DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
Applicant presents a communication dated 30 June 2026 in response to the 2 March 2025 non-final Office action (the “Previous Action”).
Claims 1, 7 and 14 are amended.
Claims 1-21 remain pending. Claims 1, 7 and 14 are the independent claims.
Any unpersuasive arguments are addressed in the “Response to Arguments” section below. Any new ground(s) of rejection were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues with respect to the § 112 rejections that claims 7 and 14 have been amended in accordance with the Office’s requests. (Remarks, p. 11 Sec. III).
Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that while Applicant has corrected previously unnoticed indefinite claim language in claims 7 and 14, the indefinite language noted in the Previous Action has not been so corrected. The § 112 rejections are accordingly maintained.
Applicant argues with respect to the 103 rejections of claim 1 that Wipfel does not teach “wherein the environment operates on a virtual network comprising a test subnet, a server subnet, and a module subnet” because emulating resources does not teach or suggest these features. (Remarks, p. 12 par. 2).
Examiner respectfully disagrees that Wipfel does not teach or suggest these features and refers Applicant to the passages of Wipfel cited with respect to these features in the rejections below. Note that they are not asserted to be taught merely because Wipfel teaches emulating resources.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the metadata file selecting additional software service components in claim 1 are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection below.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the remaining claims by virtue of their dependence from claim 1, similarity with claim 1 or dependence from a similar claim are unpersuasive and/or moot for the same reasons.
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 but NONE of Applicant’s claims are entitled to the to the benefit of the filing date of the prior-filed application for the reasons set forth in previous actions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 7-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Further as to claim 7, the claim refers to “the application capability” in the last line of p. 5. However, the claim previously refers to an “an application capability” at p. 4 line 22 and “an updated capability” at p. 5 ll. 7-8. It is unclear from this language to which application capability “the” application capability is referring in the last line of p. 5. For the purposes of examination, “the application capability” in the last line of p. 5 will be construed as -the updated application capability-.
As to claims 8-13, the claims are dependent on claim 7 but do not cure the deficiencies of that claim. Accordingly, they are rejected for the same reasons.
As to claim 14, the claim is indefinite for reasons substantially the same as those set forth above with respect to claim 1 and the claim will be construed in substantially the same manner.
As to claims 15-21, the claims are dependent on claim 14 but do not cure the deficiencies of that claim. Accordingly, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-11, 14-16, 18 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wipfel (US 2011/0126207) (art of record – hereinafter Wipfel) in view of Meyer et al. (US 2019/0245757) (art made of record – hereinafter Meyer) in view of Balderas et al. (US 2020/0089551) (art of record – hereinafter Balderas), ebicoglu, “Tenant Management” (art of record – hereinafter ebicoglu), Mathieu et al. (US 2006/0253848) (art of record – hereinafter Mathieu), Friedman (US 2013/0297922) (art made of record – hereinafter Friedman) and Li (US 2018/0034908) (art of record – hereinafter Li).
NOTE: ebicoglu is a webpage and therefore has no page numbers. Page numbers cited herein refer to the copy of the reference in the file record.
As to claim 1, Wipfel discloses a system for generating an environment, the system comprising:
at least one processor; (e.g., Wipfel, par. [0144]) and
at least one non-transitory memory storing instructions to perform operations when executed by the at least one processor (e.g., Wipfel, par. [0144]) including:
receiving, from a user device, a request to establish an environment including functionality of an application of the environment, (e.g., Wipfel, par. [0128]: a particular user or customer requesting a service that will provide [a] electronic mail application for a particular number of users. The user or customer may provide various parameters define a requested service level for the service to be provisioned “(e.g., parameters to define criteria for availability, priority, security, change, utilization, patching, capacity, etc.) wherein the environment comprises one or more devices, an application layer, an application foundation layer, an infrastructure layer, and a network layer; (e.g., Wipfel, abstract: blueprints to provision tessellated services. The blueprint may be instantiated to deploy the orchestrated virtual machines [devices] on information technology resources allocated to host the requested service, thereby provisioning the requested service; Fig. 3A and associated text, par. [0112]: FIG. 3A illustrates an exemplary virtual machine [note the various layers in the figure, at least the “Applications” 315c or Virtual Distribution layer shown being an application layer, all layers above “Applications” or “Virtual Distribution” in the figure being application foundation layer(s)]; par. [0119]: FIG. 3B illustrates an exemplary tessellated service distribution [note the various layers in the figure, note the network devices 340a in the bottom layer, making that layer a network layer]; par. [0020]: FIG. 3C and associated text, par. [0139]: management level-virtual machines may operate on a separate logical layer to provide an underlying infrastructure that hosts and manages the virtual machine infrastructure that provides the service on the first logical layer), and wherein the environment operates on virtual network comprising a test subnet, a server subnet, and a module subnet (e.g., Wipfel, Figs. 3A, 3B and associated text, par. [0116]: communication links that directly or indirectly connect the virtual machines 310 connected therein [i.e., a virtual network. Any portion of such a network, or separate network among a group of networks in the system (see, e.g., elements 324, 326 and 322 of Figure 3B) being a subnet. All comprise components, i.e., modules]; par. [0017]: virtual machines labeled A, B, C and D may provide services associated with end-user electronic mail servers; par. [0099]: deploying virtual machines on the resources. The resources may be grouped according to intended purpose “(e.g., test, production, etc.)” [test resources, vms on those resources or components of those vms being a test subnet])
receiving an identification of an application capability from a user interface; (e.g., Wipfel, par. [0128]: a particular user or customer requesting a service that will provide [a] electronic mail application for a particular number of users. The user or customer may provide various parameters define a requested service level for the service to be provisioned “(e.g., parameters to define criteria for availability, priority, security, change, utilization, patching, capacity, etc.) [since a user provides the request and parameters information to the system, that information received through a user interface because the user requires some interface to provide input to the system])
comparing the requested functionality to a database of software service components; (e.g., Wipfel, Fig. 4 element 430 and associated text, par. [0129]: the system may search the one or more repositories in an operation 430 to determine wither the recipes are associated with any previously created service blueprints that match the level of management or other parameters [see figure “Existing Blueprint?”] to make the service manageable; par. [0122]: blueprints may define various resources [components] that need to be provisioned)
comparing the application capability to the database of software service components; (see immediately above)
selecting one or more software service components from the database to provide the application capability based on the comparison; (e.g., Wipfel, par. [0129]: an operation 440 may include the system loading one or more of the previously created service blueprints form the repositories [i.e., selecting a blueprint, which defines a set of components, see above] in response to determining that the one or more previously created service blueprints can be used for the requested service [i.e., the comparison at step 430])
