DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is with regard to the most recent papers filed 4/29/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 9-10, Applicant argues that claim 1 requires obtaining available resource informations indicating first quantities of instances that are of instance clusters and that can be provided for a target service from resource pools in a future time period. It appears that the argument relies on the newly amended subject matter of the time period being a future time period (Remarks: Page 10, Paragraph 4). However, Wadekar is cited as obtaining the information, where Wadekar specifically makes predictions concerning future time periods, and can provide alerts based on these (Wadekar: Abstract and Paragraphs [0012], [0014], and [0084]).
On pages 10-11, Applicant argues that claim 1 requires allocating, based on a steering plan, service traffic of the target service in the future time period to the resource pools. It appears that the argument is again based on the amendment of the time period being the future time period, where Kumar utilizes predictors (Kumar: Paragraph [0031]), which at least provides a suggestion in light of the future predictions of Wadekar to perform the balancing based on such predictions.
Accordingly, it is maintained that Wadekar in view of Kumar teaches the future time period in as much detail as required by the instant claim. It is further noted that “future” is broad enough to provide for an instantaneous future, as in a time period immediately following the current time, where any load balancing configuration would be for a future time as it does not retroactively apply to currently processed traffic, and would only apply to subsequently (future) received packets.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0168929 (Wadekar) in view of US 2015/0222640 (Kumar).
With regard to claim 1, Wadekar discloses a method, comprising:
obtaining available informations of resource pools associated with a target service of a target tenant, wherein the available resource informations indicate first quantities of instances that are of instance clusters and that can be provided for the target service from the resource pools in a time period (Wadekar: Abstract and Paragraphs [0064]-[0065]. In the multi-tenant system, resource pools are provided for servicing reservation requests for use by a tenant. The resources are provided in clusters that have specific amounts of available resources (e.g. 10 available CPU cores). The resource allocations are checked periodically (in a time period), and may be adjusted as needed.), wherein the time period is a future time period (Wadekar: Abstract and Paragraphs [0012], [0014], and [0084]. Wadekar makes predictions concerning future resources, manages reservations, and provides alerts based on the predicted resource usage.).
Wadekar fails to disclose, but Kumar teaches:
generating, based on the available resource informations, a steering plan of the target service in the time period; and allocating, based on the steering plan, service traffic of the target service in the time period to the resource pools (Kumar: Paragraph [0031] and Wadekar: Paragraph [0002]. Wadekar briefly introduces the concept of utilizing load balancers to balance the workload, where Kumar teaches the use of different types of load balancers, including those that obtain data/metrics to select the service to send traffic to. The use of metrics to determine how to load balance traffic would constitute a “steering plan,” as this would serve to determine how traffic is steered traffic to the appropriate service. Further, Kumar presents the concept of using predictors to perform selections, which in combination with the future predictions, would teach performing the load balancing functions based on such.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to generate and utilize a steering plan based on available resource informations (active load balancing) to allow for the utilization of multiple services in Wadekar with an optimal allocation of traffic to the services based on the amount of traffic that each service would be able to process.
With regard to claim 2, Wadekar in view of Kumar teaches wherein the available informations further indicate second quantities of idle instances in the resource pools in the time period, and wherein the idle instances are not occupied by another tenant in the resource pools in the time period (Wadekar: Paragraphs [0064] to [0065]. The available resources would be resources that are not allocated to a tenant and are idle. The terms “first” and “second” do not provide any requirement that such are distinct, where the instant claim does not appear to provide any explicit or implicit difference between the quantities. However, even if the first quantity were better defined to be allocated to the target tenant (“available” would cover allocated and unallocated), the first quantities could be addressed as being taught by the metrics of Kumar used for load balancing (Kumar: Paragraph [0031]).
With regard to claim 3, Wadekar in view of Kumar teaches wherein the steering plan indicates a maximum value of the service traffic that is of the target service and that can be carried in each of the resource pools in the time period or indicates a ratio of the service traffic that is of the target service and that is allocated to all the resource pools in the time period (Kumar: Paragraph [0031]. When performing active load balancing, ratios of service traffic allocated to each destination would at least be indicated, where the use of the term “indicates” does not require explicit specification of the information. Further, the use of the term “or” would only require two of the options to be indicated, where the use of active load balancing would at least indicate the ratio.).
With regard to claim 4, Wadekar fails to teach, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing teaches wherein the steering plan further indicates priority information of the service traffic that is of the target service and that is allocated to all the resource pools in the time period (More specifically, Official Notice is taken load balancing schemes that also factor in priority information for the traffic were well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to utilize some priority information with the load balancing scheme to allow more control over how the traffic is allocated, such as by allocating more urgent or higher paying traffic to faster or less burdened destinations, thus ensuring that such traffic is handled faster than lower priority traffic in different circumstances, such as during high demand time periods.
With regard to claim 5, Wadekar in view of Kumar teaches: obtaining, by the cloud management platform node, resource requirement information of the target service and indicating a predicted service traffic value of the target service in the time period; and further generating, by the cloud management platform node based on the resource requirement information, the steering plan (Kumar: Paragraph [0031]. The active metric collection is performed to for predictors, which would predict traffic and allocate traffic based on such predictions.).
