot provide an inventive concept.
The limitation “obtain[ing] a plurality of pairs of consumption limits and actual consumptions within a period of time, the consumption limits in the plurality of pairs being not monotonic in a case that the plurality of pairs are sorted by actual consumptions” is receiving data over a network, a computer function the courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity when claimed in a merely generic manner (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i)). Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent Claims:
Claim 2 recites “sorting the plurality of pairs of consumption limits and actual consumptions by the actual consumptions in increasing order;”, sorting pairs is mere data gathering which the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“determining an adjacent pair of consumption limits including a first consumption limit and a second consumption limit in which the first consumption limit being greater than the second consumption limit;”, determining an adjacent pair is an evaluation and judgment that can be practically performed in the human mind, or even with the aid of pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). This limitation also covers a mathematical concept (mathematical relationships, formulas, equations and calculations).
“determining an updated consumption limit based on the first consumption limit and the second consumption limit;”, determining an updated limit is an evaluation and judgment that can be practically performed in the human mind, or even with the aid of pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
“adjusting the first consumption limit and the second consumption limit based on the updated consumption limit.”, adjusting limits covers certain methods of organizing human activity (economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior, relationships or interactions between people) (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Even when viewed in combination, the limitations do not amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the limitations do not amount to significantly more.
Claim 3 recites “determining an average of the first consumption limit and the second consumption limit as the updated consumption limit.”, determining an average of limits is an evaluation and judgment that can be practically performed in the human mind, or even with the aid of pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). This limitation also covers a mathematical concept (mathematical relationships, formulas, equations and calculations). The limitation does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 4 recites “determining a plurality of freshness values corresponding to the plurality of pairs of consumption limits and actual consumptions;”, determining a plurality of values is an evaluation and judgment that can be practically performed in the human mind, or even with the aid of pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
“assigning a plurality of weights to the plurality of pairs of consumption limits and actual consumptions based on the plurality of freshness values;”, assigning weights can be practically performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). This limitation also covers a mathematical concept (mathematical relationships, formulas, equations and calculations).
“determining the updated consumption limit based on the weighted first consumption limit and the weighted second consumption limit”, determining an updated weight is an evaluation and judgment that can be practically performed in the human mind, or even with the aid of pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Even when viewed in combination, the limitations do not amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the limitations do not amount to significantly more.
Claim 5 recites “determining a weighted average of the weighted first consumption limit and the weighted second consumption limit as the updated consumption limit.”, determining a weighted average of limits covers both a mental process and mathematical concept, as determining is a function that can be practically performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). The limitation does not amount to significantly more.
Claim 6 recites “determining that a third consumption limit next to the second consumption limit is greater than the updated consumption limit;”, determining a limit is greater than another limit is an evaluation and judgment that can be practically performed in the human mind, or even with the aid of pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). This limitation also covers a mathematical concept (mathematical relationships, formulas, equations and calculations).
“updating the first consumption limit and the second consumption limit to the updated consumption limit”, updating limits amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Even when viewed in combination, the limitations do not amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the limitations do not amount to significantly more.
Claim 7 recites “determining that the third consumption limit next to the second consumption limit is less than the first updated consumption limit;”, determining a limit is less than another limit is an evaluation and judgment that can be practically performed in the human mind, or even with the aid of pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). This limitation also covers a mathematical concept (mathematical relationships, formulas, equations and calculations).
“determining a second updated consumption based on the first consumption limit, the second consumption limit, and the third consumption limit;”, determining an updated consumption is an evaluation and judgment that can be practically performed in the human mind, or even with the aid of pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
“adjusting the first consumption limit, the second consumption limit, and the third consumption limit based on the second updated consumption limit.”, adjusting limits covers certain methods of organizing human activity (economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, managing personal behavior, relationships or interactions between people) (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Even when viewed in combination, the limitations do not amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the limitations do not amount to significantly more.
Claim 8 recites “receiving a request to place the target information in an application before obtaining the plurality of pairs of consumption limits and actual consumptions within the period of time, the period of time being within a predetermined time range before the request is received, the request comprising an expected consumption for the placement of the target information;” receiving a request is mere data gathering which the courts have found to be insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“allocating the target consumption limit for the placement of the target information based on the expected consumption and the adjusted plurality of pairs of consumption limit and actual consumption.”, allocating limits can be practically performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Even when viewed in combination, the limitations do not amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the limitations do not amount to significantly more.