selecting one or more software service components from the database to provide the requested functionality based on the comparison; (see immediately above)
generating a parameter based on the selected software components; (e.g., Wipfel, Fig. 4 and associated text, par. [0131]: the system may create an annotated service blueprint in an operation 470. As such, operation 470 may create a canvas diagram that may represent the virtual machines; par. [0132]: elements within the canvas diagram may be annotated to represent the service parameters identified in operation 420 [this annotating being generating parameters]. For example, the elements may be annotated to represent constraints for service levels, policies, or any other suitable parameters; par. [0138]: thus, the annotated service blueprints may include virtual machine descriptions and parameters that define a customized management infrastructure that can be used to monitor and otherwise manage the service)
determining if the parameter is above a threshold required for the selected service components; (e.g., Wipfel, par. [0137]: to monitor the service for compliance with parameters defined for the service; par. [0110]: applying policy defined threshold to any status events generated by the monitored resources “(e.g., responding to a monitored variable that exceeds or falls below a policy-defined threshold for more than a policy-defined time period)”)
preparing a server to receive, store, and provide data for the application; (e.g., Wipfel, par. [0104]: the workload management system may initiate provisioning for the service. In particular, workload management system may reserve appropriate physical computing resources, virtual computing resources and/or storage resources to run the service; par. [0107]: Operation 250 may further include deploying the virtual machine to computing resources that have been reserved to tun the requested service; par. [0114]: the virtual distribution layer in the virtual machine 310. The virtual machine distribution layer may include a storage pointer 315a that identifies storage to contain a persistent state for the virtual machine; par. [0077]: services deployed on physical resources 114a and/or virtualized resources 114b “(e.g., a physical server 114a and/or a virtualized server 114)”) and
generating code based on the application for operation on the server (e.g., Wipfel, par. [0107]: operation 250 may include invoking an image creation service, which may create a virtual machine image to run the requested service).
Wipfel does not explicitly disclose wherein an amount of the one or more devices is based on an application capability; receiving, based on a request from an application programming interface to a user interface, receiving an identification of one or more tenants from the user interface, wherein the user interface comprises a tenant provisioning field corresponding to the one or more tenants; and generating a request to determine whether an updated application capability is accepted via the user interface; wherein selection of the one or more software service components is linked to a metadata file that selects one or more additional software service components; preparing a network for an interaction based on the parameter if the parameter is above the threshold; determining if the parameter is below a threshold for the environment; and based on the determination that the parameter is below the threshold for the environment, reconfiguring the environment by disassociating one or more devices from the environment.
However, in an analogous art, Meyer discloses:
wherein an amount of the one or more devices is based on an application capability; (e.g., Meyer, par. [0037]: services may include one or more services provided under a Software as a service (SaaS) [capability] category, Platform as a Service (PaaS) [capability] or other categories. A customer, via a subscription’s order, may order one or more services provided by a cloud infrastructure system 100. Cloud infrastructure system 100 then performs processing to provide the services in the customer’s subscription order; par. [0035]: a service can include password-protected access to remote storage [a capability] on the cloud through the Internet. A service can include web service-based hosted relational database [capability] and script-language middleware engine [capability]; par. [0107]: task manager 604 translates one or more tasks that determine how many virtual machines are needed to support the requested service. For example, if a user requested a SaaS service, one or more task that SDI task manager 605 translates is to determine how many virtual machines would be needed to support the version of the SaaS service [capability] requested. The add-on options [capabilities] requested for the service can alter the resource requirements. For example, a particular add-on option requested for the service may increase the number of virtual machines needed to provision the service).
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 devices of Wipfel such that an amount of the devices is determined based on application capability, as taught by Meyer, as Meyer would provide the advantage of a means of identifying how many devices are needed to support the requested application capability. (See Meyer, par. [0107]).
Further, in an analogous art, Balderas discloses:
receiving, based on a request from an application programming interface to a user interface, (e.g., Balderas, par. [0028]: the API 304 may send a request to user interface 302, which may configure the user interface 302 to receive the requested data via an input to the user interface 302).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the data input by a user taught by Wipfel to include receiving the input based on a request from an application programming interface to a user interface, as taught by Balderas, as Balderas would provide the advantage of a means of configuring the user interface to receive the requested information. (See Balderas, par. [0028]).
Further still, in an analogous art, ebicoglu discloses:
receiving an identification of one or more tenants from the user interface, (e.g., ebicoglu, p. 1: Tenancy name is the unique name of a tenant. When we click the “Create New Tenant” button, a dialog [user interface] is shown; p. 2: [see dialog] there are fields for receiving user input including one for “Tenancy name”) wherein the user interface comprises a tenant provisioning field corresponding to the one or more tenants; (e.g., ebicoglu, p. 2 [see dialog], it includes various fields for creating the tenant; p. 2 last par: when we create a new tenant we should create a database to store tenant’s data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the user interface of Wipfel to include fields for receiving an identification of one or more tenants, include a tenant provisioning field corresponding to the one or more tenant, as taught by ebicoglu, as ebicoglu would provide the advantage of a means of adding a tenant to the system. (See ebicoglu, p. 1).
Further still, in an analogous art, Mathieu discloses:
generating a request to determine whether an updated application capability is accepted via the user interface (e.g., Mathieu, par. [0051]: a determination is made as to whether a match is present between properties and a software distribution application (step 904). If a match is present, the software distribution application in the set of software distribution applications having characteristics matching the installation parameters is selected (step 906). If these is not a match, then another determination is made as to whether non-quantifiable attributes nearly match; par. [0052]: In step 912, the determination may include finding a software distribution application which most closely matches the installation parameters; par. [0053]: thereafter, the user may be prompted [requested via a user interface] to determine whether to accept this software distribution application).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Wipfel to include generating a request to determine whether an updated application capability is accepted via the user interface, as taught by Mathieu, as Mathieu would provide the advantage of a means for a user to accept a close match where an exact match is not present. (See Mathieu, pars. [0051], [0053]).
Further still, in an analogous art, Friedman discloses:
wherein selection of the one or more software service components is linked to a metadata file that selects one or more additional service components; (e.g., Friedman, par. [0048]: resolution data files [metadata files], which generally include one or more resolution graphs; par. [0086]: in response to the user selecting a particular software component to be added, one or more dependencies may be resolved; par. [0087]: in particular, the daemon may scan one or more resolution graphs [in metadata files, see above] to identify metadata that describe dependencies for the component. In response to resolving the dependencies, operation 255 may include automatically adding any required dependencies to the appliance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the environment of selection of service components of Wipfel such that one or more software service components is linked to a metadata file that selects one or more additional service components, as taught by Friedman, as Friedman would provide the advantage of a means of automatically adding required dependencies for the selected component to the environment. (See Friedman, par. [0087]).
Finally, in an analogous art, Li discloses:
preparing a network for an interaction based on the parameter if the parameter is above the threshold (e.g. Li, par. [0021]: a disaggregated system comprises one or more computation and storage nodes., Each computation node includes a networking interface to communicate with storage nodes of the same system. Each storage node includes a networking interface to communicate with at least one of the computation nodes [so the disaggregated system includes a network]; par. [0021]: a “master computation node” will distribute the request to one or more computation or storage nodes [an interaction]; par. [0035]: when the usage exceeds a threshold, a new node would be added to the disaggregated system [prepare a network for interaction based on the parameter]. When such a threshold is exceeded, an alert is sent to an administrative user who can confirm the addition of a new node to the system)
determining if the parameter is below a threshold for the environment; (e.g., Li, par. [0037]: characteristics associated with how requests are processed by the storage and/or computation nodes of a disaggregated system [environment] can be monitored. The characteristics cam be compared against configured criteria “(e.g., thresholds or conditions)” for removing an existing storage node or an existing computation node from the disaggregated system; par. [0038]: in the event that the configured criteria for removing an existing storage or computation node are met, then an existing node is removed. For example, the master mode monitors the amount of CPU/memory usage needed by the nodes. In some embodiments, when the usage falls below a threshold, an alert is sent to an administrative user who can submit a command to conform the removal of the existing node) and
based on the determination that the parameter is below the threshold for the environment, reconfiguring the environment by disassociating the one or more devices from the environment (e.g., Li, par. [0038]: at 704, it is determined that an existing node should be removed from the plurality of nodes associated with the disaggregated system. When the usage falls below a threshold, an alert is sent to an administrative user who can submit a command to conform the removal of the existing node; par. [0023]: the master node will store the identifiers and/or IP addresses of each node that is included in the same disaggregated system so that these nodes can be grouped together and managed by the master node [i.e., removed nodes will not be stored in the master node]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the environment of devices of Wipfel to include both preparing a network for an interaction based on the parameter if the parameter is above the threshold, determining if the parameter is below a threshold for the environment and based on the determination that the parameter is below the threshold for the environment, reconfiguring the environment by disassociating the one or more devices from the environment, as taught by Li, as Li would provide the advantage of a means of flexibly adding or removing nodes from the environment for additional or reduced computation/processing as needed, without wasting excess or unused capacity. (See Li, par. [0021]).
As to claim 2, Wipfel/Meyer/Balderas/epicoglu/Mathieu/Friedman/Li discloses the system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), Wipfel further discloses: the operations further comprising:
generating an end-user interface based on the application (e.g., Wipfel, par. [0121]: virtual machines 322 may be deployed to provide customers with desktop environments that can be used to interact with the tessellated service distribution 300B).
As to claim 3, Wipfel/Meyer/Balderas/epicoglu/Mathieu/Friedman/Li discloses the system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), Wipfel further discloses:
wherein the parameter is a network measure based on a capability of the application (e.g., Wipfel, par. [0128]: workload management system may identify parameters associated with the requested service. For example, in response to a particular user or customer requesting a service that will provide [a] electronic mail application for a particular number of users, operation 420 may include identifying one or more computing and memory requirements to support the requested number of users. In addition, the user may define a request service level; par. [0129]: extracting parameters associated with the requested service level and monitor whether a service complies with the requested service level; par. [0137]: to monitor the service for compliance with the parameters; par. [0116]: the tessellated service distribution shown in FIG. 3A. Lines shown in FIG. 3A may represent communication links that connect the virtual machines 310 [i.e., the service is a network of virtual machines, meaning measures of the service are network measures]).
As to claim 4, Wipfel/Meyer/Balderas/epicoglu/Mathieu/Friedman/Li discloses the system of claim 1(see rejection of claim 3 above) Wipfel further discloses
wherein the virtual network that further comprises at least one of a management interface, a testing interface, and a development interface (e.g., Wipfel, Fig. 3A and associated text, par. [0116]: the virtual machine 310 may be deployed within a tessellated service distribution 320 that configures the virtual machine 310 and one or more other virtual machines 310 to achieve a common computing goal. Dashed lines in Fig. 3A may represent communication links that connect the virtual machines; par. [0091]: every service, application or other resource 114 in the workload management system may be provided with an application programming interface).
As to claim 5, Wipfel/Meyer/Balderas/epicoglu/Mathieu/Friedman/Li discloses the system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), Wipfel further discloses:
wherein the interaction is a use of an application (e.g., Wipfel, par. [0009]: a user requesting a service that performs a particular function or application, the system may create a workload to manage the provisioning of the user with a tuned appliance configured to perform the particular function or application, whereby the tuned appliance may provide the requested service for the user).
As to claim 6, Wipfel/Meyer/Balderas/epicoglu/Mathieu/Friedman/Li discloses the system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but Wipfel does not explicitly disclose the operations further comprising: monitoring the network to determine if the parameter is above a threshold; and updating the network if the parameter is above the threshold.
However, in an analogous art, Li discloses the operations further comprising:
monitoring the network to determine if the parameter is above a threshold; (e.g. Li, par. [0021]: a disaggregated system comprises one or more computation and storage nodes., Each computation node includes a networking interface to communicate with storage nodes of the same system. Each storage node includes a networking interface to communicate with at least one of the computation nodes [so the disaggregated system includes a network]; par. [0021]: a “master computation node” will distribute the request to one or more computation or storage nodes [an interaction]; par. [0035]: when the usage exceeds a threshold, a new node would be added to the disaggregated system [update the network]. When such a threshold is exceeded, an alert is sent to an administrative user who can confirm the addition of a new node to the system) and
updating the network if the parameter is above the threshold (see immediately above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the network of devices of Wipfel to include monitoring to determine the parameter is above a threshold and updating the network if the parameter is above the threshold, as taught by Li, as Li would provide the advantage of a means of flexibly adding nodes from the environment for additional fcomputation/processing as needed, without wasting excess or unused capacity. (See Li, par. [0021]).
As to claim 7, Wipfel discloses a system for generating an environment, the system comprising:
at least one processor; (e.g., Wipfel, par. [0144]) and
at least one non-transitory memory storing instructions to perform operations when executed by the at least one processor (e.g., Wipfel, par. [0144]) including:
receiving an identification of an application capability from a user interface; (e.g., Wipfel, par. [0128]: a particular user or customer requesting a service that will provide [a] electronic mail application for a particular number of users)
comparing the application capability to a database of software service components; (e.g., Wipfel, Fig. 4 element 430 and associated text, par. [0129]: the system may search the one or more repositories in an operation 430 to determine wither the recipes are associated with any previously created service blueprints that match the level of management or other parameters [see figure “Existing Blueprint?”]; par. [0122]: blueprints may define various resources [components] that need to be provisioned)
selecting one or more software service components from the database to provide the application capability based on the comparison; (e.g., Wipfel, par. [0129]: an operation 440 may include the system loading one or more of the previously created service blueprints form the repositories [i.e., selecting a blueprint, which defines a set of components, see above] in response to determining that the one or more previously created service blueprints can be used for the requested service [i.e., the comparison at step 430])
generating a parameter based on the selected software service components; (e.g., Wipfel, Fig. 4 and associated text, par. [0131]: the system may create an annotated service blueprint in an operation 470. As such, operation 470 may create a canvas diagram that may represent the virtual machines; par. [0132]: elements within the canvas diagram may be annotated to represent the service parameters identified in operation 420 [this annotating being generating parameters]. For example, the elements may be annotated to represent constraints for service levels, policies, or any other suitable parameters; par. [0138]: thus, the annotated service blueprints may include virtual machine descriptions and parameters that define a customized management infrastructure that can be used to monitor and otherwise manage the service)
determining if the parameter is above a threshold required for the selected software service components; (e.g., Wipfel, par. [0137]: to monitor the service for compliance with parameters defined for the service; par. [0110]: applying policy defined threshold to any status events generated by the monitored resources “(e.g., responding to a monitored variable that exceeds or falls below a policy-defined threshold for more than a policy-defined time period)”)
determining an infrastructure parameter based on the application capability identified at the user interface; (e.g., Wipfel, par. [0128]: workload management system may identify parameters associated with the requested service. For example, in response to a particular user or customer requesting a service that will provide [a] electronic mail application for a particular number of users [since a user identifies that information to the system, it is identified through a user interface because the user requires some interface to provide input to the system], operation 420 may include identifying one or more computing and memory requirement to support the requested number of users. In addition, the user may provide various parameters define a requested service level; par. [0129]: operation 420 may include extracting the parameters associated with the service level)
generating an environment based on the selected software service components, (e.g., Wipfel, abstract, the service blueprint may then be annotated to apply various parameters to the virtual machines and the annotated blueprint may then be instantiated to orchestrate the virtual machines with one or more parameters and deploy the orchestrated virtual machines on information technology resources to host the requested service) wherein the environment comprises one or more devices, an application layer, an application foundation layer, an infrastructure layer, and a network layer; (e.g., Wipfel, abstract: blueprints to provision tessellated services. The blueprint may be instantiated to deploy the orchestrated virtual machines [one or more devices] on information technology resources allocated to host the requested service, thereby provisioning the requested service; Fig. 3A and associated text, par. [0112]: FIG. 3A illustrates an exemplary virtual machine [note the various layers in the figure, at least the “Applications” 315c or Virtual Distribution layer shown being an application layer, all layers above “Applications” or “Virtual Distribution” in the figure being application foundation layer(s)]; par. [0119]: FIG. 3B illustrates an exemplary tessellated service distribution [note the various layers in the figure, note the network devices 340a in the bottom layer, making that layer a network layer]; par. [0020]: FIG. 3C and associated text, par. [0139]: management level-virtual machines may operate on a separate logical layer to provide an underlying infrastructure that hosts and manages the virtual machine infrastructure that provides the service on the first logical layer) and wherein the environment operates on a virtual network comprising a test subnet, a server subnet, and a module subnet; (e.g., Wipfel, Figs. 3A, 3B and associated text, par. [0116]: communication links that directly or indirectly connect the virtual machines 310 connected therein [i.e., a virtual network. Any portion of such a network, or separate network among a group of networks in the system (see, e.g., elements 324, 326 and 322 of Figure 3B) being a subnet. All comprise components, i.e., modules]; par. [0017]: virtual machines labeled A, B, C and D may provide services associated with end-user electronic mail servers; par. [0099]: deploying virtual machines on the resources. The resources may be grouped according to intended purpose “(e.g., test, production, etc.)” [test resources, vms on those resources or components of those vms being a test subnet])
configuring the environment based on the infrastructure parameter (e.g., Wipfel, par. [0116]: the virtual machine 310 may be deployed in a tessellated service distribution 320 that configures the virtual machine and one or more other virtual machines to achieve a common goal).
Wipfel does not explicitly disclose receiving, based on a request from an application programming interface to a user interface, an identification of one or more tenants from the user interface, wherein the user interface comprises a tenant provisioning field corresponding to the one or more tenants, generating a request to determine whether an updated application capability is accepted via the user interface; wherein selection of the one or more software service components is linked to a metadata file that selects one or more additional software service components; the updated application capability; wherein an amount of the one or more devices is based on the application capability; determining if the parameter is below a threshold for the environment; and based on the determination that the parameter is below the threshold for the environment, reconfiguring the environment by disassociating the one or more devices from the environment.
However, in an analogous art, Balderas discloses:
receiving, based on a request from an application programming interface to a user interface (e.g., Balderas, par. [0028]: the API 304 may send a request to user interface 302, which may configure the user interface 302 to receive the requested data via an input to the user interface 302).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the data input by a user taught by Wipfel to include receiving the input based on a request from an application programming interface to a user interface, as taught by Balderas, as Balderas would provide the advantage of a means of configuring the user interface to receive the requested information. (See Balderas, par. [0028]).
Further, in an analogous art, ebicoglu discloses:
receiving an identification of one or more tenants from the user interface, (e.g., ebicoglu, p. 1: Tenancy name is the unique name of a tenant. When we click the “Create New Tenant” button, a dialog [user interface] is shown; p. 2: [see dialog] there are fields for receiving user input including one for “Tenancy name”) wherein the user interface comprises a tenant provisioning field corresponding to the one or more tenants (e.g., ebicoglu, p. 2 [see dialog], it includes various fields for creating the tenant; p. 2 last par: when we create a new tenant we should create a database to store tenant’s data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the user interface of Wipfel to include fields for receiving an identification of one or more tenants, include a tenant provisioning field corresponding to the one or more tenant, as taught by ebicoglu, as ebicoglu would provide the advantage of a means of adding a tenant to the system. (See ebicoglu, p. 1).
Further still, in an analogous art, Mathieu discloses:
generating a request to determine whether an updated application capability is accepted via the user interface (e.g., Mathieu, par. [0051]: a determination is made as to whether a match is present between properties and a software distribution application (step 904). If a match is present, the software distribution application in the set of software distribution applications having characteristics matching the installation parameters is selected (step 906). If these is not a match, then another determination is made as to whether non-quantifiable attributes nearly match; par. [0052]: In step 912, the determination may include finding a software distribution application which most closely matches the installation parameters; par. [0053]: thereafter, the user may be prompted [requested via a user interface] to determine whether to accept this software distribution application) and
the updated application capability (see immediately above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Wipfel to include an updated application capability and generating a request to determine whether an updated application capability is accepted via the user interface, as taught by Mathieu, as Mathieu would provide the advantage of a means for a user to accept a close match where an exact match is not present. (See Mathieu, pars. [0051], [0053]).
Further still, in an analogous art, Meyer discloses:
wherein an amount of the one or more devices is based on the application capability; (e.g., Meyer, par. [0037]: services may include one or more services provided under a Software as a service (SaaS) [capability] category, Platform as a Service (PaaS) [capability] or other categories. A customer, via a subscription’s order, may order one or more services provided by a cloud infrastructure system 100. Cloud infrastructure system 100 then performs processing to provide the services in the customer’s subscription order; par. [0035]: a service can include password-protected access to remote storage [a capability] on the cloud through the Internet. A service can include web service-based hosted relational database [capability] and script-language middleware engine [capability]; par. [0107]: task manager 604 translates one or more tasks that determine how many virtual machines are needed to support the requested service. For example, if a user requested a SaaS service, one or more task that SDI task manager 605 translates is to determine how many virtual machines would be needed to support the version of the SaaS service [capability] requested. The add-on options [capabilities] requested for the service can alter the resource requirements. For example, a particular add-on option requested for the service may increase the number of virtual machines need to provision the service).
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 devices and updated application capability of Wipfel/Balderas/ebicoglu/Mathieu such that an amount of the devices is determined based on application capability, as taught by Meyer, as Meyer would provide the advantage of a means of identifying how many devices are needed to support the application capability. (See Meyer, par. [0107]).
Further still, in an analogous art, Friedman discloses:
wherein selection of the one or more software service components is linked to a metadata file that selects one or more additional software service components; (e.g., Friedman, par. [0048]: resolution data files [metadata files], which generally include one or more resolution graphs; par. [0086]: in response to the user selecting a particular software component to be added, one or more dependencies may be resolved; par. [0087]: in particular, the daemon may scan one or more resolution graphs [in metadata files, see above] to identify metadata that describe dependencies for the component. In response to resolving the dependencies, operation 255 may include automatically adding any required dependencies to the appliance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the environment of selection of service components of Wipfel such that one or more software service components is linked to a metadata file that selects one or more additional service components, as taught by Friedman, as Friedman would provide the advantage of a means of automatically adding required dependencies for the selected component to the environment. (See Friedman, par. [0087]).
Finally, in an analogous art, Li discloses:
determining if the parameter is below a threshold for the environment; (e.g., Li, par. [0037]: characteristics associated with how requests are processed by the storage and/or computation nodes of a disaggregated system [environment] can be monitored. The characteristics cam be compared against configured criteria “(e.g., thresholds or conditions)” for removing an existing storage node or an existing computation node from the disaggregated system; par. [0038]: in the event that the configured criteria for removing an existing storage or computation node are met, then an existing node is removed. For example, the master mode monitors the amount of CPU/memory usage needed by the nodes. In some embodiments, when the usage fills below a threshold, an alert is sent to an administrative user who can submit a command to confirm the removal of the existing node) and
based on the determination that the parameter is below the threshold for the environment, reconfiguring the environment by disassociating the one or more devices from the environment (e.g., Li, par. [0038]: at 704, it is determined that an existing node should be removed from the plurality of nodes associated with the disaggregated system. When the usage falls below a threshold, an alert is sent to an administrative user who can submit a command to confirm the removal of the existing node; par. [0023]: the master node will store the identifiers and/or IP addresses of each node that is included in the same disaggregated system so that these nodes can be grouped together and managed by the master node [i.e., removed nodes will not be stored in the master node]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the environment of devices of Wipfel to include determining if the parameter is below a threshold for the environment and based on the determination that the parameter is below the threshold for the environment, reconfiguring the environment by disassociating the one or more devices from the environment, as taught by Li, as Li would provide the advantage of a means of flexibly removing nodes from the environment for reduced computation/processing as needed, without wasting excess or unused capacity. (See Li, par. [0021]).
As to claim 8, Wipfel/Meyer/Balderas/epicoglu/Mathieu/Friedman/Li discloses the system of claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7 above), Wipfel further discloses: the operations further comprising:
monitoring an event of the environment; (e.g., Wipfel, par. [0081]: determining that the storage capacity currently available to the service instance has fallen below a policy defined threshold)
updating the configuration of the environment based on the event (e.g., Wipfel, par. [0081]: capacity management sub-service may allocate additional storage capacity to the service instance in response to determining that the storage capacity currently available to the service instance has fallen below a policy defined threshold).
As to claim 9, Wipfel/Meyer/Balderas/epicoglu/Mathieu/Friedman/Li discloses the system of claim 8 (see rejection of claim 8 above), Wipfel further discloses:
wherein the event is exceeding a load capacity of the environment (e.g., Wipfel, par. [0081]: capacity management sub-service may allocate additional storage capacity to the service instance in response to determining that the storage capacity currently available to the service instance has fallen below a policy defined threshold).
As to claim 10, Wipfel/Meyer/Balderas/epicoglu/Mathieu/Friedman/Li discloses the system of claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7 above), Wipfel further discloses the operations further comprising:
monitoring a load capacity of the environment; (e.g., Wipfel, par. [0081]: determining that the storage capacity currently available to the service instance has fallen below a policy defined threshold) and
updating the configuration of the environment based on the load capacity (e.g., Wipfel, par. [0081]: capacity management sub-service may allocate additional storage capacity to the service instance in response to determining that the storage capacity currently available to the service instance has fallen below a policy defined threshold).
As to claim 11, Wipfel/Meyer/Balderas/epicoglu/Mathieu/Friedman/Li discloses the system of claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7 above), Wipfel further discloses the operations further comprising:
monitoring a use of the application capability of the system to determine the use of a resource; (e.g., Wipfel, par. [0081]: determining that the storage capacity currently available to the service instance has fallen below a policy defined threshold) and
updating the resource based on the use of the application capability (e.g., Wipfel, par. [0081]: capacity management sub-service may allocate additional storage capacity to the service instance in response to determining that the storage capacity currently available to the service instance has fallen below a policy defined threshold).
Wipfel does not explicitly disclose the updated application capability.
However, in an analogous art, Mathieu discloses:
the updated application capability (see rejection of claim 1 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the application capability of Wipfel to include an updated application capability, as taught by Mathieu, as Mathieu would provide the advantage of a means for a user to accept a close match where an exact match is not present. (See Mathieu, pars. [0051], [0053]).
As to claim 14, Wipfel discloses a method for generating a platform, the method comprising steps of:
receiving an identification of an application capability from a user interface; (e.g., Wipfel, par. [0128]: a particular user or customer requesting a service that will provide [a] electronic mail application for a particular number of users)
comparing the application capability to a database of software service components; (e.g., Wipfel, Fig. 4 element 430 and associated text, par. [0129]: the system may search the one or more repositories in an operation 430 to determine wither the recipes are associated with any previously created service blueprints that match the level of management or other parameters [see figure “Existing Blueprint?”]; par. [0122]: blueprints may define various resources [components] that need to be provisioned)
selecting one or more software service components from the database to provide the application capability based on the comparison; (e.g., Wipfel, par. [0129]: an operation 440 may include the system loading one or more of the previously created service blueprints form the repositories [i.e., selecting a blueprint, which defines a set of components, see above] in response to determining that the one or more previously created service blueprints can be used for the requested service [i.e., the comparison at step 430])
determining an infrastructure parameter based on the application capability identified at the user interface; (e.g., Wipfel, par. [0128]: workload management system may identify parameters associated with the requested service. For example, in response to a particular user or customer requesting a service that will provide [a] electronic mail application for a particular number of users [since a user identifies that information to the system, it is identified through a user interface because the user requires some interface to provide input to the system], operation 420 may include identifying one or more computing and memory requirement to support the requested number of users. In addition, the user may provide various parameters define on a requested service level; par. [0129]: operation 420 may include extracting the parameters associated with the service level)
generating an environment based on the software service components and the infrastructure parameter, (e.g., Wipfel, Fig. 4 and associated text, par. [0131]: the system may create an annotated service blueprint in an operation 470. As such, operation 470 may create a canvas diagram that may represent the virtual machines; par. [0132]: elements within the canvas diagram may be annotated to represent the service parameters identified in operation 420 [this annotating being generating parameters]. For example, the elements may be annotated to represent constraints for service levels, policies, or any other suitable parameters; par. [0138]: thus, the annotated service blueprints may include virtual machine descriptions and parameters that define a customized management infrastructure that can be used to monitor and otherwise manage the service) wherein the environment comprises one or more devices, an application layer, an application foundation layer, an infrastructure layer, and a network layer; (e.g., Wipfel, abstract: blueprints to provision tessellated services. The blueprint may be instantiated to deploy the orchestrated virtual machines [devices] on information technology resources allocated to host the requested service, thereby provisioning the requested service; Fig. 3A and associated text, par. [0112]: FIG. 3A illustrates an exemplary virtual machine [note the various layers in the figure, at least the “Applications” 315c or Virtual Distribution layer shown being an application layer, all layers above “Applications” or “Virtual Distribution” in the figure being application foundation layer(s)]; par. [0119]: FIG. 3B illustrates an exemplary tessellated service distribution [note the various layers in the figure, note the network devices 340a in the bottom layer, making that layer a network layer]; par. [0020]: FIG. 3C and associated text, par. [0139]: management level-virtual machines may operate on a separate logical layer to provide an underlying infrastructure that hosts and manages the virtual machine infrastructure that provides the service on the first logical layer) and wherein the environment operates on a virtual network comprising a test subnet, a server subnet, and a module subnet (e.g., Wipfel, Figs. 3A, 3B and associated text, par. [0116]: communication links that directly or indirectly connect the virtual machines 310 connected therein [i.e., a virtual network. Any portion of such a network, or separate network among a group of networks in the system (see, e.g., elements 324, 326 and 322 of Figure 3B) being a subnet. All comprise components, i.e., modules]; par. [0017]: virtual machines labeled A, B, C and D may provide services associated with end-user electronic mail servers; par. [0099]: deploying virtual machines on the resources. The resources may be grouped according to intended purpose “(e.g., test, production, etc.)” [test resources, vms on those resources or components of those vms being a test subnet]) and
configuring the environment based on the infrastructure parameter (e.g., Wipfel, par. [0116]: the virtual machine 310 may be deployed in a tessellated service distribution 320 that configures the virtual machine and one or more other virtual machines to achieve a common goal).
Wipfel does not explicitly disclose receiving, based on a request from an application programming interface to a user interface, receiving an identification of one or more tenants, from the user interface; wherein the user interface comprises a tenant provisioning field corresponding to the one or more tenants, generating a request to determine whether an updated application capability is accepted via the user interface, wherein selection of the one or more software service components is linked to a metadata file that selects one or more additional software service components; wherein an amount of the one or more devices is based on the application capability; determining if the parameter is below a threshold for the environment; and based on the determination that the parameter is below the threshold for the environment, reconfiguring the environment by disassociating the one or more devices from the environment.
However, in an analogous art, Balderas discloses:
receiving, based on a request from an application programming interface to a user interface (e.g., Balderas, par. [0028]: the API 304 may send a request to user interface 302, which may configure the user interface 302 to receive the requested data via an input to the user interface 302).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the data input by a user taught by Wipfel to include receiving the input based on a request from an application programming interface to a user interface, as taught by Balderas, as Balderas would provide the advantage of a means of configuring the user interface to receive the requested information. (See Balderas, par. [0028]).
Further, in an analogous art, ebicoglu discloses:
receiving, an identification of one or more tenants from the user interface; (e.g., ebicoglu, p. 1: Tenancy name is the unique name of a tenant. When we click the “Create New Tenant” button, a dialog [user interface] is shown; p. 2: [see dialog] there are fields for receiving user input including one for “Tenancy name”) wherein the user interface comprises a tenant provisioning field corresponding to the one or more tenants (e.g., ebicoglu, p. 2 [see dialog], it includes various fields for creating the tenant; p. 2 last par: when we create a new tenant we should create a database to store tenant’s data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the user interface of Wipfel to include fields for receiving an identification of one or more tenants, include a tenant provisioning field corresponding to the one or more tenant, as taught by ebicoglu, as ebicoglu would provide the advantage of a means of adding a tenant to the system. (See ebicoglu, p. 1).
Further still, in an analogous art, Mathieu discloses:
generating a request to determine whether an updated application capability is accepted via the user interface (e.g., Mathieu, par. [0051]: a determination is made as to whether a match is present between properties and a software distribution application (step 904). If a match is present, the software distribution application in the set of software distribution applications having characteristics matching the installation parameters is selected (step 906). If these is not a match, then another determination is made as to whether non-quantifiable attributes nearly match; par. [0052]: In step 912, the determination may include finding a software distribution application which most closely matches the installation parameters; par. [0053]: thereafter, the user may be prompted [requested via a user interface] to determine whether to accept this software distribution application) and
the updated application capability (see immediately above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Wipfel to include generating a request to determine whether an updated application capability is accepted via the user interface, as taught by Mathieu, as Mathieu would provide the advantage of a means for a user to accept a close match where an exact match is not present. (See Mathieu, pars. [0051], [0053]).
Further still, in an analogous art, Friedman discloses:
wherein selection of the one or more software service components is linked to a metadata file that selects one or more additional software service components; wherein an amount of the one or more devices is based on the application capability; (e.g., Friedman, par. [0048]: resolution data files [metadata files], which generally include one or more resolution graphs; par. [0086]: in response to the user selecting a particular software component to be added, one or more dependencies may be resolved; par. [0087]: in particular, the daemon may scan one or more resolution graphs [in metadata files, see above] to identify metadata that describe dependencies for the component. In response to resolving the dependencies, operation 255 may include automatically adding any required dependencies to the appliance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the environment of selection of service components of Wipfel such that one or more software service components is linked to a metadata file that selects one or more additional service components, as taught by Friedman, as Friedman would provide the advantage of a means of automatically adding required dependencies for the selected component to the environment. (See Friedman, par. [0087]).
Further still, in an analogous art, Meyer discloses:
wherein an amount of the one or more devices is based on the application capability; (e.g., Meyer, par. [0037]: services may include one or more services provided under a Software as a service (SaaS) [capability] category, Platform as a Service (PaaS) [capability] or other categories. A customer, via a subscription’s order, may order one or more services provided by a cloud infrastructure system 100. Cloud infrastructure system 100 then performs processing to provide the services in the customer’s subscription order; par. [0035]: a service can include password-protected access to remote storage [a capability] on the cloud through the Internet. A service can include web service-based hosted relational database [capability] and script-language middleware engine [capability]; par. [0107]: task manager 604 translates one or more tasks that determine how many virtual machines are needed to support the requested service. For example, if a user requested a SaaS service, one or more task that SDI task manager 605 translates is to determine how many virtual machines would be needed to support the version of the SaaS service [capability] requested. The add-on options [capabilities] requested for the service can alter the resource requirements. For example, a particular add-on option requested for the service may increase the number of virtual machines need to provision the service).
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 devices and updated application capability of Wipfel/Balderas/ebicoglu/Mathieu/Friedman such that an amount of the devices is determined based on application capability, as taught by Meyer, as Meyer would provide the advantage of a means of identifying how many devices are needed to support the requested application capability. (See Meyer, par. [0107]).
Finally, in an analogous art, Li discloses:
determining if the parameter is below a threshold for the environment; (e.g., Li, par. [0037]: characteristics associated with how requests are processed by the storage and/or computation nodes of a disaggregated system [environment] can be monitored. The characteristics cam be compared against configured criteria “(e.g., thresholds or conditions)” for removing an existing storage node or an existing computation node from the disaggregated system; par. [0038]: in the event that the configured criteria for removing an existing storage or computation node are met, then an existing node is removed. For example, the master mode monitors the amount of CPU/memory usage needed by the nodes. In some embodiments, when the usage fills below a threshold, an alert is sent to an administrative user who can submit a command to confirm the removal of the existing node) and
based on the determination that the parameter is below the threshold for the environment, reconfiguring the environment by disassociating the one or more devices from the environment (e.g., Li, par. [0038]: at 704, it is determined that an existing node should be removed from the plurality of nodes associated with the disaggregated system. When the usage falls below a threshold, an alert is sent to an administrative user who can submit a command to conform the removal of the existing node; par. [0023]: the master node will store the identifiers and/or IP addresses of each node that is included in the same disaggregated system so that these nodes can be grouped together and managed by the master node [i.e., removed nodes will not be stored in the master node]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the environment of devices of Wipfel to include determining if the parameter is below a threshold for the environment and based on the determination that the parameter is below the threshold for the environment, reconfiguring the environment by disassociating the one or more devices from the environment, as taught by Li, as Li would provide the advantage of a means of flexibly removing nodes from the environment for reduced computation/processing as needed, without wasting excess or unused capacity. (See Li, par. [0021]).
As to claim 15, Wipfel//Meyer/Balderas/epicoglu/Mathieu/Friedman/Li discloses the method of claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above), Wipfel further discloses the operations further comprising steps of:
monitoring an event of the platform; (e.g., Wipfel, par. [0081]: determining that the storage capacity currently available to the service instance has fallen below a policy defined threshold)
updating the configuration of the platform based on the event (e.g., Wipfel, par. [0081]: capacity management sub-service may allocate additional storage capacity to the service instance in response to determining that the storage capacity currently available to the service instance has fallen below a policy defined threshold).
As to claim 16, Wipfel/Meyer/Balderas/epicoglu/Mathieu/Friedman/Li discloses the method of claim 15 (see rejection of claim 15 above), Wipfel further discloses:
wherein the event is exceeding a load capacity of the platform (e.g., Wipfel, par. [0081]: capacity management sub-service may allocate additional storage capacity to the service instance in response to determining that the storage capacity currently available to the service instance has fallen below a policy defined threshold).
As to claim 18, it is a method claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 11. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 21, Wipfel/Meyer/Balderas/epicoglu/Mathieu/Friedman/Li discloses the method of claim 14 (See rejection of claim 14 above) but Wipfel does not explicitly disclose further comprising receiving a tier input from the tenant provisioning field, wherein the tier input corresponds to a tenant of the one or more tenants.
However, in an analogous art, epicoglu discloses:
receiving a tier input from the tenant provisioning field, wherein the tier input corresponds to a tenant of the one or more tenants (e.g., epicoglu, p. 2: [see dialog] the dialog includes a field for “Edition” set to premium [a tier, see “Edition Management, already of record])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the receiving of user input of Wipfel to include receiving a tier input from a tenant provisioning filed, where the tier input corresponds to a tenant of the one or more tenants, as taught by epicoglu, as epicoglu would provide the advantage of a means of assigning a tier to the tenant. (See epicoglu, p. 3 “Tenant Edition and Features”).
Claims 12, 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wipfel (US 2011/0126207) in view of Meyer (US 2019/0245757) in view of Balderas (US 2020/0089551) in view of ebicoglu (“Tenant Management”) in view of Mathieu (US 2006/0253848) in view of Friedman (US 2013/0297922) in view of Li (US 2018/0034908) in further view of Singh et al. (US 2015/0378716) (art of record – hereinafter Singh).
As to claim 12, Wipfel/Meyer/Balderas/epicoglu/Mathieu/Friedman/Li discloses the system of claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7 above), Wipfel further discloses the operations further comprising:
monitoring a use of the application capability of the system to determine the use of a resource; (e.g., Wipfel, par. [0081]: determining that the storage capacity currently available to the service instance has fallen below a policy defined threshold) and
determining an update for the resource based on the use of the application capability (e.g., Wipfel, par. [0081]: capacity management sub-service may allocate additional storage capacity to the service instance in response to determining that the storage capacity currently available to the service instance has fallen below a policy defined threshold).
Wipfel does not explicitly disclose the updated capability or sending the update to the user interface.
However, in an analogous art Mathieu discloses:
the updated application capability (see rejection of claim 1 above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the application capability of Wipfel to include an updated application capability, as taught by Mathieu, as Mathieu would provide the advantage of a means for a user to accept a close match where an exact match is not present. (See Mathieu, pars. [0051], [0053]).
Further, in an analogous art, Singh discloses:
sending the update to the user interface (e.g., Singh, par. [0058]: example promotion layer GUI 500 includes an example notification control 504 “(e.g., an example update profile identified in information block 503)” to notify a user when an update profile is available for deployment in users’s deployment environment).
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 user interface and updating of Wipfel to include sending the update to the user interface, as taught by Singh, as Singh would provide the advantage of a means for the user to review the update when choosing to apply or reject it. (See Singh, par. [0058]).
As to claim 17, Wipfel/Meyer/Balderas/epicoglu/Mathieu/Friedman/Li discloses the method of claim 14 (see rejection of claim 14 above), Wipfel further discloses the operations further comprising steps of:
monitoring a use of an application in another environment associated with a second user; (e.g., Wipfel, par. [0130]: to provide the optimal environment for the requested service; par. [0129] subsequently requested services [another service, so another environment]; par. [0128]: a server that will provide a mail application for a particular number of users).
Wipfel does not explicitly disclose sending an update to the user interface to update the environment with the application.
However, in an analogous art, Singh disclsoes
sending an update to the user interface to update the environment with the application (e.g., Singh, par. [0058]: example promotion layer GUI 500 includes an example notification control 504 “(e.g., an example update profile identified in information block 503)” to notify a user when an update profile is available for deployment in users’s deployment environment; par. [0018]: deploying the application to different deployment environments).
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 user interface and other environment associated with the second user of Wipfel, by incorporating sending an update to the user interface to update the environment with the application, as taught by Singh, as Singh would provide the advantage of a means for the user to review the update when choosing to apply or reject it. (See Singh, par. [0058]).
As to claim 19, it is a method claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 12. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claims 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wipfel (US 2011/0126207) in view of Meyer (US 2019/0245757) in view of Balderas (US 2020/0089551) in view of ebicoglu (“Tenant Management”) in view of Mathieu (US 2006/0253848) in view of Friedman (US 2013/0297922) in view of Li (US 2018/0034908) in further view of Lavji (US 2015/0100646) (art of record – hereinafter Lavji).
As to claim 13, Wipfel/Meyer/Balderas/epicoglu/Mathieu//Friedman/Li discloses the system of claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7 above), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the infrastructure parameter is a number of accounts.
However, in an analogous art, Laviji discloses:
wherein the infrastructure parameter is a number of accounts (e.g., Lavji, par. [0082]: messaging service requirements can be the number of users accounts to be included).
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 parameters of Wipfel to include a number of accounts, as taught by Lavji, as Lavji would provide the advantage of a means of providing a messaging service. (See Lavji, par. [0082]).
As to claim 20, it is a method claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 13. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TODD AGUILERA whose telephone number is (571)270-5186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11AM - 7:30PM EST.
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, Hyung S Sough can be reached at (571)272-6799. 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.
/TODD AGUILERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights