DETAILED ACTION
This Action is a response to the filing received 24 September 2024. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 24 September 2024 is being considered by the examiner.
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 3-12 and 14-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 6, 8-12, 14-16 and 18-20 of U.S. Patent No. U.S. 12,124,845. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
With respect to the current application, claim 1 recites receiving a request to execute a job, while the ‘845 patent recites receiving a request to execute a continuous integration job involving applying a continuous integration pipeline to source code; the recitation in the ‘845 patent is an example of a job. Further, the current application recites executing the job using a node of a distributed computing system, while the ‘845 patent recites a node of a continuous integration system; a continuous integration system having nodes is an example of a distributed computing system having nodes. The current application recites accessing historical information indicating resource consumption by hardware of the first node, while the ‘845 patent recites consumption by different hardware configurations of the continuous integration system (which comprises nodes). Further, the current application describes applying a predetermined algorithm to the historical information to determine the carbon footprint, while the ‘845 patent describes determining the footprint based on the resource consumption associated with the configuration. A hardware configuration is consistent with hardware; the application of a predetermined algorithm to the historical information to determine the carbon footprint is consistent with determining the carbon footprint based on the resource consumption associated with the hardware configuration (i.e., the historical data). There are a few other minor instances of language variance which do not result in a finding that the claims of the ‘845 patent do not read on the claims of the current application. A table has been provided below highlighting the differences between the claims of the current application and those of the ‘845 patent.
Current Application
U.S. 12,124,845
1. A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program code that is executable by one or more processors for causing the one or more processors to perform operations including:
1. A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program code that is executable by one or more processors for causing the one or more processors to perform operations including:
receiving a request to execute a job;
receiving a request to execute a continuous integration job involving applying a continuous integration pipeline to source code;
predicting a first carbon footprint associated with executing the job using a first node of a distributed computing system;
predicting a first carbon footprint associated with executing the continuous integration job using a first set of nodes of a continuous integration system, wherein the first carbon footprint is predicted based on a first characteristic of the source code and a second characteristic of the continuous integration pipeline;
predicting a second carbon footprint associated with executing the job using a second node of the distributed computing system;
predicting a second carbon footprint associated with executing the continuous integration job using a second set of nodes of the continuous integration system, and wherein the second carbon footprint is predicted based on the first characteristic of the source code and the second characteristic of the continuous integration pipeline;
selecting the second node of the distributed computing system based on the second carbon footprint being lower than the first carbon footprint, wherein the selecting involves comparing the second carbon footprint to the first carbon footprint; and
selecting the second set of nodes of the continuous integration system based on the second carbon footprint being lower than the first carbon footprint, wherein the selecting involves comparing the second carbon footprint to the first carbon footprint; and
based on selecting the second node, scheduling the job to be executed on the second node.
based on selecting the second set of nodes, scheduling the continuous integration job to be executed on the second set of nodes
3. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
2. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
accessing historical information indicating resource consumption by hardware of the first node during a prior timespan; and
accessing historical information indicating resource consumption by different hardware configurations of the continuous integration system during a prior timespan;
determining the first carbon footprint by applying a predefined algorithm to the historical information.
determining a hardware configuration associated with the first set of nodes; and determining the first carbon footprint based on the resource consumption associated with the hardware configuration.
4. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
3. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
accessing historical information indicating carbon footprints associated with prior executions of the job; and
accessing historical information that includes prior carbon footprints associated with prior executions of the continuous integration pipeline; and
determining the first carbon footprint based on the historical information.
determining the first carbon footprint based on the prior carbon footprints.
5. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
14. The method of claim 11, further comprising:
determining one or more characteristics of the job; and
Determining at least two characteristics of the source code; and
determining the first carbon footprint based on the one or more characteristics of the job.
determining the first carbon footprint based on the at least two characteristics of the source code.
6. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 5, wherein the one or more characteristics of the job include a length or a complexity of the job.
15. The method of claim 14, wherein the one or more at least two characteristics of the source code include a length and a complexity of the source code.
7. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
6. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: determining that a continuous integration task is to be performed by the second set of nodes as part of the continuous integration pipeline; determining that a particular node of the second set of nodes is designated to perform the continuous integration task;
determining, at a first point in time, that the second node is unable to perform the job;
determining, at a first point in time, that the particular node is unable to perform the continuous integration task;
based on determining that the second node is unable to perform the job, delaying performance of the job until at least a second point in time at which the second node is able to perform the job; and
based on determining that the particular node is unable to perform the continuous integration task, delaying performance of the continuous integration task until at least a second point in time at which the particular node is able to perform the continuous integration task; and
subsequent to the second point in time, causing the second node to perform the job.
subsequent to the second point in time, causing the particular node to perform the continuous integration task.
8. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the job includes a continuous integration job.
[from claim 1] receiving a request to execute a continuous integration job
9. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
8. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise:
determining a carbon footprint associated with executing the job using the distributed computing system;
determining a carbon footprint associated with applying the continuous integration pipeline to a piece of source code using the continuous integration system;
determining that the carbon footprint exceeds a predefined threshold; and
determining that the carbon footprint exceeds a predefined threshold; and
in response to determining that the carbon footprint exceeds the predefined threshold, preventing or delaying execution of the job.
in response to determining that the carbon footprint exceeds the predefined threshold, preventing or delaying application of the continuous integration pipeline to the piece of source code.
10. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: generating a graphical user interface for display to an entity, the graphical user interface indicating the first carbon footprint associated with the first node.
9. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: generating a graphical user interface for display to an entity, the graphical user interface indicating the first carbon footprint associated with the first set of nodes.
11. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 10, wherein the graphical user interface further indicates the second carbon footprint associated with the second node.
10. The non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 9, wherein the graphical user interface further indicates the second carbon footprint associated with the second set of nodes.
12. A method comprising: … by one or more processors … [[[performing the operations of the computer-readable medium of claim 1]]]
11. A method comprising: … by one or more processors … [[[performing the operations of the computer-readable medium of claim 1]]]
CLAIMS 14-19 = CLAIMS 3-8
CLAIM 12 = CLAIM 2
CLAIMS 16 = CLAIM 6
CLAIMS 18-19 = CLAIMS 8-9
20. A system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories storing instructions that are executable by the one or more processors for causing the one or more processors to perform operations including: [[[the operations of the computer-readable medium of claim 1]]]
20. A system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories storing instructions that are executable by the one or more processors for causing the one or more processors to perform operations including: [[[the operations of the computer-readable medium of claim 1]]]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Examiner first notes that at Step 1 of the patent subject matter eligibility process, the claims recite statutory subject matter: claims 1-11 recite articles of manufacture, claims 12-19 recite processes, and claim 20 recites a machine. The analysis therefore proceeds to Step 2.
At Step 2A, Prong 1, the claims are evaluated for whether they recite (set forth or describe) an abstract idea. Claim 1 recites the following mental process steps: (1) predicting a first carbon footprint associated with executing a job using a first node of a distributed computing system; (2) predicting a second carbon footprint associated with executing a job using a second node of a distributed computing system; and (3) selecting the second node of the distributed computing system based on the second carbon footprint being lower than the first carbon footprint, wherein the selecting involves comparing the second carbon footprint to the first carbon footprint. Each of these is an observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion that a human user of a computing system could make having information regarding the energy consumption or other factors related to carbon consumption for executing a job on the nodes. The claim does not specify how the prediction is made, or how the data is obtained from which the prediction will be determined. Accordingly, having any information about the job, the first node and the second node, a human user would be able to predict, in at least a rudimentary level, the carbon footprints associated with executing the job on the first and second nodes, and compare the footprints to determine that the second one is lower.
The analysis therefore proceeds to Step 2A, Prong 2, where the claims are evaluated for whether they integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 1 additionally recites (1) a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program code that is executable by one or more processors for causing the processors to perform operations; (2) receiving a request to execute a job; and (3) based on selecting the second node, scheduling the job to be executed on the second node. Element (1) recites that the abstract idea is performed on a general-purpose computer or in a general-purpose computing environment and/or using a general-purpose computer as a tool. Element (2) recites necessary pre-solution data gathering; that is, in order to perform predictions related to the job, a request pursuant to executing the job must be received. Element (3) is an insignificant application, merely setting forth an idea of a solution or outcome recited at a high level of generality, or consistent with the words “apply it.” Whether considered individually or as a combination, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The analysis proceeds to Step 2B, where the claims are evaluated for whether they recite significantly more than the abstract idea. The conclusions reached at Step 2A, Prong 2 are incorporated, and certain additional elements are recited for whether they recite other than what is well-understood, routine and/or conventional in the field. Element (1) recites general-purpose computing components performing their well-understood functions (i.e., a memory for storing instructions, which may be stored or retrieved, and a processor for executing the instructions, i.e., performing repetitive calculations). Element (2) recites transmitting data over a network and/or retrieving information from memory or storage. Whether considered individually or as a combination, the additional elements do not recite significantly more.
Accordingly, claim 1 is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claims 12 and 20 are ineligible for the same reasons as those of claim 1. Claim 12 recites a method, wherein the steps are performed by one or more processors. Claim 20 recites a system including processors and memories storing instructions for execution by the processors. These elements recite that the abstract idea is performed on a general-purpose computer or in a general-purpose computing environment and/or using a general-purpose computer as a tool.
Claims 2 and 13 recite determining that the first and second nodes are associated with respective first and second footprint factors, and selecting the second node for job execution based on the second node being associated with the second factor. These represent additional observations, evaluations, judgments and/or opinions that can be made by a human with information about the job and the system.
Claims 3-4 and 14-15 recite accessing historical information indicating resource consumption by node hardware during a prior timespan or associated with prior executions of the job (necessary pre-solution data gathering; retrieving information from memory or over a network); and determining the first carbon footprint based on the historical information or by using a predefined algorithm (an observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion by a user regarding the footprint based on the historical data, mentally and/or using pen and paper).
Claims 5-6 and 16-17 recite determining one or more characteristics (length or complexity) of the job and determining the carbon footprint based on the characteristics. These limitations represent additional observations, evaluations, judgments and/or opinions that can be made by a human with information about the job and the system.
Claims 7 and 18 recite determining that at a first point in time that the second node is unable to perform the job, delaying the job until at least a second point in time, and causing the second node to perform the job. These represent additional observations, evaluations, judgments and/or opinions that can be made by a human with information about the job and the system, and an insignificant application.
Claim 8 recites that the job includes a continuous integration job, which is merely descriptive of the type of job.
Claims 9 and 19 recite determining a carbon footprint associated with executing the job using the distributed computing system exceeds a threshold, and in response thereto, preventing or delaying execution of the job. These represent additional observations, evaluations, judgments and/or opinions that can be made by a human with information about the job and the system, and an insignificant application.
Claims 10 and 11 recite generating a graphical user interface for display which indicates the first and further indicates the second carbon footprint. This represents an insignificant application, an insignificant post-solution activity of display of a result of the abstract idea process, and does not recite other than what is well-understood, routine and/or conventional activity in the field.
In view of the foregoing, claims 2-20 are also ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 9, 12-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Herb et al., U.S. 2023/0017632 A1 (“Herb”) in view of Barsness et al., U.S. 2010/0257531 A1 (“Barsness”)1.
