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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on April 4, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings have been considered and accepted by the examiner.
Specification
The title, abstract, and specification have been considered and accepted 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 21, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 39, and 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 12,210,747. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the present claims are a broadening of scope of the claims of the ‘747 and would therefore be anticipated by the claims of the ‘747 patent.
Present Claims
US 12,210,747
21. A method performed by one or more processing resources of one or more computer systems, the method comprising:
monitoring the QoS performance values including in telemetry data during execution of a workload to determine whether a performance metric is violated;
determining whether a QoS adjustment would result in a conflict between a plurality of QoS objectives upon determining that a performance metric is violated; and
automatically adjusting, upon determining that the QoS adjustment would result in the conflict, a QoS policy based on a preference rule that provides an objective preference between a plurality of QoS objectives.
1. A method performed by one or more processing resources of one or more computer systems, the method comprising:
2. …monitoring telemetry data associated with the client device to retrieve performance values associated with the QoS objectives.
1. …determining, during execution of a client workload, whether one or more of performance values exceed one or more of the plurality of QoS parameters;
determining, during execution of the client workload, whether a QoS adjustment would result in a conflict between a first QoS objective and a second QoS objective; and
3. …performing a QoS adjustment that complies with the objective preference.
22. The method of claim 21, further comprising examining the preference rule to select between a first QoS object and a second QoS objective.
1. …examining, during execution of the client workload, the one or more preference rules in the client preferences to determine a rule that indicates an objective preference between the first QoS objective and the second QoS objective upon determining that the QoS adjustment would result in the conflict.
25. The method of claim 22, further comprising performing one or more QoS adjustments upon determining that the QoS adjustment would not result in a conflict between the first QoS objective and the second QoS objective.
4. The method of claim 1, further comprising performing one or more QoS adjustments upon determining that the QoS adjustment would not result in a conflict between the first QoS objective and the second QoS objective.
26. The method of claim 22, wherein the performance rule indicates that the first QoS objective may be exceeded as long as the second QoS objective does not fall below a threshold.
5. The method of claim 4, wherein the rule indicates that the first QoS objective may be exceeded as long as the second QoS objective does not fall below a threshold.
Claims 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 39, and 40 are directed to computer-readable storage medium and system embodiments of the above method claims and would therefore be obvious over the corresponding claims of the ‘747 patent.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23, 24, 27, 30, 31, 34, 37 and 38 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.
Claims 21, 22, 25, 26, 28, 29, 32, 33, 35, 36, 39, and 40 would be allowable if the double patenting rejection were overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not disclose or suggest determining whether a QoS adjustment would result in a conflict between a plurality of QoS objectives upon determining that a performance metric is violated and automatically adjusting a QoS policy based on a preference rule that provides an objective preference between a plurality of QoS objectives.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL D TSUI whose telephone number is (571)270-3253. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Hosain Alam can be reached at (571)272-3978. 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.
/DANIEL D TSUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2132