Claim 9 recites “generating a fitting function of consumption limit and actual consumption based on the adjusted plurality of pairs of consumption limits and actual consumptions;”, generating a fitting function covers a mathematical concept (mathematical relationships, formulas, equations and calculations) (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)), and amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“determining the target consumption limit based on the expected consumption and the fitting function;”, determining a limit is an evaluation and judgment that can be practically performed in the human mind, or even with the aid of pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
“allocating the target consumption for the placement of the target information.”, allocating consumption can be practically performed in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper through observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Even when viewed in combination, the limitations do not amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the limitations do not amount to significantly more.
Claim 10 recites “generating a piecewise linear function by performing interpolations on each adjacent pairs of consumption limit in the adjusted plurality of pairs of consumption limits and actual consumptions;”, generating a piecewise linear function covers a mathematical concept (mathematical relationships, formulas, equations and calculations) (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)), and amount to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
“determining the piecewise linear function as the fitting function of consumption limit and actual consumption”, determining a function is an evaluation and judgment that can be practically performed in the human mind, or even with the aid of pen and paper (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). This limitation also covers a mathematical concept (mathematical relationships, formulas, equations and calculations). Even when viewed in combination, the limitations do not amount to significantly more. Accordingly, the limitations do not amount to significantly more.
Regarding claim 12, it contains similar limitations as claim 2 and, therefore, is rejected using the same rationale.
Regarding claim 13, it contains similar limitations as claim 3 and, therefore, is rejected using the same rationale.
Regarding claim 14, it contains similar limitations as claim 4 and, therefore, is rejected using the same rationale.
Regarding claim 15, it contains similar limitations as claim 5 and, therefore, is rejected using the same rationale.
Regarding claim 16, it contains similar limitations as claim 6 and, therefore, is rejected using the same rationale.
Regarding claim 17, it contains similar limitations as claim 7 and, therefore, is rejected using the same rationale.
Regarding claim 18, it contains similar limitations as claim 8 and, therefore, is rejected using the same rationale.
Regarding claim 19, it contains similar limitations as claim 9 and, therefore, is rejected using the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 11, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubala et al. US 7,096,469 (hereinafter Kubala) in view of Parameshwaran et al. US 2019/0250946 (hereinafter Parameshwaran).
As per claim 1, Kubala teaches: a method comprising: obtaining a plurality of pairs of consumption limits and actual consumptions (Col. 4, lines 10-14. “a physical machine is divided into a plurality of logical partitions, each of which is allocated a defined portion of processor resources by a logical partition manager. Each logical partition can be given a processor resource limit”) within a period of time (Col. 8, lines 3-5. “FIG. 2A shows the resulting capping pattern 200 of the CPU usage of LP1 over time. As shown in the figure, the CPU usage comprises capped intervals 202”), the consumption limits in the plurality of pairs being not monotonic (Para. 22 “If 450 MIPS are available on the machine 102 (other partitions 108 are not using their full weight)” Partitions 108 not using their full weight corresponds to limits not being monotonic.);
adjusting the consumption limits in the plurality of pairs (Col. 4, lines 21-25. “the workload manager calculates a capping pattern and interacts with the logical partition manager to cap the actual consumption of processor resources by the partition in accordance with the calculated capping pattern” Calculating a capping pattern corresponds to claimed limit adjustment.) such that the adjusted consumption limits are monotonic (Col. 7, lines 35-42. “Soft cap 408 specifies a maximum capacity for the partition 108. The soft cap value 408 is specified as part of a logical partition 108. The units of the soft cap 408 are millions of unweighted CPU service units per hour (MSUs). (All references herein to CPU service units are to unweighted CPU service units.) A soft cap 408 can be specified for a partition 108 that has shared CPs and is not explicitly capped.” Soft cap being specified for a partition not explicitly capped corresponds to an adjusted monotonic limit.); and
allocating a target consumption limit for placement of target information (Col. 9, lines 36-40. “WLM 112 needs a way to cap a partition 108 at less than the capacity represented by the current partition weight. More particularly, WLM 112 needs something to be able to adjust the denominator in capping/weighting calculations”) based on the plurality of pairs of adjusted consumption limits and actual consumptions (Col. 8, lines 37-43. “WLM 112 polls the LP manager 106 to determine if a soft cap has been set or changed for the partition 108 (as indicated by a corresponding nonzero soft cap entry 408). When a soft cap is set for the partition 108 and its 4-hour average CPU usage goes above the soft cap, WLM 112 calculates a cap pattern and begins to cap the partition 108”).
Kubala teaches the limitations of obtaining… and adjusting… as detailed above but does not explicitly teach the consumption limits in the plurality of pairs being not monotonic in a case that the plurality of pairs are sorted by actual consumptions; and
the adjusted consumption limits are monotonic in the case that the plurality of pairs are sorted by the actual consumptions.
Parameshwaran teaches: obtaining pairs of consumption limits and actual consumptions within a period of time, the consumption limits in the plurality of pairs being not monotonic (Para. 4 “a method for determining a migration plan for migrating a plurality of software containers from a source host to a plurality of target hosts” Examiner notes that software containers correspond to the claimed pairs. Para. 38 “The term “resources,” as used herein, may comprise, at least, colocation goals (e.g., groupings) of the containers to be migrated, hardware resources such as number of CPU's, amount of memory, bandwidth of network, average and/or maximum hardware resource consumption of all containers during a specific time interval t, topology identification, network distance and/or latency of hosts and hypervisor, relations between hypervisor and hosts, available and/or free resources on the hosts and hypervisors, among other things.” Examiner notes that the maximum hardware resource consumption corresponds to a consumption limit and the referenced available and/or free resources may correspond to actual consumptions. Para. 87 “Embodiments include a method for optimized migration of containers from a source to at least one target system, wherein said source and said at least one target system are enhanced with “agents”, that may be understood to be a management or a monitoring component, comprising the steps of: generating of resource consumption data of said source system and said at least one target system” Examiner notes that generation of resource consumption data corresponds to claimed actual consumptions. in a case that the plurality of pairs are sorted by actual consumptions (Para. 141 “For example, the containers and hosts may be sorted according to their CPU consumption and free CPU capacity, respectively. Among equals, containers and hosts may be sorted according to their memory consumption and free memory capacity, respectively.”); and
adjusting the consumption limits in the plurality of pairs such that the adjusted consumption limits are monotonic (Para. 112 ‘In a step of measurement, 205, “MEASUREMENT,” each of the agent software components may identify colocation goals (e.g., grouping requirements) of all containers. Further, the agents may identify average and/or maximum resource consumption or requirements of all containers during time t.’), in the case that the plurality of pairs are sorted by the actual consumptions.
(Para. 141 “For example, the containers and hosts may be sorted according to their CPU consumption and free CPU capacity, respectively. Among equals, containers and hosts may be sorted according to their memory consumption and free memory capacity, respectively.”).
Kubala and Parameshwaran are reasonably pertinent to the problem disclosed by the claimed invention, and they are both in the field of resource management and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pairs of consumption limits and actual consumptions as taught by Kubala to include the sorting according to actual consumption as taught by Parameshwaran in order to organize the plurality of pairs.
The motivation would improve system efficiency and throughput by utilizing resources based on consumption and limiting adjustment on sorted consumptions would save time as taught by Parameshwaran (Para. 88).
As per claim 11, it contains similar limitations as claim 1 and, therefore, are rejected under the same rationale.
Furthermore, Parameshwaran teaches an electronic device, comprising: a memory and a processor (Para. 93 “The computer system 1, comprises a processor 2 which may comprise a digital signal processor (DSP), central processing unit (CPU), microcontroller, microprocessor, microcomputer, ASIC or FPGA core, and may include a cache 2A. The system 1 also comprises static read only memory 7 and dynamic main memory 6 and may also comprise a FLASH memory 5. The processor 2 is in communication with any of said memory devices”); wherein the memory is configured to store one or more computer instructions (Para. 165 “The computer program product may include a computer readable storage medium (or media) having computer readable program instructions thereon for causing a processor to carry out aspects of the present invention.”).
As per claim 20, it contains similar limitations as claim 1 and, therefore, are rejected under the same rationale.
Furthermore, Parameshwaran teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions (Para. 165 “The computer program product may include a computer readable storage medium (or media) having computer readable program instructions” Para. 166 “A computer readable storage medium, as used herein, is not to be construed as being transitory signals per se”).
Claim(s) 2-5 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubala in view of Parameshwaran in further view of Young US 10,574,584.
As per claim 2, Kubala in view of Parameshwaran disclose the claimed invention as detailed above for claim 1 but do not explicitly teach wherein adjusting the consumption limits in the plurality of pairs such that the adjusted consumption limits are monotonic in the case that the plurality of pairs are sorted by the actual consumptions comprises:
sorting the plurality of pairs of consumption limits and actual consumptions by the actual consumptions in increasing order;
determining an adjacent pair of consumption limits including a first consumption limit and a second consumption limit in which the first consumption limit being greater than the second consumption limit;
determining an updated consumption limit based on the first consumption limit and the second consumption limit; and
adjusting the first consumption limit and the second consumption limit based on the updated consumption limit.
Young teaches: wherein adjusting the consumption limits in the plurality of pairs such that the adjusted consumption limits are monotonic in the case that the plurality of pairs are sorted by the actual consumptions comprises:
sorting the plurality of pairs of consumption limits and actual consumptions by the actual consumptions in increasing order (Col. 12, lines 13-17. “In block 206, the resource control service 106 processes the resource utilization history retrieved from storage to determine what amount of computing resources were used by the load balancer 124” Col. 12, lines 30-34. “The resource control service 106 may analyze the resource utilization history to determine the maximum amount of computing resources used by the load balancer 124” Col. 12, lines 38-42. “The resource control service may also arrange the measurements of resource utilization in a storage array in order of increasing utilization to facilitate percentile selection.”);
determining an adjacent pair of consumption limits including a first consumption limit and a second consumption limit in which the first consumption limit being greater than the second consumption limit (Col. 13, lines 12-17. “If the amount of computing resources to be allocated to the load balancer 124 is greater than the amount of computing resources currently allocated to the load balancer 124, then, in block 212, the resource control service 106 selects additional computing resources to be allocated to the load balancer 124.” Selecting additional computing resources to be allocated corresponds to determined adjacent pair of consumption limits.);
determining an updated consumption limit based on the first consumption limit and the second consumption limit (Col. 15, lines 35-43. “Accordingly, if the resource control service 106 identifies an increase in the amount of computing resources allocated to processing of traffic distributed by the load balancer 124, then the resource control service 106 may increase the amount of computing resources to be allocated to the load balancer 124 to reduce the risk that load balancer 124 will unable to provide timely processing and distribution of the anticipated greater expected amount of traffic.” Increasing amount of computing resources to be allocated corresponds to determined updated consumption limit.); and
adjusting the first consumption limit and the second consumption limit based on the updated consumption limit (Col. 15, lines 27-32. “In block 410, the resource control service 106 can adjust the amount of computing resources to be allocated to the load balancer 124 based on the amount of computing resources allocated to processing of traffic 140 distributed by the load balancer 124.” Col. 15, lines 43-48. “Thus, the resource control service 106 may increase the amount of computing resources to be allocated to the load balancer 124 as a function of, or in correspondence with, the amount of computing resources allocated to processing of traffic 140 distributed by the load balancer 124.”).
Kubala, Parameshwaran, and Young are reasonably pertinent to the problem disclosed by the claimed invention, and they are all in the field of resource management and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kubala and Parameshwaran to include the sorting by actual consumptions in increasing order and determining updated consumption limit as taught by Young to the consumption limit adjustment taught by Kubala in order to create monotonic consumption limits.
The motivation would reduce cost and resource waste by reliably adjusting consumption limits from non-monotonic to monotonic and over-allocation of computing resources as taught by Young (Para. 9).
As per claim 3, Kubala in view of Parameshwaran in further view of Young disclose the claimed invention as detailed above for claim 2. However, Kubala in view of Parameshwaran does not explicitly teach wherein determining the updated consumption limit based on the first consumption limit and the second consumption limit comprises:
determining an average of the first consumption limit and the second consumption limit as the updated consumption limit.
Young further teaches: wherein determining the updated consumption limit based on the first consumption limit and the second consumption limit comprises:
determining an average of the first consumption limit and the second consumption limit as the updated consumption limit (Col. 7, lines 56-59. “In some embodiments of the resource monitor 104, LCU utilization may be computed as the average of the various resource utilization values included in resource utilization measurements” Col. 8, lines 37-42. “In some embodiments, the resource control service 106 may select a percentage, of a statistical value, such as maximum resource utilization or average resource utilization, to be the amount of computing resources to allocate to the load balancer 124.” Col. 8, lines 65-67. “For example, an amount of computing resources equal to the average of the computing resources utilized by the load balancer 124 over a selected interval increased by a factor related to volatility may be selected for allocation to the load balancer 124.”).
Kubala, Parameshwaran, and Young are reasonably pertinent to the problem disclosed by the claimed invention, and they are all in the field of resource management and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kubala and Parameshwaran to include the average of first and second consumption limits as taught by Young to the consumption limit adjustment taught by Kubala in order to produce an updated consumption limit based on an average.
The motivation would be the same for the combination used in claim 2 above as taught by Young (Para. 9).
As per claim 4, Kubala in view of Parameshwaran in further view of Young disclose the claimed invention as detailed above for claim 2.
Kubala further teaches: wherein determining the updated consumption limit based on the first consumption limit and the second consumption limit comprises:
determining a plurality of freshness values corresponding to the plurality of pairs of consumption limits and actual consumptions (Col. 10, lines 65-67. “The pattern can be represented by two values: the amount of time capping should be turned on and the amount of time capping should be turned off.” The recited capping values correspond to the plurality of freshness values.);
assigning a plurality of weights to the plurality of pairs of consumption limits and actual consumptions based on the plurality of freshness values (Col. 6, lines 62-67. “In addition to allocating a share of machine resources to a cluster as a whole, LP manager 106 is capable, in this mode of operation, of allocating resources among the logical partitions 108 making up a cluster in accordance with logical partition weights that are assigned to the respective partitions.” Col. 7, lines 1-5. “As an example of this weighting, consider an LP cluster that consists of four logical partitions (LP1 LP4) and has available to it a total CPU capacity of 400 MIPS (millions of instructions per second). Assume that LP1 L4 are assigned respective weights of 20, 30, 40 and 10, for a total cluster weight of 100.”); and
determining the updated consumption limit based on the weighted limit (Col. 12, lines 63-67. “If the partition is being capped, the cap pattern is also recalculated for the following events: 1. WLM 112 changes the partition's weight 404 (FIG. 4). 2. The soft cap 408 changes (polled once a minute). 3. The capacity represented by the partition's current weight 404 and phantom weight 406 changes (calculated once a minute).”).
However, Kubala does not explicitly teach: determining the updated consumption limit based on the first consumption limit and the second consumption limit.
Young teaches: determining the updated consumption limit based on the first consumption limit and the second consumption limit (Col. 15, lines 35-43. “Accordingly, if the resource control service 106 identifies an increase in the amount of computing resources allocated to processing of traffic distributed by the load balancer 124, then the resource control service 106 may increase the amount of computing resources to be allocated to the load balancer 124 to reduce the risk that load balancer 124 will unable to provide timely processing and distribution of the anticipated greater expected amount of traffic.”)).
Kubala, Parameshwaran, and Young are reasonably pertinent to the problem disclosed by the claimed invention, and they are all in the field of resource management and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kubala and Parameshwaran to include the determining updated consumption limit as taught by Young to the weighted consumption limit taught by Kubala in order to produce an updated consumption limit based on weighted limits.
The motivation would be the same for the combination used in claim 2 above as taught by Young (Para. 9).
As per claim 5, Kubala in view of Parameshwaran in further view of Young disclose the claimed invention as detailed above for claim 4.
Kubala teaches: wherein determining the updated consumption limit based on the weighted first consumption limit and the weighted second consumption limit comprises:
determining a weighted average (Kubala Col. 11, lines 66-67. Col. 12, lines 1-4. “Referring now to FIG. 5B, after determining the values 604 610 for the latest 5-minute interval and updating array 600, WLM 112 calculates the partition's uncapped average CPU service rate (step 510), capped average CPU service rate (step 512), and overall average CPU service rate (step 514).”) of the weighted first consumption limit and the weighted second consumption limit (Col. 7, lines 64-66. “LP1 must be capped 25% of the time at its weight equivalent (250 MIPS) to produce an average usage for the partition that is within the license limitation of 400 MIPS.” Col. 12, lines 63-67. “If the partition is being capped, the cap pattern is also recalculated for the following events: 1. WLM 112 changes the partition's weight 404 (FIG. 4). 2. The soft cap 408 changes (polled once a minute). 3. The capacity represented by the partition's current weight 404 and phantom weight 406 changes (calculated once a minute).”).
However, Kubala does not explicitly teach: determining an average of the first consumption limit and the second consumption limit as the updated consumption limit.
Young teaches: determining an average of the first consumption limit and the second consumption limit as the updated consumption limit (Col. 7, lines 56-59. “In some embodiments of the resource monitor 104, LCU utilization may be computed as the average of the various resource utilization values included in resource utilization measurements” Col. 8, lines 37-42. “In some embodiments, the resource control service 106 may select a percentage, of a statistical value, such as maximum resource utilization or average resource utilization, to be the amount of computing resources to allocate to the load balancer 124.” Col. 8, lines 65-67. “For example, an amount of computing resources equal to the average of the computing resources utilized by the load balancer 124 over a selected interval increased by a factor related to volatility may be selected for allocation to the load balancer 124.”).
Kubala, Parameshwaran, and Young are reasonably pertinent to the problem disclosed by the claimed invention, and they are all in the field of resource management and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kubala and Parameshwaran to include the determining an average as the updated consumption limit as taught by Young to the weighted average of weighted consumption limits taught by Kubala in order to produce an updated consumption limit based on weighted average of weighted limits.
The motivation would be the same for the combination used in claim 2 above as taught by Young (Para. 9).
As per claim 12, it contains similar limitations as claim 2 and, therefore, is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 13, it contains similar limitations as claim 3 and, therefore, is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 14, it contains similar limitations as claim 4 and, therefore, is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it contains similar limitations as claim 5 and, therefore, is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubala in view of Parameshwaran in further view of Young in further view of SHI et al. US 2023/0273830 (hereinafter SHI).
As per claim 6, Kubala in view of Parameshwaran in further view of Young disclose the claimed invention as detailed above for claim 2 but do not explicitly teach: wherein adjusting the first consumption limit and the second consumption limit based on the updated consumption limit comprises:
determining that a third consumption limit next to the second consumption limit is greater than the updated consumption limit; and
updating the first consumption limit and the second consumption limit to the updated consumption limit.
SHI teaches: wherein adjusting the first consumption limit and the second consumption limit based on the updated consumption limit comprises:
determining that a third consumption limit next to the second consumption limit is greater than the updated consumption limit (Para. 93 “If the total quantity of resources in the dynamic pool is less than the third target quantity, resources in the dynamic pool are emptied”); and
updating the first consumption limit (Para. 70 “That is, the resources in the third state are preferentially released, if the first target quantity is not reached after the release of the resources in the third state is completed, resources in the second state are selected to release, if the first target quantity is not reached after the release of the resources in the second state is completed, resources in the first state are selected to release until the total quantity of released resources reaches the first target quantity”) and the second consumption limit to the updated consumption limit (Para. 97 “If the quantity of migrated resources after the dynamic pool is emptied has not reached the second target quantity, capacity expansion is continued to be performed on the basic pool using underlying resources to reach the second target quantity.”).
Kubala, Parameshwaran, Young, and SHI are reasonably pertinent to the problem disclosed by the claimed invention, and they are all in the field of resource management and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kubala and Parameshwaran and Young to include the third consumption limit comparison as taught by SHI to the sorted limit adjustment taught by Young in order to accurately adjust a plurality of consumption limits.
The motivation would ensure sufficient resources are available to satisfy processing requirements at minimum resource utilization threshold by verifying the updated consumption limit is not greater than a third consumption limit as taught by SHI (Para. 60).
As per claim 7, Kubala in view of Parameshwaran in further view of Young in further view of SHI disclose the claimed invention as detailed above for claim 6.
SHI further teaches: wherein the updated consumption limit is a first updated consumption limit (Para. 70 “That is, the resources in the third state are preferentially released, if the first target quantity is not reached after the release of the resources in the third state is completed, resources in the second state are selected to release, if the first target quantity is not reached after the release of the resources in the second state is completed, resources in the first state are selected to release until the total quantity of released resources reaches the first target quantity”), and adjusting the first consumption limit and the second consumption limit based on the updated consumption limit comprises:
determining that the third consumption limit next to the second consumption limit is less than the first updated consumption limit (Para. 92 “If the total quantity of resources in the dynamic pool is greater than the third target quantity, the third target quantity of resources is released from the dynamic pool.”);
determining a second updated consumption based on the first consumption limit, the second consumption limit, and the third consumption limit (Para. 129 “A ratio of the resource quantity prediction average value to the minimum resource utilization rate threshold is computed, and the total function computing resource quantity of the current time is subtracted from the ratio to obtain a second target quantity of resources required for capacity expansion.”); and
adjusting the first consumption limit (Para. 62 “A ratio of the maximum resource quantity prediction value to the maximum resource utilization rate threshold is computed, and the total function computing resource quantity of the current time is subtracted from the ratio to obtain a first target quantity of resources to be released for capacity reduction.”), the second consumption limit, (Para. 85 “The ratio of the resource quantity prediction average value to the minimum resource utilization rate threshold is computed, and the total function computing resource quantity of the current time is subtracted from the ratio to obtain a second target quantity of resources required for capacity expansion.”) and the third consumption limit based on the second updated consumption limit (Para. 91 “A ratio of the resource quantity prediction average value to the maximum resource utilization rate threshold is computed, and the total function computing resource quantity of the current time is subtracted from the ratio to obtain a third target quantity of resources to be released for capacity reduction.”).
Kubala, Parameshwaran, Young, and SHI are reasonably pertinent to the problem disclosed by the claimed invention, and they are all in the field of resource management and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kubala and Parameshwaran and Young to include the third consumption limit comparison and adjustment as taught by SHI to the sorted limit adjustment taught by Young in order to accurately adjust a plurality of consumption limits.
The motivation would ensure sufficient resources are available to satisfy the processing requirements, thereby improving service stability by computing the quantity required for capacity expansion as taught by SHI (Para. 60).
As per claim 16, it contains similar limitations as claim 6 and, therefore, is rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 17, it contains similar limitations as claim 7 and, therefore, is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubala in view of Parameshwaran in further view of Challagolla et al. US 2018/0285008 (hereinafter Challagolla).
As per claim 8, Kubala in view of Parameshwaran disclose the claimed invention as detailed above for claim 1.
Kubala teaches: wherein allocating the target consumption limit for the placement of target information based on the adjusted plurality of pairs of consumption limits and actual consumptions comprises:
allocating the target consumption limit for the placement of the target information (Col. 9, lines 36-40. “WLM 112 needs a way to cap a partition 108 at less than the capacity represented by the current partition weight. More particularly, WLM 112 needs something to be able to adjust the denominator in capping/weighting calculations”) based on the expected consumption (Col. 4, lines 25-29. “To provide additional capping flexibility, partitions are assigned phantom weights that the logical partition manager adds to the total partition weight to determine whether the partition has exceeded its allowed share of processor resources for capping purposes”) and the adjusted plurality of pairs of consumption limits and actual consumptions (Col. 8, lines 37-43. “WLM 112 polls the LP manager 106 to determine if a soft cap has been set or changed for the partition 108 (as indicated by a corresponding nonzero soft cap entry 408). When a soft cap is set for the partition 108 and its 4-hour average CPU usage goes above the soft cap, WLM 112 calculates a cap pattern and begins to cap the partition 108”).
However, Kubala and Parameshwaran do not explicitly teach: receiving a request to place the target information in an application before obtaining the plurality of pairs of consumption limits and actual consumptions within the period of time, the period of time being within a predetermined time range before the request is received, the request comprising an expected consumption for the placement of the target information.
Challagolla teaches: receiving a request to place the target information in an application (Para. 46 “At step 914, a resource allocation adjustment request is transmitted to one or more of the server systems 102 based on a predicted trend of the resource allocation of the first server 102A and the second server 102B.” Para. 64 “In some embodiments, an indication may include a request, a solicitation, a broadcast, and/or any other form of information gathering and/or dissemination.”) before obtaining the plurality of pairs of consumption limits and actual consumptions within the period of time (Para. 50 “The resource allocation manager 130 can apply the workload manager rules 132 to remove one or more files older than a specified date at step 1020 based on determining that more disk resources have been used than were requested in a disk allocation request at step 1016. At step 1024, an alert message can be triggered based on determining that a disk resource usage exceeds the disk allocation request at step 1022 after removing the one or more files older than a specified date at step 1020. The alert may indicate that manual steps are needed to archive and/or otherwise remove files.”), the period of time being within a predetermined time range before the request is received (Para. 38 “The utilization heat map 600 may use color coding or other visual indications to identify how close resource utilization 606 is to one or more resource limits at each time interval over a selected date/time range.”), the request comprising an expected consumption for the placement of the target information (Para. 46 “Resource allocation adjustment requests can target specific workload managers 108A-108E to request increases or decreases of processor resources and memory resources (including disk resources).”).
Kubala, Parameshwaran, and Challagolla are reasonably pertinent to the problem disclosed by the claimed invention, and they are all in the field of resource management and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kubala and Parameshwaran to include the allocation adjustment request as taught by Challagolla to the target limit allocation taught by Kubala in order to allocate a target limit for placing information.
The motivation would ensure that resources are available for information placement when resource allocation adjustment is needed by making the request step prior to allocating the target limit as taught by Challagolla (Para. 17).
As per claim 18, it contains similar limitations as claim 8 and, therefore, is rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 9, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kubala in view of Parameshwaran in further view of Challagolla in further view of Liptsey-Rahe US 2017/0148114.
As per claim 9, Kubala in view of Parameshwaran in further view of Challagolla disclose the claimed invention as detailed above for claim 8.
Kubala teaches: wherein allocating the target consumption limit for the placement of the target information based on the expected consumption and the adjusted plurality of pairs of consumption limits and actual consumptions comprises:
allocating the target consumption for the placement of the target information (Col. 8, lines 37-43. “WLM 112 polls the LP manager 106 to determine if a soft cap has been set or changed for the partition 108 (as indicated by a corresponding nonzero soft cap entry 408). When a soft cap is set for the partition 108 and its 4-hour average CPU usage goes above the soft cap, WLM 112 calculates a cap pattern and begins to cap the partition 108” Col. 9, lines 36-40. “WLM 112 needs a way to cap a partition 108 at less than the capacity represented by the current partition weight. More particularly, WLM 112 needs something to be able to adjust the denominator in capping/weighting calculations”).
However, Kubala, Parameshwaran, and Challagolla do not explicitly teach: generating a fitting function of the consumption limit and actual consumption based on the adjusted plurality of pairs of consumption limits and actual consumptions;
determining the target consumption limit based on the expected consumption and the fitting function.
Liptsey-Rahe teaches: generating a fitting function of the consumption limit and actual consumption based on the adjusted plurality of pairs of consumption limits and actual consumptions (Para. 64 “In the example illustrated by FIG. 4A, a linear regression model is used to make predictions about future weather events. For example, fit line 406 provides a linear approximation of the average consumption for a given maximum temperature. In some aspects, fit line 406 can be used to infer a likelihood that a consumption for a given temperature is likely (or unlikely) to exceed a peak consumption threshold (e.g., first threshold 402 or second threshold 406)”);
determining the target consumption limit based on the expected consumption and the fitting function (Para. 54 “By way of example, the peak consumption threshold may be defined as a percentile of the consumption averages calculated in step 304. Alternatively, the peak consumption threshold may be defined as percentile of the resource consumption data, such as a multiple of standard deviations above the mean or median, etc. In a further example, the peak consumption threshold may be calculated or set at the 80.sup.th percentile, or 90.sup.th percentile, indicating that 80% or 90% of consumption figures in the consumption data fall below the consumption threshold, respectively. In some alternative embodiments, the peak consumption threshold may be manually set or identified, for example, by a user or administrator of the calculation system, e.g., calculation system 116, described above.”).
Kubala, Parameshwaran, Challagolla, and Liptsey-Rahe are reasonably pertinent to the problem disclosed by the claimed invention, and they are all in the field of resource management and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kubala and Parameshwaran and Challagolla to include the consumption fitting function as taught by Liptsey-Rahe to the target limit allocation taught by Kubala in order to produce a more accurate target consumption limit.
The motivation would maximize energy efficiency by using a target consumption limit based on a fitting function as taught by Liptsey-Rahe (Para. 21).
As per claim 10, Kubala in view of Parameshwaran in further view of Challagolla in further view of Liptsey-Rahe disclose the claimed invention as detailed above for claim 9.
Liptsey-Rahe further teaches: wherein generating the fitting function of consumption limit and actual consumption based on the adjusted plurality of pairs of consumption limits and actual consumptions comprises:
generating a piecewise linear function by performing interpolations on each adjacent pairs of consumption limit in the adjusted plurality of pairs of consumption limits and actual consumptions (Para. 35 “Calculation system 116 can use the received consumption data, calculated consumption values, correlated weather data, and determinations of peak consumption thresholds to build/generate one or more predictive models for predicting future peak events.” Para. 61 “For example, average consumption amounts may be calculated for points corresponding with minimum temperature amounts, relative humidity measurements, and/or other measures of weather conditions, such as barometric pressure or solar exposure.” Average consumption amounts calculated for points corresponds to performing interpolations on consumption limits.); and
determining the piecewise linear function as the fitting function of consumption limit and actual consumption (Para. 35 “For example, the predictive model may comprise a linear regression model, a polynomial regression model, and/or piecewise regression model incorporating two or more linear or polynomial fit approximations.”).
Kubala, Parameshwaran, Challagolla, and Liptsey-Rahe are reasonably pertinent to the problem disclosed by the claimed invention, and they are all in the field of resource management and, therefore, are combinable/modifiable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kubala and Parameshwaran and Challagolla to include the piecewise linear function by performing interpolations as taught by Liptsey-Rahe to the target limit allocation taught by Kubala in order to produce a more accurate target consumption limit.
The motivation would enable systems with sufficient capacity to focus on maximizing energy efficiency by using a target consumption limit based on a piecewise linear function as taught by Liptsey-Rahe (Para. 21, 35).
As per claim 19, it contains similar limitations as claim 9 and, therefore, is rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
US 2017/0373988 to Soffe et al. teaches a method of receiving data for a plurality of applications, determining resource utilization or resource demand based on received data, identifying a pattern associated with one or more of the resource utilization or demand, and determining one or more of a resource utilization threshold or resource demand threshold. (Para. 11)
US 2013/0226922 to Labenski et al. teaches “calculating a maximum and/or an average resource consumption property value over a period of time” (Para. 32) which is concerned with the claimed adjusting consumption limits in the plurality of pairs such that the adjustment produces monotonic limits.
Examiner has cited particular columns/paragraphs/sections and line numbers in the references applied and not relied upon to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
When responding to the Office action, applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the reference(s) cited or the objections made. A showing of how the amendments avoid such references or objections must also be present. See 37 C.F.R. 1.111(c).
When responding to this Office action, applicant is advised to provide the line and page numbers in the application and/or reference(s) cited to assist in locating the appropriate paragraphs.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY DUC HUYNH whose telephone number is (571)272-0732. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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, Pierre Vital can be reached at (571) 272-4215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/A.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2198
/PIERRE VITAL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Prosecution Insights