Regarding claim 1, Herb teaches: A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising program code that is executable by one or more processors for causing the one or more processors to perform operations (Herb, e.g., ¶81, “System memory 1020 may be configured to store program instructions 1100 … executable by a processor … to implement one or more embodiments of the present techniques …”) including: …
predicting a first carbon footprint associated with executing the job using a first node of a distributed computing system; predicting a second carbon footprint associated with executing the job using a second node of the distributed computing system (Herb, e.g., ¶41, “predict an environmental impact score for members of a set of candidate computing resources associated with a workload task distribution schedule for executing an application based on an anticipated amount of computing resource consumption for different combinations of candidate computing resources …” See also, e.g., ¶38, “obtain, predict, or otherwise determine environmental impact scores such as a carbon footprint amount …”; ¶31, “an application workload may be fragmented into a plurality of workload tasks that may be distributed across a plurality of data centers or other computing resources …”; and ¶33, “a computing resource may include a specific hardware component or a combination of hardware components … a data center, a portion of a data center … a virtual computing resource … a set of containers, virtual machines …” See also, e.g., ¶17, “determine … for each candidate computing resource, for the workload, compute a set of carbon footprint scores …”);
selecting the second node of the distributed computing system based on the second carbon footprint being lower than the first carbon footprint, wherein the selecting involves comparing the second carbon footprint to the first carbon footprint (Herb, e.g., ¶50, “multiply a performance score … by a weighting factor … and an environmental impact score … by a weighting factor … to receive the weighted performance score … which may be used as a workload distribution value … compare the workload distribution values and determine that the first workload distribution value is less than any other value of the plurality of workload distribution values …” See also, e.g., ¶56, “some embodiments may determine a workload task distribution schedule based on one score … such as by determining a workload task distribution schedule based on an environmental impact score without consideration for a computing performance measure …”); and
based on selecting the second node, scheduling the job to be executed on the second node (Herb, e.g., ¶50, “select the first workload task distribution schedule to use for orchestration based on a determination the workload distribution value satisfies a selection criterion when the workload distribution value is a minimum value in a set of other workload distribution values”).
Herb does not more particularly teach receiving a request to execute a job. However, Barsness does teach: receiving a request to execute a job (Barsness, e.g., ¶8, “receiving a request to process a job on a multi-node computer system … estimating a predicted environmental impact for executing each job plan … selecting … one of the plurality of job plans …”) for the purpose of determining an estimated environmental impact for executing one or more plans for executing a job and determining which of multiple potential plans should be used to execute the job based at least on the environmental impact (Barsness, e.g., ¶¶8-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method for energy emissions conscious workload processing distribution as taught by Herb to provide for receiving a request to execute a job because the disclosure of Barsness shows that it was known to those of ordinary skill in the pertinent art to improve a system and method for scheduling jobs in a distributed computing system based on environmental impact to provide for receiving a request to execute a job for the purpose of determining an estimated environmental impact for executing one or more plans for executing a job and determining which of multiple potential plans should be used to execute the job based at least on the environmental impact (Barsness, Id.).
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected for the reasons given in the rejection of claim 1 above. Examiner notes that with respect to claim 12, Herb further teaches: A method comprising: … by one or more processors (Herb, e.g., ¶30, “a process for tracking and responding to resource consumption …” See also, e.g., ¶81, “System memory 1020 may be configured to store program instructions 1100 … executable by a processor … to implement one or more embodiments of the present techniques …”) … [[[performing the operations of the computer-readable medium of claim 1]]]; and with respect to claim 20, Herb further teaches: A system (Herb, e.g., ¶77, system 1000) comprising: one or more processors (Herb, e.g., ¶78, one or more processors 1010a-1010n); and one or more memories storing instructions that are executable by the one or more processors for causing the one or more processors to perform operations (Herb, e.g., ¶81, “System memory 1020 may be configured to store program instructions 1100 … executable by a processor … to implement one or more embodiments of the present techniques …”) including: [[[the operations of the computer-readable medium of claim 1]]].
Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Herb further teaches: wherein the operations further comprise: determining that the first node is associated with a first carbon footprint factor; determining that the second node is associated with a second carbon footprint factor that is different than the first carbon footprint factor (Herb, e.g., ¶34, “obtaining telemetry values indicating the utilization of candidate computing resources … used to indicate … an energy consumption value of the computing resource …” See also, e.g., ¶38, “predicting or otherwise determining a set of environmental impact scores based on a set of possible workload task distribution schedules associated with the set of candidate computing resources … such as a carbon footprint amount …” See also, e.g., ¶¶39-40, describing factors used in determining carbon footprint / environmental impact values for different computing resources); and
based on the second node being associated with the second carbon footprint factor, selecting the second node for use in executing the job over the first node (Herb, e.g., ¶48, “determine a workload task distribution schedule including members of the set of candidate computing resources based on the set of environmental impact scores …”).
Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Herb further teaches: wherein the operations further comprise: accessing historical information indicating resource consumption by hardware of the first node during a prior timespan (Herb, e.g., ¶44, “a history of past energy use associated with an application may be used to predict or otherwise determine environmental impact scores for a respective workload task distribution schedule associated with a respective combination of candidate computing resources …”); and
determining the first carbon footprint by applying a predefined algorithm to the historical information (Herb, e.g., ¶44, “use a set of obtained telemetry values of one or more computing resources to predict figure energy use … use probabilistic relationships between variables of interest to determine future energy use or other values related to an environmental impact score …”).
Regarding claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Herb further teaches: wherein the operations further comprise: accessing historical information indicating carbon footprints associated with prior executions of the job (Herb, e.g., ¶44, “a history of past energy use associated with an application may be used to predict or otherwise determine environmental impact scores for a respective workload task distribution schedule associated with a respective combination of candidate computing resources …” See also, e.g., ¶46, “determine the set of computing performance measures of … computing resources based on telemetry data … processor performance values …”); and
determining the first carbon footprint based on the historical information (Herb, e.g., ¶44, “use a set of obtained telemetry values of one or more computing resources to predict figure energy use … use probabilistic relationships between variables of interest to determine future energy use or other values related to an environmental impact score …”).
Claims 13-15 are rejected for the additional reasons given in the rejections of claims 2-4 above.
Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Herb further teaches: wherein the operations further comprise: determining a carbon footprint associated with executing the job using the distributed computing system (Herb, e.g., ¶41, “predict an environmental impact score for members of a set of candidate computing resources associated with a workload task distribution schedule for executing an application based on an anticipated amount of computing resource consumption for different combinations of candidate computing resources …”);
determining that the carbon footprint exceeds a predefined threshold (Herb, e.g., ¶55, “some embodiments may first select a set of combinations of data centers determined to satisfy an environmental impact threshold … each respective subset of data centers … may be selected based on a determination that the respective subset of data centers has a collective carbon footprint of less than 1000 kilograms …”); and
in response to determining that the carbon footprint exceeds the predefined threshold, preventing or delaying execution of the job (Herb, e.g., ¶55, “determine a workload task distribution schedule based on a maximum or minimum of the computing performance measures of the workload task distribution schedules that satisfy the environmental impact threshold …” Examiner’s note: the application is prevented from being executed on any subset of computing resources failing to have a carbon footprint under a predetermined threshold; that is, prevented from being executed on a subset of computing resources having a carbon footprint exceeding the threshold).
Claim 19 is rejected for the additional reasons given in the rejection of claim 9 above.
Claims 5-6 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Herb in view of Barsness, and in further view of Roy et al., U.S. 2007/0136720 A1 (“Roy”)2.
Regarding claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, but Herb in view of Barsness does not more particularly teach determining one or more characteristics of the job and determining the first carbon footprint based on the characteristics. However, Roy does teach: wherein the operations further comprise: determining one or more characteristics of the job; and determining the first carbon footprint based on the one or more characteristics of the job (Roy, e.g., ¶15, “a method for estimating the energy usage of the program code that is executable …” See also, e.g., ¶16, “determining the NOP energy of the … execution set … length Ni of the execution set is determined … length … refers to the number of instructions …”) for the purpose of efficiently estimating the estimated energy usage of a processor during the execution of a set of instructions (Roy, e.g., ¶¶11-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method for energy emissions conscious workload processing distribution as taught by Herb in view of Barsness to provide for determining one or more characteristics of the job and determining the first carbon footprint based on the characteristics because the disclosure of Roy shows that it was known to those of ordinary skill in the pertinent art to improve a system and method for estimating energy usage of one or more computing hardware elements to provide for determining one or more characteristics of the job and determining the first carbon footprint based on the characteristics for the purpose of efficiently estimating the estimated energy usage of a processor during the execution of a set of instructions (Roy, Id.).
Regarding claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated, and Roy further teaches: wherein the one or more characteristics of the job include a length or a complexity of the job (Roy, e.g., ¶15, “a method for estimating the energy usage of the program code that is executable …” See also, e.g., ¶16, “determining the NOP energy of the … execution set … length Ni of the execution set is determined … length … refers to the number of instructions …”).
Claims 16-17 are rejected for the additional reasons given in the rejections of claims 5-6 above.
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Herb in view of Barsness, and in further view of Smaldone et al., U.S. 10,540,202 B1 (“Smaldone”)3.
Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, but Herb in view of Barsness does not more particularly teach determining that the second node is unable to perform the job at a first point in time, based thereon delaying job performance until at least a second point in time at which the second node is able, and subsequent to the second point, performing the job on the second node. However, Smaldone does teach: wherein the operations further comprise: determining, at a first point in time, that the second node is unable to perform the job (Smaldone, e.g., 8:51-67, “determined whether scheduler 255 was able to use predictive model 250 to find node(s)having sufficient idle computing resources to process a workload 280. If not, then method 500 continues at operation 510 …”);
based on determining that the second node is unable to perform the job, delaying performance of the job until at least a second point in time at which the second node is able to perform the job; and subsequent to the second point in time, causing the second node to perform the job (Smaldone, e.g., 8:51-67, “determined whether alternate node(s) 200 were found by the predictive model 250 to execute workload 280. If not, then method 500 continues at operation 515 … In operation 515, workload 280 can be rescheduled to a later time when resources may be available …” See also, e.g., FIG. 4 and 8:18-46, wherein subsequent to scheduling / rescheduling operations, workload job processing status is determined, including whether the job was completed, paused, and the resource consumption of the job) for the purpose of utilizing predictive models to determine resource consumption requirements of a workload on one or more nodes of a distributed processing system, predicting future resource availability of the one or more nodes, and scheduling and/or rescheduling workflow tasks on the nodes when one or more nodes are unavailable (Smaldone, e.g., 2:11-3:7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method for energy emissions conscious workload processing distribution as taught by Herb in view of Barsness to provide for determining that the second node is unable to perform the job at a first point in time, based thereon delaying job performance until at least a second point in time at which the second node is able, and subsequent to the second point, performing the job on the second node because the disclosure of Smaldone shows that it was known to those of ordinary skill in the pertinent art to improve a system and method for using predictive models to determine workload resource requirements and distributed node resource availabilities to provide for determining that the second node is unable to perform the job at a first point in time, based thereon delaying job performance until at least a second point in time at which the second node is able, and subsequent to the second point, performing the job on the second node for the purpose of utilizing predictive models to determine resource consumption requirements of a workload on one or more nodes of a distributed processing system, predicting future resource availability of the one or more nodes, and scheduling and/or rescheduling workflow tasks on the nodes when one or more nodes are unavailable (Smaldone, Id.).
Claim 18 is rejected for the additional reasons given in the rejection of claim 7 above.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Herb in view of Barsness, and in further view of Kuris et al., U.S. 10,678,677 B1 (“Kuris”).
Regarding claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, but Herb in view of Barsness does not more particularly teach that the job includes a continuous integration job. However, Kuris does teach: wherein the job includes a continuous integration job (Kuris, e.g., 12:51-13:4, “job scheduler 140 executes in a continuous integration, continuous development, or continuous deployment environment … job configuration 170 may be expected to execute without error, for example, based on both source code projects 180B and 184B passing their respective quality assurance testing processes …”) for the purpose of determining when and where to schedule debugging jobs in a continuous development environment (Kuris, e.g., 12:51-16:37).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method for energy emissions conscious workload processing distribution as taught by Herb in view of Barsness to provide that the job includes a continuous integration job because the disclosure of Kuris shows that it was known to those of ordinary skill in the pertinent art to improve a system and method for requesting and scheduling jobs in a continuous integration, development or deployment environment to provide that the job includes a continuous integration job for the purpose of determining when and where to schedule debugging jobs in a continuous development environment (Kuris, Id.).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Herb in view of Barsness, and in further view of Duncan et al., U.S. 2016/0380844 A1 (“Duncan”)4.
Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, but Herb in view of Barsness does not more particularly teach generating a GUI for display to an entity which indicates the first carbon footprint associated with the first node. However, Duncan does teach: wherein the operations further comprise: generating a graphical user interface for display to an entity, the graphical user interface indicating the first carbon footprint associated with the first node (Duncan, e.g., ¶35, “configure the IVCMC [Interactive Component-Level Visual Monitoring and Control] system 110 to display on the display device 146 the visual representation 128 of one of the plurality of different system, node subnode levels … of the HIS 100 based on a current level identified/selected on the GUI … a sensor reading is out of a normal operating range, such as for power consumed … in response to receiving a user input selecting a specific component level among the one or more levels … modify the GUI 148 to display the visual representation 128a-128d of the specific component level …” See also, e.g., FIG. 5, displaying a power consumption for a selected first data center / modular data center / information handling systems, of a plurality of DCs / MDCs / IHSs) for the purpose of providing to a user a variety of visualizations of the energy consumption and operating status of one or more groups of hardware resources comprised in one or more data centers or other distributed processing systems and subsystems (Duncan, e.g., ¶¶7-11).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method for energy emissions conscious workload processing distribution as taught by Herb in view of Barsness to provide for generating a GUI for display to an entity which indicates the first carbon footprint associated with the first node because the disclosure of Duncan shows that it was known to those of ordinary skill in the pertinent art to improve a system and method for monitoring the energy usage of one or more data centers and the one or more individual hardware elements in each to provide for generating a GUI for display to an entity which indicates the first carbon footprint associated with the first node for the purpose of providing to a user a variety of visualizations of the energy consumption and operating status of one or more groups of hardware resources comprised in one or more data centers or other distributed processing systems and subsystems (Duncan, Id.).
Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 10 is incorporated, and Duncan further teaches: wherein the graphical user interface further indicates the second carbon footprint associated with the second node (Duncan, e.g., ¶35, “configure the IVCMC [Interactive Component-Level Visual Monitoring and Control] system 110 to display on the display device 146 the visual representation 128 of one of the plurality of different system, node subnode levels … of the HIS 100 based on a current level identified/selected on the GUI … a sensor reading is out of a normal operating range, such as for power consumed … in response to receiving a user input selecting a specific component level among the one or more levels … modify the GUI 148 to display the visual representation 128a-128d of the specific component level …” See also, e.g., FIG. 5, displaying a power consumption for a selected first data center / modular data center / information handling systems, of a plurality of DCs / MDCs / IHSs, wherein other systems can be selected and/or drilled down upon to view status information such as power consumption).
Conclusion
Examiner has identified particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of this action for the convenience of Applicant. Although the citations made are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the enumerated claims, the teaching of the cited art as a whole is not limited to the cited passages. Other passages and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing the response, should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art and/or disclosed by Examiner.
Examiner respectfully requests that, in response to this Office Action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist Examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this Office Action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37 C.F.R. 1.111(c).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone and video conferencing using a USPTO-supplied web-based collaboration tool. Applicant is encouraged to submit an Automated Interview Request (AIR) which may be done via https://www.uspto.gov/patent/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form, or may contact Examiner directly via the methods below.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from Examiner should be directed to Andrew M. Lyons, whose telephone number is (571) 270-3529, and whose fax number is (571) 270-4529. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM ET. If attempts to reach Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, Examiner’s supervisor, Wei Mui, can be reached at (571) 272-3708. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center system. For more information about the Patent Center system, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center. 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.
/Andrew M. Lyons/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2191
1 As these references are cited in the 24 September 2024 IDS, they are not cited on the attached PTOL-892
2 As Roy is cited in the 24 September 2024 IDS, it is not cited on the attached PTOL-892
3 As Smaldone is cited in the 24 September 2024 IDS, it is not cited on the attached PTOL-892
4 As Duncan is cited in the 24 September 2024 IDS, it is not cited on the attached PTOL-892
Prosecution Insights