DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant 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.
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax, Regular postal mail, or EFS Web (PTO/SB/439).
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “computing a resource quantity to apply to each reservation of the sorted profile set; and set” should be correct to “computing a resource quantity to apply to each reservation of the sorted profile set; and Appropriate correction is required.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 U.S.P.Q.2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Independent claim n recites a “system,” which is not comprehensively defined by the specification. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a system covers software per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of system, particularly when the specification is silent. Software per se is not a “process,” a “machine,” a “manufacture,” or a “composition of matter” as defined in 35 U.S.C. § 101. Examiner suggests adding a recitation of a “processor” and a “memory.”
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 U.S.P.Q.2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Independent claim 21 recites a “computer-usable medium,” which is not comprehensively defined by the specification. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer-usable medium covers forms of transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. Transitory propagating signals are non-statutory subject matter. In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57, 84 U.S.P.Q.2d 1495, 1502 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter). See also Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010). Examiner suggests adding the word “non-transitory.”
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12088506B2 in view of Zhong (US 20110314477), Certain et al. (US 8612330), and Jackson (US 20070220152).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications comprise substantially the same elements and cover the same subject matter. As can be seen from the table below the claims of the instant application and the conflicting claims have similar features.
Instant Application:
US PATENT: 12088506 B2
1. A method comprising:
on a computer cluster comprising a plurality of computers, calculating ideal resource apportionments from a current set of consumable resources for each of a plurality of reservations;
wherein each reservation corresponds to one of a plurality of customers;
wherein each customer’s ideal resource apportionment comprises a sum of the ideal resource apportionments for the customer’s reservations;
running an apportionment process relative to the plurality of reservations, the running comprising attempting to apportion to each reservation its ideal resource apportionment;
wherein the running yields an actual resource apportionment for each reservation;
wherein each customer’s actual resource apportionment comprises a sum of the actual resource apportionments for the customer’s reservations;
responsive to an indication of unapportioned resources following the running, performing a first optimization to increase resource utilization by at least one needy customer; and
wherein the at least one needy customer comprises one or more customers whose actual resource apportionments are less than their ideal resource apportionments.
[AltContent: connector]
5. The method of claim 1, wherein the apportionment process comprises:
identifying one or more provisions of the current set that has remaining available resources;
wherein each provision comprises resources of the current set that serve a same set of resource profiles;
for each provision of the one or more provisions:
generating a set of available resource profiles for the provision;
acquiring at least one sorted set, the at least one sorted set comprising a plurality of profile entries;
filtering the at least one sorted set by the available resource profiles to yield at least one filtered sorted set; and
for each profile entry of the at least one filtered sorted set:
fetching the profile entry;
fetching a sorted profile set corresponding to the fetched profile entry;
computing a resource quantity to apply to each reservation of the sorted profile set; and
apportioning the resource quantity to each reservation of the sorted profile set.
1. A method comprising:
on a computer cluster comprising a plurality of computers: calculating ideal resource apportionments from a set of resources for each of a plurality of reservations,
wherein: the ideal resource apportionments are resource apportionments that match resource needs of the plurality of reservations;
each reservation corresponds to one of a plurality of customers; and
each customer's resource apportionment comprises a sum of the resource apportionments for the customer's reservations;
running an actual resource apportionment process relative to the plurality of reservations, the running comprising attempting to apportion to each reservation its ideal resource apportionment,
wherein: the running yields an actual resource apportionment for each reservation,
wherein for at least one reservation, at least one actual resource appointment differs from the ideal resource appointment; and
wherein each customer's actual resource apportionment comprises a sum of the actual resource apportionments for the customer's reservations;
responsive to an indication of unapportioned resources following the running, performing a first optimization to increase resource utilization by at least one needy customer;
wherein the at least one needy customer comprises one or more customers whose actual resource apportionments are less than their ideal resource apportionments;
identifying one or more provisions of the set of resources that has remaining available resources;
wherein each provision comprises resources of the set of resources that serve a set of resource profiles; and
for each provision of the one or more provisions:
generating a set of available resource profiles for the provision,
wherein a resource profile comprises a mix of properties that define, at least in part, which resources a reservation can consume;
acquiring at least one set of at least a plurality of profile entries, wherein the acquiring comprises:
creating a set of reservations, the set comprising reservations that have not yet attained at least one of the resource apportionments and grossed-up resource apportionments wherein grossed-up resource apportionments comprise an increased resource apportionment above a respective customer's actual resource apportionment;
generating a profile set for each resource profile represented in the set of reservations;
placing each reservation of the set of reservations into a profile set based on the reservation's resource profile; computing a need for each profile set; and
generating the one profile set, to include a profile entry for each profile set, each profile entry comprising a need for the profile set;
filtering the at least one set by the available resource profiles to yield at least one filtered set of at least the plurality of profile entries; and
for each profile entry of the at least one filtered set:
fetching the profile entry;
fetching a profile set corresponding to the fetched profile entry;
computing a resource quantity to apply to each reservation of the profile set; and
apportioning the resource quantity to each reservation of the profile set from the unapportioned resources; and executing one or more tasks in accordance with the apportioning.
.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein performing the first optimization comprises:
identifying the at least one needy customer;
identifying reservations of the at least one needy customer that can utilize at least a portion of the remaining resources;
grossing up the ideal resource apportionment for each identified reservation according to the at least one needy customer’s ideal resource apportionment; and
re-running the apportionment process relative to the identified reservations, the re-running comprising attempting to apportion to each identified reservation its grossed-up ideal resource apportionment.