With regard to claim 6, Wadekar fails to teach, but Kumar teaches wherein a sum of the service traffic that is of the target service and that is allocated to all the resource pools in the time period is equal to the predicted service traffic value, and wherein the service traffic that is of the target service and that is allocated to each of the resource pools in the time period does not exceed a maximum value of the service traffic that is of the target service and that can be carried in the resource pools (Kumar: Paragraph [0031]. Kumar provides a predictor that would predict traffic for allocation to the different destinations. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have recognized that the goal of such a prediction would be to have the total traffic predicted equaling the traffic that is received and to have the allocation not exceed the maximum. As a note, the instant claim fails to provide any actual functionality that is performed, but instead recites properties of the traffic. If Applicant intends for specific functions to be performed, the instant claim should be amended to clearly reflect what steps are performed to realize such functions.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to have the traffic equal the predicted traffic and to not have the traffic exceed the maximum traffic that can be carried in the resource pool as these would represent the goal of predictors implemented for a load balancer (where the equal values would indicate an accurate prediction) and having the traffic being less than the traffic that can be carried in the resource pool would mean that the pool is not overloaded, thus providing that the allocation of resources in Wadekar was performed correctly.
With regard to claim 7, Wadekar fails to teach, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing teaches wherein the steering plan meets a cost policy that a fee generated by the service traffic that is of the target service and that is allocated to each of the resource pools in the time period is a lowest fee (More specifically, Official Notice is taken that the charging of fees for tiers fo traffic, and the allocation of traffic based on such fees was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing, where in a case that the target is associated with the lowest tier, this would be the lowest fee. As a note, the entity performing the method does not need to be aware of the fees. Rather, merely providing a priority level to the traffic would enable the load balancing function to be performed, where such priorities would be allocated outside of the scope of the method. If Applicant intends for functions to be directly based on the fees, the instant claim should be amended to clearly reflect this, such as by ensuring that the cloud management platform node receives the fee information and then generates the steering plan based on the fees. Note that priority information could be considered to “indicate” the fee, and thus having information that indicates the fee would not overcome the interpretation provided here.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to charge fees based on different tiers of service, then load balance based on the different tiers (priority traffic) with the target being associated with the lowest tier to allow the network provider to monetize the system in such a way that users can pay for different tiers of service, thus increasing the customer base with lower tiers and lower fees while allowing some customers to pay more for higher service levels, as would be performed as a standard business practice.
With regard to claim 8, Wadekar fails to teach, but knowledge possessed by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing teaches wherein the lowest fee comprises an instance fee and a communication fee, wherein the instance fee indicates a rental fee of an instance required by the service traffic that is of the target service and that is allocated to each of the resource pools in the time period, and wherein the communication fee is required for transmitting the service traffic with each of the resource pools (More specifically, Official Notice is taken that the inclusion of different costs of doing business into the total fee, such as the cost of communicating the traffic (e.g. routing) and the cost of processing the traffic, was well-known to one of ordinary skill in the art. As with claim 7, above, there is no actual requirement that the cloud management platform node actually has any awareness of any fees, where the fees would all be performed as business transactions outside of the method. Further, as with claim 7, providing that the cloud management platform node actually directly possesses the instance fee and communication fee information and generates the plan based on these fees would overcome this rationale.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have all the fees (whether the lowest fee or otherwise) include an instance fee (cost of implementing the instance to process the traffic) and a communication fee (cost of communicating the traffic) to ensure that the entity who owns the equipment can monetize the providing of the services, and ensures that all the costs are maintained. Further, separate fees would also allow for multiple entities owning different portions, such that each entity would charge their own fee that would be added to the total cost.
With regard to claim 9, Wadekar in view of Kumar teaches wherein the maximum value is based on the first quantities and resource conversion information of the target service, and wherein the resource conversion information indicates a second quantity of the instances required for processing a single service request of the target service (Kumar: Paragraph [0031]. The instant claim depends from claim 3, where claim 3 provided two options, with the option of indicating a ratio was relied upon. The instant claim fails to provide any requirement that the teering plan indicates a maximum value, meaning that the instant limitations are not required to teach the invention in as much detail as required by the instant claim (which depends from claims 3 and 1), as a whole, in embodiments that rely on the indication of the ratio and not the maximum value. For clarity, it is recommended that the instant claim be amended to depend from claim 1 and to have “the steering plan indicate a maximum value of the service traffic that is of the target service and that can be carried in each of the resource pools” to ensure that the proper embodiment is required.).
With regard to claims 10-17, the instant claims are similar to claims 1-2 and 4-9, respectively, and are rejected for similar reasons.
With regard to claims 18-20, the instant claims are similar to claims 1-3, respectively, and are rejected for similar reasons.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1144. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 6AM to 2PM.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571) 272-3964. 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.
SCOTT B. CHRISTENSEN
Examiner
Art Unit 2444
/SCOTT B CHRISTENSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights