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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the filing of Patent Application 18982430 on 12/16/2024.
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 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim recites a “computer program product comprising computer-executable instructions that are stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium. The computer program product is interpreted as the instructions only. The non-transitory computer readable medium is not positively recited as part of the product. Therefore, these claims stand rejected as software per se without the accompanying hardware. Examiner recommends positively claiming the non-transitory computer readable medium.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
1. 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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1 is/are drawn to method (i.e., a process), claim(s) 7, 13 is/are drawn to a system (i.e., a machine/manufacture), and claim(s) 19 is/are drawn to non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claims 1, 7, 13, 19 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1-20 are directed to creating a trusted group to share resources. Specifically, the claims recite obtaining, from a tenant and via an interface of the cloud management platform, a resource pool deployment request for M edge nodes, wherein an i.sup.th group of applications in M groups of applications is on an i.sup.th edge node in the M edge nodes, wherein M≥2, and wherein M≥i≥1; and setting, based on the resource pool deployment request, an edge node resource pool comprising the M edge nodes so that every two edge nodes in the edge node resource pool trust each other and have a resource sharing capability, which is grouped within the Methods Of Organizing Human Activity and is similar to the concept of (fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging insurance, mitigating risk) OR (commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations) OR (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities teaching, and following rules or instructions) OR Mental Processes and is similar to the concept of (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as an interface, processor, network, non-transitory computer readable storage medium merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link(s) the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, the an interface, processor, network, non-transitory computer readable storage medium perform(s) the steps or functions of receiving request. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of using a an interface, processor, network, non-transitory computer readable storage medium to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of creating a trusted group to share resources. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the an interface, processor, network, non-transitory computer readable storage medium perform(s) the steps or functions of receiving request. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of creating a trusted group to share resources. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-12, 14-18, 20 further describe the abstract idea of creating a trusted group to share resources. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith (U.S. Patent App Pub 20210021619).
Regarding claim 1,
Smith teaches the method implemented by a cloud management platform, wherein the method comprises: obtaining, from a tenant and via an interface of the cloud management platform, a resource pool deployment request for M edge nodes, wherein an i.sup.th group of applications in M groups of applications is on an i.sup.th edge node in the M edge nodes, wherein M≥2, and wherein M≥i≥1; and (See paragraphs 218, 102-104, abstract and fig 8, Smith teaches obtaining a request to perform a workload on a group of edge nodes (2 edge nodes running applications)
setting, based on the resource pool deployment request, an edge node resource pool comprising the M edge nodes so that every two edge nodes in the edge node resource pool trust each other and have a resource sharing capability. (See paragraphs 102-104, 107-108 abstract, and fig 8, Smith teaches a group of nodes keep track of each others reputation/trust scores so two edge nodes trust each other based on reputations core. Further paragraph 60 teaches resources being able to be transferred from edge node to edge node. So containers are live-migrated between the edge nodes inn the group – resources are shared between the edge nodes based on trust)
Regarding claim 2,
Smith teaches the method of claim 1, wherein setting the edge node resource pool comprises: generating, based on a digital certification authority (CA) certificate, a certificate chain comprising M certificates; and sending, to the i.sup.th edge node, an i.sup.th certificate in the M certificates indicating that the i.sup.th edge node is trustworthy in the edge node resource pool. (See paragraphs 24-25, 139 Smith teaches each node receives and holds ETV *evidence token) proving trustworthiness within the group)
Regarding claim 3,
Smith teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying that the i.sup.th edge node is faulty; migrating, in response to identifying that the i.sup.th edge node is faulty, an i.sup.th certificate and the i.sup.th group of applications from the i.sup.th edge node to a target edge node other than the M edge nodes; and setting the target edge node as a new i.sup.th edge node in the M edge nodes. (See paragraphs 156, 60, 26, Smith teaches node is evicted the workload and its attestation evidence move to the replacement node which then joins the group)
Regarding claim 4,
Smith teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising setting an application scheduling mechanism on the i.sup.th edge node to enable the i.sup.th edge node to migrate a part of applications in the i.sup.th group of applications to a j.sup.th edge node when a resource for running the i.sup.th group of applications is greater than a preset resource threshold, wherein j=1, . . . , M, and wherein j≠i. (See paragraphs 122, 49-50, Smith teaches controller on every node monitors resource thresholds and migrates portions of the workload when the threshold is exceeded)
Regarding claim 5,
Smith teaches the method of claim 4, wherein the j.sup.th edge node is one of the M edge nodes other than the i.sup.th edge node. (See paragraphs 60-61, 149, Smith teaches migrating from an edge node to other edge nodes all with the group managed by the ledger)
Regarding claim 6,
Smith teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the resource pool deployment request comprises resource information of a resource, and wherein the resource comprises at least one of a computing resource, a storage resource, or a network resource. (See paragraphs 23, 36, Smith)
Claims 7-12 list all the same elements of claims 1-6, but in system form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claims 1-6 applies equally as well to claims 7-12. Furthermore, with regards to the limitation of 7. A cloud management platform comprising: an interface; and a processor coupled to the interface and configured to: (See paragraphs 41, 88, Smith)
Claims 13-18 list all the same elements of claims 1-6, but in system form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claims 1-6 applies equally as well to claims 13-18. Furthermore, with regards to the limitation of
13. A system comprising: M edge nodes, wherein an i.sup.th group of applications in M groups of applications is on an i.sup.th edge node in the M edge nodes, wherein M≥2, and wherein M≥i≥1; and a cloud management platform comprising a interface, coupled to the M edge nodes, (See paragraphs 218, 102-104, abstract and fig 8, Smith teaches obtaining a request to perform a workload on a group of edge nodes (2 edge nodes running applications)
Claims 19-20 list all the same elements of claims 1-2, but in system form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claims 1-2 applies equally as well to claims 19-20. Furthermore, with regards to the limitation of 19. A computer program product comprising computer-executable instructions that are stored on a non-transitory computer readable medium and that, when executed by a processor, cause a cloud management platform to: (See paragraphs 99-100, Smith)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and located in the PTO-892 form.
1.So, U.S. Patent App 20200374740, teaches techniques for distribution of application logic in digital networks are disclosed. In one embodiment, the techniques may be realized as a method that includes receiving a request from a first device to initiate a service instance associated with a service. The service instance is associated with application logic. The method further includes determining one or more parameters associated with the request, identifying at least a portion of the application logic to distribute to a mobile edge server based on the one or more parameters, and distributing the at least a portion of the application logic to the mobile edge server to cause the mobile edge server to provide the service instance to the first device.
2. Giust, U.S. Patent App, 20190104030, teaches a method for operating, by an MEC operator, a multi-access edge computing (MEC) system in which applications are provided by MEC tenants for deployment on MEC hosts of the MEC system and in which various levels of privileges are provided by the MEC operator to the MEC tenants. The method includes assigning, by an MEC broker, privileges to the MEC tenants; initiating, by the MEC broker via interactions with one or more of an MEC Orchestrator, an MEC platform manager, and a user app LCM proxy, operations. The operations can include one or more of application package on-boarding, application instance installation on selected MEC hosts, application provisioning, through configuration of appropriate parameters, and application life-cycle management operations including one or more of bootstrapping, termination, migration, scaling. The method further includes pre-validating, using the privileges provided to the MEC tenants, operation requests issued by the MEC tenants.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NINOS DONABED whose telephone number is (571)272-8757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00pm - 4:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, John FOLLANSBEE can be reached on (571)272-3964. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NINOS DONABED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444
Prosecution Insights