2. The method of claim 1, wherein performing the first optimization comprises:
identifying the at least one needy customer;
identifying reservations of the at least one needy customer that can utilize at least a portion of the remaining resources;
grossing up the resource apportionment for each identified reservation according to the at least one needy customer's resource apportionment; and
re-running the apportionment process relative to the identified reservations, the re-running comprising attempting to apportion to each identified reservation its grossed-up resource apportionment.
3. The method of claim 1, comprising, responsive to an indication of unapportioned resources following the first optimization, performing a second optimization to increase resource utilization across all customers.
3. The method of claim 1, comprising, responsive to an indication of unapportioned resources following the first optimization, performing a second optimization to increase resource utilization across all customers.
4. The method of claim 3, wherein performing the second optimization comprises:
identifying reservations of any customer that can utilize at least a portion of the remaining resources;
grossing up the ideal resource apportionments for the identified reservations; and
re-running the apportionment process relative to the identified reservations, the re-running comprising attempting to exhaust the remaining resources.
4. The method of claim 3, wherein performing the second optimization comprises:
identifying reservations of any customer that can utilize at least a portion of the remaining resources;
grossing up the resource apportionments for the identified reservations; and
re-running the apportionment process relative to the identified reservations, the re-running comprising attempting to exhaust the remaining resources.
7. The method of claim 5, the method comprising repeating the apportionment process responsive to at least one provision having remaining available resources and an existence of at least one needy reservation that can utilize at least a portion of the remaining available resources.
6. The method of claim 5, the method comprising repeating the apportionment process responsive to at least one provision having remaining available resources and an existence of at least one needy reservation that can utilize at least a portion of the remaining available resources.
8. The method of claim 5, wherein, for each reservation, computing a resource quantity to apply comprises:
computing a maximum quantity of resources to apply from the provision;
accessing a smallest total need for the sorted profile set; determining a minimum of the maximum quantity and the smallest total need;
normalizing the determined minimum per reservation;
calculating a maximum resource quantity that the reservation can accept without exceeding at least one of its ideal resource apportionment and its grossed-up ideal resource apportionment; and
wherein the resource quantity to apply to the reservation comprises a minimum of the normalized minimum and the calculated maximum for the reservation.
7. The method of claim 5, wherein, for each reservation, computing a resource quantity to apply comprises:
computing a maximum quantity of resources to apply from the provision;
accessing a smallest total need for the sorted profile set; determining a minimum of the maximum quantity and the smallest total need;
normalizing the determined minimum per reservation; calculating a maximum resource quantity that the reservation can accept without exceeding at least one of its resource apportionment and its grossed-up resource apportionment; and
wherein the resource quantity to apply to the reservation comprises a minimum of the normalized minimum and the calculated maximum for the reservation.
9. The method of claim 5, wherein apportioning the resource quantity to each reservation comprises, for each reservation:
deducting the reservation’s need by the resource quantity;
deducting a need for a customer to which the reservation corresponds by the resource quantity; and
deducting an applicable provision’s remaining resources by the resource quantity.
8. The method of claim 5, wherein apportioning the resource quantity to each reservation comprises, for each reservation:
deducting the reservation's need by the resource quantity;
deducting a need for a customer to which the reservation corresponds by the resource quantity; and
deducting an applicable provision's remaining resources by the resource quantity.
10. The method of claim 1, wherein each actual resource apportionment comprises a flow-control clocking weight.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein each actual resource apportionment comprises a flow-control clocking weight.
11. The method of claim 10, comprising:
maintaining a priority queue of the plurality of reservations;
responsive to a determination that at least one consumable resource in the current set is identifying a first reservation in the priority queue;
performing a suitability function on the first reservation;
responsive to a determination that the at least one consumable resource has been deemed suitable for the first reservation, assigning the at least one consumable resource to the first reservation; and
responsive to a determination that the at least one consumable resource has not been deemed suitable for the first reservation, identifying a next reservation in the priority queue.
10. The method of claim 9, comprising:
maintaining a priority queue of the plurality of reservations;
responsive to a determination that at least one resource in the set is free: identifying a first reservation in the priority queue;
performing a suitability function on the first reservation;
responsive to a determination that the at least one resource has been deemed suitable for the first reservation, assigning the at least one resource to the first reservation; and
responsive to a determination that the at least one resource has not been deemed suitable for the first reservation, identifying a next reservation in the priority queue.
Claim 12 is the “information handling system claim” a corresponding to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 13 is similar to claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 14 is similar to claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 15 is similar to claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 16 is similar to claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 18 is similar to claim 8 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 19 is similar to claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 20 is similar to claim 11 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 21 is the “computer-program product claim” a corresponding to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Although patent number 12088506 does not specifically teach the steps of:
wherein the acquiring comprises:
creating a set of reservations, the set comprising reservations that have not yet attained at least one of their ideal resource apportionments and their grossed-up ideal resource apportionments; generating a sorted profile set for each resource profile represented in the set of reservations; placing each reservation of the set of reservations into an appropriate sorted profile set based on the reservation’s resource profile; computing a smallest total need for each sorted profile set; and generating the at least one sorted set, the at least one sorted set comprising a profile entry for each sorted profile set, each profile entry comprising the smallest total need for the profile set
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include these steps in light of the combination of Zhong (US 20110314477) , Certain et al. (8612330), and Jackson (US 20070220152).
