DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 23-24, 26-29, 32, 35, 37-39 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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.
Claim(s) 21-22, 25, 30-31, 33-34, and 36 of the current application 18/888914 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,126,547 B2 in view of Vosshall et al. (US 10,432,551 B1).
Regarding claim 21, US 12,126,547 B2 discloses A system comprising (claim 1: A multi-tenant manager device comprising):
a processor (claim 1: at least one processor); and
memory comprising computer executable instructions that, when executed, perform operations comprising (claim 1: a memory storing instructions):
receiving a service request for a multi-tenant service (claim 1: receive a service request for a multi-tenant service);
determining tokenized request information for the service request by replacing at least a portion of text in the service request (claim 1: determine tokenized request information based on replacing one or more content types within a text of the service request);
based on the tokenized request information, predicting a resource utilization value (RUV) resulting from execution of the service request (claim 1: predict, via a resource utilization model (RUM) and based on the tokenized request information, a resource utilization value (RUV) resulting from execution of the service request based on the text of the service request and an amount of data associated with the client device at the multi-tenant service), wherein the RUV represents an amount of system resources that will be consumed by performing the service request (claim 1: the RUV representing an amount of system resources of the multi-tenant manager device that will be consumed by performance of the service request),
comparing the RUV to a preconfigured threshold identifying an expensive service request (claim 1: determine that the RUV is greater than a preconfigured threshold identifying an expensive request); and
based on determining that the RUV is greater than the preconfigured threshold, applying a load balancing strategy to the service request (claim 1: apply a load balancing strategy to the service request based on the RUV being greater than the preconfigured threshold).
US 12,126,547 B2 does not disclose, but Vosshall discloses and wherein the RUV is predicted based on at least one of (col. 11 ll. 17-18: a processing cost estimate may be determined for the network request):
a number of rows or records associated with the service request; or
a number of data objects associated with the service request (col. 11 ll. 19-40: a predetermined mapping of cost values to different request types may be maintained … and the mapped predetermined cost used as the estimated processing cost … historical data for previously processed network requests may be maintained … For instance, a moving average may be calculated for the request type, with the current average value selected as the estimated processing cost for the network request …For example, if the estimated cost is valued at 63 units/time … Predictive cost-based throttling may allow for fine-grained throttling of large requests that would exceed allocated request processing for a source, while allowing one or many smaller network requests to proceed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the multi-tenant device, as taught by US 12,126,547 B2, to determine a processing cost estimate for the network request based on a predetermined mapping of cost values to different request types or historical data for previously processed network requests, i.e., the estimated cost is valued at 63 units/time, including predictive cost-based throttling, as taught by Vosshall.
Doing so allows for fine-grained throttling of large requests that would exceed allocated request processing for a source, while allowing one or many smaller network requests to proceed (Vosshall: col. 11 ll. 40-44).
Regarding claim(s) 22, US 12,126,547 B2 in view of Vosshall discloses all features of claim(s) 21 as outlined above.
US 12,126,547 B2 discloses wherein:
the system is a multi-tenant manager device (claim 1: A multi-tenant manager device); and
the service request is received from a client device (claim 1: receive a service request for a multi-tenant service from a client device).
Regarding claim(s) 25, US 12,126,547 B2 in view of Vosshall discloses all features of claim(s) 21 as outlined above.
US 12,126,547 B2 discloses wherein replacing the at least a portion of text in the service request comprises replacing one or more content types within the text in the service request (claim 1: determine tokenized request information based on replacing one or more content types within a text of the service request).
Regarding claim(s) 30, US 12,126,547 B2 in view of Vosshall discloses all features of claim(s) 21 as outlined above.
US 12,126,547 B2 discloses wherein predicting the RUV comprises:
providing the tokenized request information to a resource utilization model (RUM) (claim 1: wherein the RUM is a natural language processing model that applies a transformer to the tokenized request information); and
predicting, by the RUM, the RUV (claim 1: predict, via a resource utilization model (RUM) and based on the tokenized request information, a resource utilization value (RUV)).
Regarding claim(s) 31, US 12,126,547 B2 in view of Vosshall discloses all features of claim(s) 30 as outlined above.
US 12,126,547 B2 discloses wherein the RUM is a natural language processing model that applies a transformer to the tokenized request information (claim 1: wherein the RUM is a natural language processing model that applies a transformer to the tokenized request information).
Regarding claim 33, US 12,126,547 B2 discloses A method comprising (claim 11: A method comprising):
receiving, by a computing platform, a service request for a multi-tenant service of the computing platform (claim 11: receiving a service request for a multi-tenant service);
determining tokenized request information for the service request by replacing at least a portion of text in the service request (claim 11: determine tokenized request information based on replacing one or more content types within a text of the service request);
based on the tokenized request information, predicting a resource utilization value (RUV) resulting from execution of the service request (claim 11: predicting, via a resource utilization model (RUM) and based on the tokenized request information, a resource utilization value (RUV) resulting from execution of the service request based on the text of the service request and an amount of data associated with the client device at the multi-tenant service),
comparing the RUV to a first preconfigured threshold identifying an expensive service request (claim 11: determining that the RUV is greater than a preconfigured threshold identifying an expensive request); and
based on determining that the RUV is greater than the first preconfigured threshold, applying a load balancing strategy to the service request (claim 11: applying a load balancing strategy to the service request based on the RUV being greater than the preconfigured threshold).
US 12,126,547 B2 does not disclose, but Vosshall discloses and wherein the RUV is predicted based on at least one of (col. 11 ll. 17-18: a processing cost estimate may be determined for the network request):
a number of rows or records associated with the service request; or
a number of data objects associated with the service request (col. 11 ll. 19-40: a predetermined mapping of cost values to different request types may be maintained … and the mapped predetermined cost used as the estimated processing cost … historical data for previously processed network requests may be maintained … For instance, a moving average may be calculated for the request type, with the current average value selected as the estimated processing cost for the network request …For example, if the estimated cost is valued at 63 units/time … Predictive cost-based throttling may allow for fine-grained throttling of large requests that would exceed allocated request processing for a source, while allowing one or many smaller network requests to proceed).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the multi-tenant device, as taught by US 12,126,547 B2, to determine a processing cost estimate for the network request based on a predetermined mapping of cost values to different request types or historical data for previously processed network requests, i.e., the estimated cost is valued at 63 units/time, including predictive cost-based throttling, as taught by Vosshall.
Doing so allows for fine-grained throttling of large requests that would exceed allocated request processing for a source, while allowing one or many smaller network requests to proceed (Vosshall: col. 11 ll. 40-44).
Regarding claim(s) 34, US 12,126,547 B2 in view of Vosshall discloses all features of claim(s) 33 as outlined above.
US 12,126,547 B2 discloses wherein the RUV represents a prediction of an amount of system resources that will be consumed by performing the service request (claim 11: the RUV representing an amount of system resources of the multi-tenant manager device that will be consumed by performance of the service request).
Regarding claim(s) 36, US 12,126,547 B2 in view of Vosshall discloses all features of claim(s) 33 as outlined above.
US 12,126,547 B2 discloses wherein the RUV represents a prediction of a likelihood that the service request will result in a timeout (claim 9: wherein the RUV is an estimation of a likelihood that the service request will result in a timeout.).
Claim(s) 40 of the current application 18/888914 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,126,547 B2 in view of Paredes et al. (US 2013/0028079 A1).
Regarding claim 40, US 12,126,547 B2 discloses A device comprising (claim 1: A multi-tenant manager device comprising):
a processor (claim 1: at least one processor ); and
memory comprising computer executable instructions that, when executed, perform operations comprising (claim 1: a memory storing instructions):
receiving a service request for a service (claim 1: receive a service request for a multi-tenant service);
determining tokenized request information for the service request by replacing content in the service request (claim 1: determine tokenized request information based on replacing one or more content types within a text of the service request);
based on the tokenized request information, predicting a resource utilization value (RUV) resulting from execution of the service request (claim 1: predict, via a resource utilization model (RUM) and based on the tokenized request information, a resource utilization value (RUV) resulting from execution of the service request), wherein the RUV represents an amount of system resources that will be consumed by performing the service request (claim 1: the RUV representing an amount of system resources of the multi-tenant manager device that will be consumed by performance of the service request), and wherein the RUV is predicted based on a temporal execution value (claim 3: determine a temporal token based on a temporal execution value … and predict, via the RUM, the RUV based on the n-gram information, the temporal token, and the data volume token);
comparing the RUV to a preconfigured threshold identifying an expensive service request (claim 1: determine that the RUV is greater than a preconfigured threshold identifying an expensive request); and
based on determining that the RUV is greater than the preconfigured threshold, applying a load balancing strategy to the service request (claim 1: apply a load balancing strategy to the service request based on the RUV being greater than the preconfigured threshold.).
US 12,126,547 B2 does not disclose, but Paredes discloses temporal execution value indicating a period of time over which the service request is being executed ([0046]: receiving a request for an entity or service for admission to the communications network; at step 94, calculating resources, wherein the step of calculating resources includes: at step 96, estimating a first future resource use for current entities and services in the communications network; and at step 98, estimating a second future resource use for the entity or service received in the request).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to program the multi-tenant device, as taught by US 12,126,547 B2, to calculate resources for the service request by estimating a first future resource use and a second futures resource use for the service request, as taught by Paredes.
Doing so provides admission control in a communications network by providing resources to users in systems (Paredes: [0007]-[0008], [0046]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THE HY NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-3813. The examiner can normally be reached on Mo-Fr: 8am-4pm.
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, Joseph Avellino, can be reached on (571) 272-3905. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THE HY NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
TheHy.Nguyen@USPTO.gov
Prosecution Insights