Zhong teaches a method for allocating resource shares fairly among a plurality of users:
Abstract: Fair share scheduling to divide the total amount of available resource into a finite number of shares and allocate a portion of the shares to an individual user or group of users as a way to specify the resource proportion entitled by the user or group of users; and
[0023]: Available resources of a processing environment are divided into a
number of shares. ...A user or group of users is allocated a portion of the shares. Then, each job of the user or group of users to be executed is assigned a job execution priority. This priority is based on how many shares the user or group of users has been assigned).
Certain teaches a resource allocation for sharing resources among multiple users:
Abstract: Usage of shared resources can be managed by enabling users to obtain different types of guarantees at different times for various types and/or levels of resource capacity. A user can select to have an amount or rate of capacity dedicated to that user. A user can also select reserved capacity for at least a portion of the requests, tasks, or program execution for that user, where the user has priority to that capacity but other users can utilize the excess capacity during other periods. Users can alternatively specify to use the excess capacity or other variable, non-guaranteed capacity).
Jackson teaches a method of allocating resource shares to various clients:
Abstract: A system and method are disclosed for dynamically reserving resources
within a cluster environment. The method embodiment of the invention comprises receiving a request for resources in the cluster environment, monitoring events after receiving the request for resources and based on the monitored events, dynamically modifying at least one of the request for resources and the cluster environment; and
[0028]: The reservation access criteria comprises, in one example,
at least following: users, groups, accounts, classes, quality of service (QOS) and job duration).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to apply the combination of Zhong, Certain, and Jackson to the instant claims.
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.
Claims 1-2, 10-13, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhong (US 20110314477) in view of Certain et al. (US 8612330).
As per claim 1, Zhong teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a method comprising:
on a computer cluster comprising a plurality of computers ([0010], a method of facilitating determination of scheduling priorities of jobs in a clustered computing environment having a plurality of coupled computing units is provided), calculating ideal resource apportionments from a current set of consumable resources for each of a plurality of reservations ([0034], Subsequent to allocating the shares to the desired users and/or groups of users, entitled resource proportions for those users and/or groups of users are determined, STEP 206. This proportion is determined by dividing the number of shares allocated to a user by the total number of shares of the environment. Thus, if there are 100 total shares, and User 1 is allocated 10 shares, then the proportion for user 1 is 10%. Similarly, the proportion for User 2 is 5% and for Group 1 is 20%, etc.; Examiner Note: Zhong’s allocation of shares is mapped to the plurality of reservations limitation);
wherein each reservation corresponds to one of a plurality of customers ([0023], A user or group of users is allocated a portion of the shares);
wherein each customer’s ideal resource apportionment comprises a sum of the ideal resource apportionments for the customer’s reservations ([0033], User 1 is allocated 10 shares; User 2 is allocated 5 shares; Group 1 is allocated 20 shares, etc.; and [0034], Subsequent to allocating the shares to the desired users and/or groups of users, entitled resource proportions for those users and/or groups of users are determined, STEP 206. This proportion is determined by dividing the number of shares allocated to a user by the total number of shares of the environment. Thus, if there are 100 total shares, and User 1 is allocated 10 shares, then the proportion for user 1 is 10%. Similarly, the proportion for User 2 is 5% and for Group 1 is 20%, etc.);
running an apportionment process relative to the plurality of reservations, the running comprising attempting to apportion to each reservation its ideal resource apportionment ([0034], Subsequent to allocating the shares to the desired users and/or groups of users, entitled resource proportions for those users and/or groups of users are determined, STEP 206. This proportion is determined by dividing the number of shares allocated to a user by the total number of shares of the environment. Thus, if there are 100 total shares, and User 1 is allocated 10 shares, then the proportion for user 1 is 10%. Similarly, the proportion for User 2 is 5% and for Group 1 is 20%, etc.);
wherein the running yields an actual resource apportionment for each reservation ([0034], Subsequent to allocating the shares to the desired users and/or groups of users, entitled resource proportions for those users and/or groups of users are determined, STEP 206. This proportion is determined by dividing the number of shares allocated to a user by the total number of shares of the environment. Thus, if there are 100 total shares, and User 1 is allocated 10 shares, then the proportion for user 1 is 10%. Similarly, the proportion for User 2 is 5% and for Group 1 is 20%, etc.); and
wherein each customer’s actual resource apportionment comprises a sum of the actual resource apportionments for the customer’s reservations ([0033], User 1 is allocated 10 shares; User 2 is allocated 5 shares; Group 1 is allocated 20 shares, etc.; and [0034], Subsequent to allocating the shares to the desired users and/or groups of users, entitled resource proportions for those users and/or groups of users are determined, STEP 206. This proportion is determined by dividing the number of shares allocated to a user by the total number of shares of the environment. Thus, if there are 100 total shares, and User 1 is allocated 10 shares, then the proportion for user 1 is 10%. Similarly, the proportion for User 2 is 5% and for Group 1 is 20%, etc.).
Zhong fails to specifically teach, responsive to an indication of unapportioned resources following the running, performing a first optimization to increase resource utilization by at least one needy customer; and wherein the at least one needy customer comprises one or more customers whose actual resource apportionments are less than their ideal resource apportionments.
However, Certain teaches, responsive to an indication of unapportioned resources following the running, performing a first optimization to increase resource utilization by at least one needy customer (Column 4, Lines 34-39, at least some excess or otherwise unused resource capacity of a PES or other group of resources may be made available to users on a temporary or non-guaranteed basis, such that the excess resource capacity can be allocated to other users until a time that the capacity is desired for other purposes (e.g., for preferential or reserved use); and Column 17, Lines 47-55, Customers A, B, and C will not all utilize their entire committed capacity. Each of those customers might pay to guarantee a level of performance such that the level is available when needed, but often will not actually be running near that peak capacity. In this situation, the remaining Customers D-Z can actually share more than the remaining 145 IOPS, or "remnants," as those customers can utilize available capacity from the committed IOPS that are not being currently used); and
wherein the at least one needy customer comprises one or more customers whose actual resource apportionments are less than their ideal resource apportionments (Column 5, Lines 13-20, if a user has a private pool of excess resource capacity and there is a separate general pool of excess resource capacity that is also available, the different excess resource capacity pools may be used in various manners. For example, if such a user makes an instance request to use excess resource capacity, the instance request may first be satisfied using that user's private pool if the pool has sufficient computing capacity for the request; and Column 23, Line 23-Column 24, Line 4, rather than allocate specific resource capacity to specific dedicated users for an entire use period, the PES Manager instead allocates capacity from a dedicated group of resources, such that an appropriate amount of capacity to satisfy the requests from the various dedicated capacity users is available in the dedicated resource group. In some such embodiments, after an instance request is received for a dedicated user on one or more dedicated resources, an appropriate amount of capacity may be selected from the dedicated resource group at substantially the time of the received instance request).
Zhong and Certain are analogous because they are both related to efficient resource allocation for processing multiple jobs. Zhong teaches a method for allocating resource shares fairly among a plurality of users (Abstract, Fair share scheduling to divide the total amount of available resource into a finite number of shares and allocate a portion of the shares to an individual user or group of users as a way to specify the resource proportion entitled by the user or group of users; and [0023], Available resources of a processing environment are divided into a number of shares. ...A user or group of users is allocated a portion of the shares. Then, each job of the user or group of users to be executed is assigned a job execution priority. This priority is based on how many shares the user or group of users has been assigned). Certain teaches a resource allocation for sharing resources among multiple users. (Abstract, Usage of shared resources can be managed by enabling users to obtain different types of guarantees at different times for various types and/or levels of resource capacity. A user can select to have an amount or rate of capacity dedicated to that user. A user can also select reserved capacity for at least a portion of the requests, tasks, or program execution for that user, where the user has priority to that capacity but other users can utilize the excess capacity during other periods. Users can alternatively specify to use the excess capacity or other variable, non-guaranteed capacity). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicant's invention that based on the combination; Zhong’s resource allocation method would use Certain’s resource allocation scheme for allocating unused resources resulting in a system that allocates resources efficiently by utilizing under-utilized resources. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Zhong and Certain.
As per claim 2, Certain teaches, wherein performing the first optimization comprises:
identifying the at least one needy customer (Column 5, Lines 13-20, if a user has a private pool of excess resource capacity and there is a separate general pool of excess resource capacity that is also available, the different excess resource capacity pools may be used in various manners. For example, if such a user makes an instance request to use excess resource capacity, the instance request may first be satisfied using that user's private pool if the pool has sufficient computing capacity for the request; and Column 23, Line 23-Column 24, Line 4, rather than allocate specific resource capacity to specific dedicated users for an entire use period, the PES Manager instead allocates capacity from a dedicated group of resources, such that an appropriate amount of capacity to satisfy the requests from the various dedicated capacity users is available in the dedicated resource group. In some such embodiments, after an instance request is received for a dedicated user on one or more dedicated resources, an appropriate amount of capacity may be selected from the dedicated resource group at substantially the time of the received instance request);
identifying reservations of the at least one needy customer that can utilize at least a portion of the remaining resources (Column 3, Lines 25-29, a customer can also request dedicated reserved capacity that can come at a lower cost, and can enable the customer to use that capacity when needed, as well as to enable other users to utilize that capacity when not being used by the customer having the reserved capacity; and Column 23, Line 23-Column 24, Line 4, rather than allocate specific resource capacity to specific dedicated users for an entire use period, the PES Manager instead allocates capacity from a dedicated group of resources, such that an appropriate amount of capacity to satisfy the requests from the various dedicated capacity users is available in the dedicated resource group. In some such embodiments, after an instance request is received for a dedicated user on one or more dedicated resources, an appropriate amount of capacity may be selected from the dedicated resource group at substantially the time of the received instance request);
grossing up the ideal resource apportionment for each identified reservation according to the at least one needy customer’s ideal resource apportionment (Column 23, Line 67-Column 24, Line 4, after an instance request is received for a dedicated user on one or more dedicated resources, an appropriate amount of capacity may be selected from the dedicated resource group at substantially the time of the received instance request); and
re-running the apportionment process relative to the identified reservations, the re-running comprising attempting to apportion to each identified reservation its grossed-up ideal resource apportionment (Column 23, Lines 13-19, In cases where a user schedules an instance request for one or more future times, the PES Manger may attempt to reserve an appropriate amount of resource capacity for launching those instances at the one or more future times, and/or may delay the determination of which resources to use until a later time (e.g., such as when the one or more future times occur)).
As per claim 10, Zhong teaches, wherein each actual resource apportionment comprises a flow-control clocking weight ([0034], Subsequent to allocating the shares to the desired users and/or groups of users, entitled resource proportions for those users and/or groups of users are determined, STEP 206. This proportion is determined by dividing the number of shares allocated to a user by the total number of shares of the environment. Thus, if there are 100 total shares, and User 1 is allocated 10 shares, then the proportion for user 1 is 10%. Similarly, the proportion for User 2 is 5% and for Group 1 is 20%, etc.).
As per claim 11, Zhong teaches, comprising:
maintaining a priority queue of the plurality of reservations ([0049], the job is placed on a wait queue ordered by priorities); and
responsive to a determination that at least one consumable resource in the current set is identifying a first reservation in the priority queue([0049], the jobs are run with the higher priority jobs being run first).
Zhong fails to specifically teach, performing a suitability function on the first reservation; responsive to a determination that the at least one consumable resource has been deemed suitable for the first reservation, assigning the at least one consumable resource to the first reservation; and responsive to a determination that the at least one consumable resource has not been deemed suitable for the first reservation, identifying a next reservation in the priority queue.
However, Certain teaches, performing a suitability function on the first reservation (Column 16, Lines 43-45, customer requests are performed based on the capability, load, and other such factors of the system at the time of the request);
responsive to a determination that the at least one consumable resource has been deemed suitable for the first reservation, assigning the at least one consumable resource to the first reservation (Column 40, Lines 61-66, If a node becomes available with a high compute capacity, the PES Manager might decide to process request A instead of request B, as the system will make more money by processing request A with the higher capacity resource and processing request B with the next available resource (which will not affect request B's bid price)); and
responsive to a determination that the at least one consumable resource has not been deemed suitable for the first reservation, identifying a next reservation in the priority queue (Column 18, Lines 32-34, a customer with a rate guarantee might have any excess requests placed at or near the front of the "queue" for uncommitted requests; Column 30, Lines 59-66, If currently available capacity is to be used, the instance request is fulfilled using the available variable capacity. If such capacity is not available, the user or other source of the request can be queried to determine whether to move the instance request to a queue for use with excess resource capacity, while such a move can be performed automatically in at least some embodiments and situations; and Column 35, Lines 42-53, instance request B is received around interval t5, when there is only one excess resource node 602 available. Because there is only one node available for two instance requests, the service must determine which request to process on that node during the time interval t5. In this example, the bid amount for request B ($0.08/hour) is higher than the bid amount for request A ($0.05/hour), such that the program execution service determines to terminate the processing of request A in lieu of request B. Other reasons for favoring one instance request over another can be used as well, such as where one instance request is associated with a higher priority than another request, etc.).
The same motivation used in the rejection of claim 1 is applicable to the instant claim.
As per claim 12, this is the “information handling system claim” a corresponding to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons. The same motivation used for the rejection of claim 1 is applicable to the instant claim.
As per claim 13, this claim is similar to claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 20, this claim is similar to claim 11 and is rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 21, this is the “computer-program product claim” a corresponding to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons. The same motivation used for the rejection of claim 1 is applicable to the instant claim.
Claims 3-7, 9, 14-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Zhong-Certain as applied to independent claims 1 and 12 and in further view of Jackson et al. (US 20070220152).
As per claim 3, the combination of Zhong-Certain fails to specifically teach, responsive to an indication of unapportioned resources following the first optimization, performing a second optimization to increase resource utilization across all customers.
Jackson teaches, comprising, responsive to an indication of unapportioned resources following the first optimization, performing a second optimization to increase resource utilization across all customers ([0071], Assume that reservation 506 which was scheduled to end at time T2 has finished early at time T1. Also assume that reservation 508 is flagged for time flex and space flex. In this case, based on the monitored event that reservation 506 has ended early, the system would cause reservation 508 to migrate in time (and space in this example) to position 510. This represents a movement of the reservation to a new time and a new set of resources. If reservation 504 ends early, and reservation 508 migrates to position 520, that would represent a migration in time (to an earlier time) but not in space. This would be enabled by the time-flex flag being set wherein the migration would seek to create a new reservation at the earliest time possible and/or according to available resources).
The combination of Zhong-Certain and Jackson are analogous because they are both related to efficient resource allocation for processing multiple jobs. Zhong teaches a method for allocating resource shares fairly among a plurality of users. Certain teaches a resource allocation for sharing resources among multiple users. Jackson teaches a method of allocating resource shares to various clients. (Abstract, A system and method are disclosed for dynamically reserving resources within a cluster environment. The method embodiment of the invention comprises receiving a request for resources in the cluster environment, monitoring events after receiving the request for resources and based on the monitored events, dynamically modifying at least one of the request for resources and the cluster environment; and [0028], The reservation access criteria comprises, in one example, at least following: users, groups, accounts, classes, quality of service (QOS) and job duration). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the Applicant's invention that based on the combination; the combination of Zhong-Certain would be modified with Jackson’s known mechanism for dynamic resource allocation based on monitored events resulting in an efficient resource allocation that considers monitored events when reassessing resource allocations. Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of the combination of Zhong-Certain and Jackson.
As per claim 4, Certain teaches, wherein performing the second optimization comprises: identifying reservations of any customer that can utilize at least a portion of the remaining resources (Column 3, Lines 25-29, a customer can also request dedicated reserved capacity that can come at a lower cost, and can enable the customer to use that capacity when needed, as well as to enable other users to utilize that capacity when not being used by the customer having the reserved capacity; Column 4, Lines 34-39, at least some excess or otherwise unused resource capacity of a PES or other group of resources may be made available to users on a temporary or non-guaranteed basis, such that the excess resource capacity can be allocated to other users until a time that the capacity is desired for other purposes (e.g., for preferential or reserved use); and Column 23, Line 23-Column 24, Line 4, rather than allocate specific resource capacity to specific dedicated users for an entire use period, the PES Manager instead allocates capacity from a dedicated group of resources, such that an appropriate amount of capacity to satisfy the requests from the various dedicated capacity users is available in the dedicated resource group. In some such embodiments, after an instance request is received for a dedicated user on one or more dedicated resources, an appropriate amount of capacity may be selected from the dedicated resource group at substantially the time of the received instance request);
grossing up the ideal resource apportionments for the identified reservations (Column 23, Line 67-Column 24, Line 4, after an instance request is received for a dedicated user on one or more dedicated resources, an appropriate amount of capacity may be selected from the dedicated resource group at substantially the time of the received instance request); and
re-running the apportionment process relative to the identified reservations, the re-running comprising attempting to exhaust the remaining resources (Column 23, Lines 13-19, In cases where a user schedules an instance request for one or more future times, the PES Manger may attempt to reserve an appropriate amount of resource capacity for launching those instances at the one or more future times, and/or may delay the determination of which resources to use until a later time (e.g., such as when the one or more future times occur)).
As per claim 5, Certain teaches, wherein the apportionment process comprises:
identifying one or more provisions of the current set that has remaining available resources (Column 17, Lines 47-58, Customers A, B, and C will not all utilize their entire committed capacity. Each of those customers might pay to guarantee a level of performance such that the level is available when needed, but often will not actually be running near that peak capacity. In this situation, the remaining Customers D-Z can actually share more than the remaining 145 IOPS, or "remnants," as those customers can utilize available capacity from the committed IOPS that are not being currently used. This provides another advantage, as customers can receive guaranteed levels of performance, but when those levels are not being fully utilized the remaining capacity can be used to service other customer requests; Column 19, Lines 26-28, the control plane can determine an appropriate, if not optimal, way to provide those guarantees using available resources in the data plane; and Column 19, Lines 30-35, An amount of un-committed usage can be predicted and/or monitored, such that a number of customers can be allocated to resources that are fully committed, as long as the customer is willing to take resources only as they come available);
wherein each provision comprises resources of the current set that serve a same set of resource profiles (Column 19, Lines 30-35, An amount of un-committed usage can be predicted and/or monitored, such that a number of customers can be allocated to resources that are fully committed, as long as the customer is willing to take resources only as they come available);
for each provision of the one or more provisions:
generating a set of available resource profiles for the provision (Column 19, Lines 26-28, the control plane can determine an appropriate, if not optimal, way to provide those guarantees using available resources in the data plane; and Column 19, Lines 30-35, An amount of un-committed usage can be predicted and/or monitored, such that a number of customers can be allocated to resources that are fully committed, as long as the customer is willing to take resources only as they come available); and
acquiring at least one sorted set, the at least one sorted set comprising a plurality of profile entries (Column 19, Lines 30-35, An amount of un-committed usage can be predicted and/or monitored, such that a number of customers can be allocated to resources that are fully committed, as long as the customer is willing to take resources only as they come available).
Certain fails to specifically teach, filtering the at least one sorted set by the available resource profiles to yield at least one filtered sorted set; and for each profile entry of the at least one filtered sorted set: fetching the profile entry; fetching a sorted profile set corresponding to the fetched profile entry;computing a resource quantity to apply to each reservation of the sorted profile set; and set.apportioning the resource quantity to each reservation of the sorted profile set.
However, Jackson teaches, wherein the apportionment process comprises: …
filtering the at least one sorted set by the available resource profiles to yield at least one filtered sorted set ([0015], dynamically modifying resources within a compute environment comprises receiving a request for resources in the compute environment, monitoring events after receiving the request for resources and based on the monitored events, dynamically modifying at least one of the request for resources and the compute environment; and [0071], Assume that reservation 506 which was scheduled to end at time T2 has finished early at time T1. Also assume that reservation 508 is flagged for time flex and space flex. In this case, based on the monitored event that reservation 506 has ended early, the system would cause reservation 508 to migrate in time (and space in this example) to position 510. This represents a movement of the reservation to a new time and a new set of resources. If reservation 504 ends early, and reservation 508 migrates to position 520, that would represent a migration in time (to an earlier time) but not in space. This would be enabled by the time-flex flag being set wherein the migration would seek to create a new reservation at the earliest time possible and/or according to available resources); and
for each profile entry of the at least one filtered sorted set:
fetching the profile entry ([0068], conditions within the compute environment may be monitored to provide feedback on where optimization may occur);
fetching a sorted profile set corresponding to the fetched profile entry ([0068], If so justified, a reservation may migrate to a new time or migrate to a new set of resources that are more optimal than the original reservation; and [0071], Assume that reservation 506 which was scheduled to end at time T2 has finished early at time T1. Also assume that reservation 508 is flagged for time flex and space flex. In this case, based on the monitored event that reservation 506 has ended early, the system would cause reservation 508 to migrate in time (and space in this example) to position 510. This represents a movement of the reservation to a new time and a new set of resources. If reservation 504 ends early, and reservation 508 migrates to position 520, that would represent a migration in time (to an earlier time) but not in space. This would be enabled by the time-flex flag being set wherein the migration would seek to create a new reservation at the earliest time possible and/or according to available resources);
computing a resource quantity to apply to each reservation of the sorted profile set ([0061], the reservation 304 may be expanded or contracted or migrated to cover a new set of resources; [0068], Reservations must explicitly request the ability to float for optimization purposes by using a flag such as the SPACEFLEX flag. The reservations may be established and then identified as self-optimizing in either space or time. If the reservation is flagged as such, then after the reservation is created, conditions within the compute environment may be monitored to provide feedback on where optimization may occur. If so justified, a reservation may migrate to a new time or migrate to a new set of resources that are more optimal than the original reservation); and set.
apportioning the resource quantity to each reservation of the sorted profile set ([0068], a reservation may migrate to a new time or migrate to a new set of resources that are more optimal than the original reservation; and [0071], Assume that reservation 506 which was scheduled to end at time T2 has finished early at time T1. Also assume that reservation 508 is flagged for time flex and space flex. In this case, based on the monitored event that reservation 506 has ended early, the system would cause reservation 508 to migrate in time (and space in this example) to position 510. This represents a movement of the reservation to a new time and a new set of resources. If reservation 504 ends early, and reservation 508 migrates to position 520, that would represent a migration in time (to an earlier time) but not in space. This would be enabled by the time-flex flag being set wherein the migration would seek to create a new reservation at the earliest time possible and/or according to available resources).
The same motivation used in the rejection of claim 3 is applicable to the instant claim.
As per claim 6, Certain teaches, wherein the acquiring comprises:
creating a set of reservations, the set comprising reservations that have not yet attained at least one of their ideal resource apportionments and their grossed-up ideal resource apportionments Column 5, Lines 13-20, if a user has a private pool of excess resource capacity and there is a separate general pool of excess resource capacity that is also available, the different excess resource capacity pools may be used in various manners. For example, if such a user makes an instance request to use excess resource capacity, the instance request may first be satisfied using that user's private pool if the pool has sufficient computing capacity for the request; and Column 23, Lines 13-19, In cases where a user schedules an instance request for one or more future times, the PES Manger may attempt to reserve an appropriate amount of resource capacity for launching those instances at the one or more future times, and/or may delay the determination of which resources to use until a later time (e.g., such as when the one or more future times occur));
generating a sorted profile set for each resource profile represented in the set of reservations (Column 19, Lines 30-35, An amount of un-committed usage can be predicted and/or monitored, such that a number of customers can be allocated to resources that are fully committed, as long as the customer is willing to take resources only as they come available);
placing each reservation of the set of reservations into an appropriate sorted profile set based on the reservation’s resource profile (Column 23, Lines 13-19, In cases where a user schedules an instance request for one or more future times, the PES Manger may attempt to reserve an appropriate amount of resource capacity for launching those instances at the one or more future times, and/or may delay the determination of which resources to use until a later time (e.g., such as when the one or more future times occur));
computing a smallest total need for each sorted profile set (Column 23, Lines 13-19, In cases where a user schedules an instance request for one or more future times, the PES Manger may attempt to reserve an appropriate amount of resource capacity for launching those instances at the one or more future times, and/or may delay the determination of which resources to use until a later time (e.g., such as when the one or more future times occur); Column 23, Lines 28-30, some portion of the shared resources may be specified to provide the on-demand variable capacity); and
generating the at least one sorted set, the at least one sorted set comprising a profile entry for each sorted profile set, each profile entry comprising the smallest total need for the profile set (Column 23, Lines 13-19, In cases where a user schedules an instance request for one or more future times, the PES Manger may attempt to reserve an appropriate amount of resource capacity for launching those instances at the one or more future times, and/or may delay the determination of which resources to use until a later time (e.g., such as when the one or more future times occur); and Column 23, Lines 28-30, some portion of the shared resources may be specified to provide the on-demand variable capacity).
As per claim 7, Certain teaches, the method comprising repeating the apportionment process responsive to at least one provision having remaining available resources and an existence of at least one needy reservation that can utilize at least a portion of the remaining available resources (Column 4, Lines 34-39, at least some excess or otherwise unused resource capacity of a PES or other group of resources may be made available to users on a temporary or non-guaranteed basis, such that the excess resource capacity can be allocated to other users until a time that the capacity is desired for other purposes (e.g., for preferential or reserved use); and Column 17, Lines 47-55, Customers A, B, and C will not all utilize their entire committed capacity. Each of those customers might pay to guarantee a level of performance such that the level is available when needed, but often will not actually be running near that peak capacity. In this situation, the remaining Customers D-Z can actually share more than the remaining 145 IOPS, or "remnants," as those customers can utilize available capacity from the committed IOPS that are not being currently used).
As per claim 9, Zhong teaches, wherein apportioning the resource quantity to each reservation comprises, for each reservation:
deducting the reservation’s need by the resource quantity ([0050], As a job ends, resource usage is collected for that job by the job scheduler, STEP 308. In particular, in one example, a job belongs to a user and a group of users, and resources used by that job are collected and accumulated for the user, as well as for the group, STEP 310. This usage is collected by the scheduler accessing appropriate information at job termination; and [0051], The accumulated resource usage is then converted to used shares, STEP 312. For instance, the UserUsedShares is calculated by dividing the accumulated resource usage for the user by the resources per share (Resources per share=Total Resources/Total number of shares);;
deducting a need for a customer to which the reservation corresponds by the resource quantity ([0050], As a job ends, resource usage is collected for that job by the job scheduler, STEP 308. In particular, in one example, a job belongs to a user and a group of users, and resources used by that job are collected and accumulated for the user, as well as for the group, STEP 310. This usage is collected by the scheduler accessing appropriate information at job termination; and [0051], The accumulated resource usage is then converted to used shares, STEP 312. For instance, the UserUsedShares is calculated by dividing the accumulated resource usage for the user by the resources per share (Resources per share=Total Resources/Total number of shares); and
deducting an applicable provision’s remaining resources by the resource quantity ([0062], enables the division of resources to be based on the total available resources of the environment).
As per claim 14, this claim is similar to claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons. The same motivation used in the rejection of claim 3 is applicable to the instant claim.
As per claim 15, this claim is similar to claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 16, this claim is similar to claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons. The same motivation used in the rejection of claim 3 is applicable to the instant claim.
As per claim 17, this claim is similar to claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 19, this claim is similar to claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Zhong-Certain-Jackson as applied to dependent claims 5 and 16 and in further view of Graupner et al. (US 8104038).
As per claim 8, Certain teaches, wherein, for each reservation, computing a resource quantity to apply comprises:
computing a maximum quantity of resources to apply from the provision (Column 24, Lines 48-52, The excess capacity users may configure instance requests to be fulfilled in various ways, such as by specifying a number and/or type of resource instances to be used, a minimum and/or maximum number of resource instances to use; and Column 26, 41-45, the PES Manager may initiate the requested processing on up to the maximum (if specified) number of excess resource instances for the request based on availability of the excess resource instances);
accessing a smallest total need for the sorted profile set (Column 33, Lines 49-51, information for each instance request can include the time that the request was received, the maximum and/or minimum number of nodes required to fulfill the request);
determining a minimum of the maximum quantity and the smallest total need (Column 16, Lines 51-54, A PES or similar system or service enable customers to ensure a minimum level of performance by enabling each customer to specify one or more committed rates or other performance guarantees); and
calculating a maximum resource quantity that the reservation can accept without exceeding at least one of its ideal resource apportionment and its grossed-up ideal resource apportionment (Column 24, Lines 48-52, The excess capacity users may configure instance requests to be fulfilled in various ways, such as by specifying a number and/or type of resource instances to be used, a minimum and/or maximum number of resource instances to use; and Column 26, 41-45, the PES Manager may initiate the requested processing on up to the maximum (if specified) number of excess resource instances for the request based on availability of the excess resource instances).
The combination of Zhong-Certain-Jackson fails to specifically teach normalizing the determined minimum per reservation; and wherein the resource quantity to apply to the reservation comprises a minimum of the normalized minimum and the calculated maximum for the reservation.
However, Graupner teaches, normalizing the determined minimum per reservation (Column 5, Lines 36-41, A resource share represents a normalized metric normalized to a chosen base unit that can be used to express a resource-on-demand system configuration's capability of handling a maximum amount of workload demand related to a particular type of application or class of service); and
wherein the resource quantity to apply to the reservation comprises a minimum of the normalized minimum and the calculated maximum for the reservation (Column 5, Lines 36-41, A resource share represents a normalized metric normalized to a chosen base unit that can be used to express a resource-on-demand system configuration's capability of handling a maximum amount of workload demand related to a particular type of application or class of service).
As per claim 18, this claim is similar to claim 8 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is as follows:
Inventor
Application No.
Teaches
Sarkar et al.
US 9128763
Optimized job scheduling:
generating an optimized allocation of a plurality of tasks across a plurality of processors or slots for processing or execution in a distributed computing environment. In a cloud computing environment implementing a MapReduce framework, the system and computer-implemented method may be used to schedule map or reduce tasks to processors or slots on the network such that the tasks are matched to processors or slots in a data locality aware fashion wherein the suitability of node and the characteristics of the task are accounted for using a minimum cost flow function.
Fetterman et al.
US 20130311999
Fair resource scheduling:
an effective way to maintain fairness and order in the scheduling of common resource access requests related to replay operations. Specifically, a streaming multiprocessor (SM) includes a total order queue (TOQ) configured to schedule the access requests over one or more execution cycles. Access requests are allowed to make forward progress when needed common resources have been allocated to the request. Where multiple access requests require the same common resource, priority is given to the older access request. Access requests may be placed in a sleep state pending availability of certain common resources
Conti et al.
US20180367622
Job tracking and user interface for performing remediation:
Processes requiring access to shared resources are adapted to issue a reservation request, such that a place in a resource access queue, such as one administered by means of a semaphore system, can be reserved for the process. The reservation is issued by a Reservation Management module at a time calculated to ensure that the reservation reaches the head of the queue as closely as possible to the moment at which the process actually needs access to the resource
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELISSA A HEADLY whose telephone number is (571)272-1972. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 9-5:30pm.
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, Bradley Teets can be reached at 571-272-3338. 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.
/MELISSA A HEADLY/Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights