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 .
This office action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment filed on 09/24/2025. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11, 13-15, 17, and 19-26 are pending. Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19 and 20-23 have been amended. Claims 3, 10, and 16 were previously canceled. Claims 5, 12, and 18 are canceled. New Claims 24-26 have been added.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application is acknowledged. The instant application is a continuation-in-part of application 16/458,481 filed 07/01/2019.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 09/24/2025 has been entered.
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, 7, 8, 14, 15, 20, and 24-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jodoin et al. (U.S. 10,318,285) (Hereinafter Jodoin – art made of record) in view of Petrov, Andrey Todorov (U.S. 2016/0098288) (Hereinafter Petrov – art made of record), further in view of Nandan et al. (U.S. 2009/0006519) (Hereinafter Nandan), further in view of Mesika et al. (US 20140337282 A1) (Hereinafter Mesika), and further in view of Javadekar et al. (U.S. 2015/0154081) (Hereinafter Javadekar).
As per claim 1, Jodoin discloses defining, in a configuration template, a virtualized storage environment for testing a storage configuration and a virtual machine infrastructure (see for example Jodoin, this limitation is disclosed such that an infrastructure template (i.e. configuration template) for a beta stage is utilized as part of an internal beta testing phase of a pipeline that involves running a set of tests to verify functionality of a service utilizing various resources such as virtual machines and storage to fulfill requests. The infrastructure template is utilized to deploy infrastructure such as virtual machine instances and storage systems in a specified configuration, service code 110 may be deployed onto the infrastructure, and a set of tests may be run within the beta environment; col.8 line {49} – col.9 line {34}).
Although Jodoin discloses defining, in a configuration template, a virtualized storage environment for testing a storage configuration and a virtual machine infrastructure, Jodoin does not explicitly teach that a virtualized storage environment comprises a plurality of virtualized devices, and wherein the plurality of virtualized devices comprises at least one virtualized storage system and one or more virtual machines, and creating, using a configuration template…the plurality of virtualized devices with the virtualized instances of the one or more storage systems.
However, Petrov discloses that a virtualized storage environment comprises a plurality of virtualized devices, and wherein the plurality of virtualized devices comprises at least one virtualized storage system and one or more virtual machines (see for example Petrov, this limitation is disclosed such that a base virtual appliance in a virtualized computing environment (i.e. a virtualized device of a virtualized storage environment) includes a virtual machine (i.e. virtualized devices comprise one or more virtual machines) and a virtual disk (i.e. virtualized devices comprise at least one virtualized storage system); clm.9 and associated text, paragraphs [0014], [0022]); and
creating, using a configuration template…the plurality of virtualized devices with the virtualized instances of the one or more storage systems (see for example Petrov, this limitation is disclosed such that a resulting application package is assembled with the base virtual appliance to create a virtual appliance; paragraph [0044]. The virtual appliance built by assembling the base virtual appliance installs an application package on a virtual disk of the base virtual appliance, such that a virtual machine of the virtual appliance supports a guest OS and application associated with the application package; paragraphs [0017], [0020]).
Jodoin in view of Petrov is analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, virtualization.
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 method as taught by Jodoin by using virtual appliances as taught by Petrov because it would enhance the teaching of Jodoin with an effective means of supporting and utilizing data stores of a storage system (as suggested by Petrov, see for example paragraph [0058]).
Jodoin in view of Petrov does not explicitly teach creating, using a configuration template, a virtualized storage environment…, and creating a plurality of virtualized devices…, the plurality of virtualized devices being deployed in the environment in accordance with respective device configurations contained in the configuration template.
However, Nandan discloses creating, using a configuration template, a virtualized storage environment…, and creating a plurality of virtualized devices…, the plurality of virtualized devices being deployed in the environment in accordance with respective device configurations contained in the configuration template (see for example Nandan, this limitation is disclosed such that a cluster of servers is configured according to the defined deployment environment of the deployment blueprint, deploying the virtual devices according to the defined blueprint configurations; paragraph [0011]).
Jodoin in view of Petrov is analogous art with Nandan because they are from the same field of endeavor, virtualization.
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 method as taught by Jodoin in view of Petrov by deploying virtual devices according to blueprint configurations as taught by Nandan because it would enhance the teaching of Jodoin in view of Petrov with an effective means of using a defined blueprint to quickly, efficiently, and reliably deploy computing devices (as suggested by Nandan, see for example paragraph [0010]).
Although Jodoin in view of Petrov, further in view of Nandan discloses creating, using a configuration template, a virtualized storage environment…, and creating the plurality of virtualized devices including the one or more virtualized storage systems, the plurality of virtualized devices being deployed in the environment in accordance with respective device configurations contained in the configuration template, Jodoin in view of Petrov, further in view of Nandan does not explicitly teach creating an environment including creating one or more virtualized hosts for supporting an execution of components of a virtual machine infrastructure that accesses one or more virtualized storage systems.
However, Mesika discloses creating an environment including creating one or more virtualized hosts for supporting an execution of components of a virtual machine infrastructure that accesses one or more virtualized storage systems ([0018] the same set of features, and their corresponding database upgrade scripts may be installed in different virtualization environments; [0019] the host controller 107 may be part of the host server 103. In one embodiment, the network architecture 100, including host controller 107, host servers 103 and clients 101, may be referred to as a virtualization environment; [0023] The virtual machines 131 and virtual disks are managed by the host controller 107. Host controller 107 may manage the allocation of resources from host server 103 to virtual machines 131. […]The host controller 107 may include a virtualization manager 114 to perform management operations in the virtualization system, including for example allocating resources of host servers 103 to virtual machines 131. Please note that the host controller 107 including a virtualization manager 114 to perform management operations including allocating resources from host server 103 to virtual machines 131, and managing virtual disks, i.e., virtualized storage systems, corresponds to creating virtualized hosts for supporting an execution of components of a virtual machine infrastructure that accesses virtualized storage systems. Furthermore, the host controller 107 being part of the host server 103, included in the virtualization environment of the network architecture 100 corresponds to Applicant’s creating an environment that includes virtualized hosts for supporting an execution of components of a virtual machine infrastructure that accesses virtualized storage systems, i.e., the host controller 107 that supports execution of virtual machines 131 and virtual disks.);
Jodoin in view of Petrov, further in view of Nandan is analogous art with Mesika because they are from the same field of endeavor, computer virtualization.
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 method as taught by Jodoin in view of Petrov, further in view of Nandan by provisioning virtual hosts as taught by Mesika because it would enhance the teaching of Jodoin in view of Petrov, further in view of Nandan with an effective means of virtualized system management using centralized hosts, as described by Mesika.
Jordan in view of Petrov, further in view of Nandan, further in view of Mesika does not explicitly disclose and maintaining, for one or more of the plurality of virtualized devices, state information describing a current state of the virtualized device and configuration information of the virtualized device, wherein the state information is maintained in a repository.
However, Javadekar discloses and maintaining, for one or more of the plurality of virtualized devices, state information describing a current state of the virtualized device (see for example Javadekar, this limitation is disclosed such that current state of virtual devices of a VM that have changed is updated; paragraph [0028])
and configuration information of the virtualized device, wherein the state information is maintained in a repository ([0026] In step 322, incremental checkpoint module 204 may generate a checkpoint information packet reflecting the current state of stunned primary VM 202 and transmit the checkpoint information packet to backup computer system 210. The checkpoint information packet may include state data reflecting the current state of one or more virtual devices of the stunned primary VM 202. Please note that the incremental checkpoint module 204 generating a checkpoint information packet reflecting the current state of stunned primary VM 202 to be transmitted to backup computer system 210, indicating state data, corresponds to Applicant’s state information being maintained in a repository, i.e., in the backup computer system 210. Furthermore, as the checkpoint information packet reflects the current state of the virtual devices of the stunned primary VM 202, this corresponds to the configuration information being contained as well, i.e., the configuration information of the virtualized device at that moment in time for backup purposes.).
Jodoin in view of Petrov, further in view of Nandan, further in view of Mesika is analogous art with Javadekar because they are from the same field of endeavor, virtualization.
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 method as taught by Jodoin in view of Petrov, further in view of Nandan, further in view of Mesika by updating current state of virtual devices of a VM as well as their configuration information, with the state information maintained in a repository, as taught by Javadekar because it would enhance the teaching of Jodoin in view of Petrov, further in view of Nandan, further in view of Mesika with an effective means of incrementally checkpointing state data of a VM (as suggested by Javadekar, see for example paragraph [0028]).
Regarding Claim 8, Jodoin An apparatus comprising: a memory; and a processing device operatively coupled to the memory, the processing device configured to (Col. 25, Lines 65-67-Col. 26, Lines 1-9- Where a system includes computerized devices, each such device can include hardware elements that may be electrically coupled via a bus, the elements including, for example, at least one central processing unit (“CPU” or “processor”), […] solid-state storage devices such as random access memory (“RAM”) or read-only memory (“ROM”). Please note that the system containing a processor electrically coupled to RAM via a bus corresponds to Applicant’s apparatus comprising a memory and a processing device operatively coupled to the memory, the processing device configured to perform the operations.). Therefore, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 8 is also rejected under the same rationales as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Jodoin discloses A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed, cause a processing device to (Col. 27, Lines 58-63-In some embodiments, the code is stored on set of one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media having stored thereon executable instructions that, when executed (i.e., as a result of being executed) by one or more processors of a computer system, cause the computer system to perform operations described herein. Please note that the code being stored on a non-transitory computer-readable storage media having stored executable instructions that when executed by processors cause the computer system to perform described operations corresponds to Applicant’s A non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed, cause a processing device to perform the operations.). Therefore, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationales as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7, Jodoin-Petrov-Nandan-Mesika-Javadekar as described in Claim 1, Jodoin further discloses defining, in a configuration template, the virtualized storage environment further comprises defining multiple testing environments corresponding to a group of possible deployments for one or more storage systems and a virtual machine infrastructure that accesses the one or more storage systems (see for example Jodoin, this limitation is disclosed such that an infrastructure template (i.e. configuration template) for a beta stage is utilized as part of an internal beta testing phase of a pipeline that involves running a set of tests to verify functionality of a service utilizing various resources such as virtual machines and storage to fulfill requests. The infrastructure template is utilized to deploy infrastructure such as virtual machine instances and storage systems in a specified configuration, service code 110 may be deployed onto the infrastructure, and a set of tests may be run within the beta environment; col.8 line {49} – col.9 line {34}. Therefore, this corresponds to Applicant’s defining multiple testing environments corresponding to a group of possible deployments for storage systems, as multiple tests, necessitating multiple testing environments, are run for possible deployments of infrastructure including storage systems with a specific configuration, corresponding to a defined configuration template.);
Mesika further discloses defining, in the configuration template, the one or more virtualized storage systems as part of a plurality of virtualized devices to be deployed within the environment further comprises defining one or more virtualized hosts for supporting the execution of components in the virtual machine infrastructure ([0023] The virtual machines 131 and virtual disks are managed by the host controller 107. Host controller 107 may manage the allocation of resources from host server 103 to virtual machines 131. […]The host controller 107 may include a virtualization manager 114 to perform management operations in the virtualization system, including for example allocating resources of host servers 103 to virtual machines 131. Please note that the host controller 107 including a virtualization manager 114 to perform management operations including allocating resources from host server 103 to virtual machines 131, and managing virtual disks, i.e., virtualized storage systems, corresponds to defining virtualized hosts for supporting the execution of components in the virtual machine infrastructure by defining the virtualized storage systems as part of virtualized devices to be deployed within the environment);
further comprises creating a plurality of environments, wherein each environment includes one or more virtualized storage systems and one or more virtualized hosts for supporting the execution of components in the virtual machine infrastructure ([0018] the same set of features, and their corresponding database upgrade scripts may be installed in different virtualization environments; [0019] the host controller 107 may be part of the host server 103. In one embodiment, the network architecture 100, including host controller 107, host servers 103 and clients 101, may be referred to as a virtualization environment; [0023] The virtual machines 131 and virtual disks are managed by the host controller 107. Host controller 107 may manage the allocation of resources from host server 103 to virtual machines 131. […]The host controller 107 may include a virtualization manager 114 to perform management operations in the virtualization system, including for example allocating resources of host servers 103 to virtual machines 131. Please note that the host controller 107 being part of the host server 103, included in the virtualization environment of the network architecture 100, which is one of multiple different virtualization environments, corresponds to Applicant’s creating a plurality of environments, wherein each environment controls virtualized storage systems, i.e., the storage systems that are resources of the host server 103 that may be allocated, and virtualized hosts for supporting the execution of components in the virtual machine infrastructure, i.e., the host controller 107 that supports execution of virtual machines 131 and virtual disks.);
Petrov further discloses and creating, using the configuration template, the environment and the virtualized devices that are deployed in the environment in accordance with their respective device configurations contained in the configuration template (see for example Petrov, this limitation is disclosed such that a resulting application package is assembled with the base virtual appliance to create a virtual appliance; paragraph [0044]. The virtual appliance built by assembling the base virtual appliance installs an application package on a virtual disk of the base virtual appliance, such that a virtual machine of the virtual appliance supports a guest OS and application associated with the application package; paragraphs [0017], [0020]. Therefore, this corresponds to Applicant’s creating the environment and the virtualized devices that are deployed in the environment in accordance with their respective device configurations contained in the configuration template, as the virtual appliances are created and may be deployed in the environment as previously described by Jodoin.)
Regarding Claim 14, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations cited in claim 7. Thus, claim 8 is also rejected under the same rationales as cited in the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding Claim 20, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 7. Thus, claim 8 is also rejected under the same rationales as cited in the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding Claim 24, Jodoin-Petrov-Nandan-Mesika-Javadekar as described in Claim 1, Javadekar further discloses wherein the state information further comprises information relating to operating characteristics of the virtualized device ([0014] In one embodiment, hypervisor 118 may include an incremental checkpoint module 142 configured to generate one or more checkpoints which capture the state of a particular VM at a particular point in time. The generated checkpoints may be utilized for a variety of purposes, such as, in VM snapshots written to disk, or transmitted to secondary systems that provide a failover for VMs. In one or more embodiments, incremental checkpoint module 142 is configured to generate incremental checkpoints which contain modifications to the state of a particular VM since a prior checkpoint. A checkpoint may include state data of each of the plurality of virtual devices 136 at a particular time, while an incremental checkpoint includes state data of each of the plurality of virtual devices 136 that have been modified since the prior checkout. Please note that incremental checkpoints including state data for each virtualized device that have been modified since a prior checkpoint corresponds to Applicant’s state information further comprising information relating to operating characteristics of the virtualized device, as by utilizing the saved incremental checkpoints for a particular virtualized device containing its state data, its operating characteristics could be ascertained.).
Regarding Claim 25, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations cited in Claim 24. Thus, claim 25 is also rejected under the same rationales as cited in the rejection of Claim 24.
Regarding Claim 26, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in Claim 24. Thus, claim 26 is also rejected under the same rationales as cited in the rejection of Claim 24.
Claims 2, 4, 9, 11, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jodoin (U.S. 10,318,285) in view of Petrov (U.S. 2016/0098288), further in view of Nandan (U.S. 2009/0006519), further in view of Mesika (US 20140337282 A1), and further in view of Javadekar et al. (U.S. 2015/0154081) (Hereinafter Javadekar) as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, respectively, and further in view of Matsuzawa et al. (U.S. 2016/0011809) (Hereinafter Matsuzawa).
As per claim 2, Jodoin in view of Petrov, further in view of Nandan, further in view of Mesika, further in view of Javadekar discloses the method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein at least one of virtualized devices is a virtualized device that is executing software for supporting the execution of one or more virtual machines.
However, Matsuzawa discloses the limitation wherein at least one of virtualized devices is a virtualized device that is executing software for supporting the execution of one or more virtual machines (see for example Matsuzawa, this limitation is disclosed such that a host virtual machine includes a virtual CPU, a memory, an internal communication path interface, and a frontend interface. The virtual CPU reads the various programs within the memory, and based on the instructions from the programs, controls the various components of the host virtual machine (i.e. virtual CPU is a “virtualized device that is executing software for supporting the execution of one or more virtual machines); paragraphs [0045]-[0046]).
Jodoin in view of Petrov, further in view of Nandan, further in view of Mesika, further in view of Javadekar is analogous art with Matsuzawa because they are from the same field of endeavor, virtualization.
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 method as taught by Jodoin in view of Petrov, further in view of Nandan, further in view of Mesika, further in view of Javadekar by using virtual devices for virtual machine use as taught by Matsuzawa because it would enhance the teaching of Jodoin in view of Petrov, further in view of Nandan, further in view of Mesika, further in view of Javadekar with an effective means of emulating the various hardware constituting a computer by the software in a single computer (as suggested by Matsuzawa, see for example paragraph [0004]).
As per claim 4, Jodoin in view of Petrov, further in view of Nandan, further in view of Mesika, further in view of Javadekar discloses the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein one or more virtual machines issue input/output (‘I/O’) operations to one or more virtualized storage systems.
However, Matsuzawa discloses the limitation wherein one or more virtual machines issue input/output (‘I/O’) operations to one or more virtualized storage systems (see for example Matsuzawa, this limitation is disclosed such that a host virtual machine includes a virtual CPU, a memory, an internal communication path interface, and a frontend interface. The virtual CPU reads the various programs within the memory, and based on the instructions from the programs, controls the various components of the host virtual machine (i.e. virtualized devices for supporting the execution of one or more virtual devices); paragraphs [0045]-[0046]. Further, an emulated storage device (i.e. a virtualized device that is emulating a storage system) is provided to the virtual machine. Input/output requests that the virtual machine issues are transferred to the emulated storage device; paragraph [0004]. Input/output that that is performed on data of a volume constructed from a storage device (i.e. the emulated storage device) is done via the internal communication path interface of the host virtual machine (i.e. virtual machines that are supported by the first set of virtual devices issue input/output ('I/O') operations to the storage systems emulated on the second set of virtual devices); paragraphs [0048], [0052]).
Jodoin in view of Petrov, further in view of Nandan, further in view of Mesika, further in view of Javadekar is analogous art with Matsuzawa because they are from the same field of endeavor, virtualization.
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 method as taught by Jodoin in view of Petrov, further in view of Nandan, further in view of Mesika, further in view of Javadekar by using virtual devices for virtual machine use as taught by Matsuzawa because it would enhance the teaching of Jodoin in view of Petrov, further in view of Nandan, further in view of Mesika, further in view of Javadekar with an effective means of emulating the various hardware constituting a computer by the software in a single computer (as suggested by Matsuzawa, see for example paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 9, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 9 is also rejected under the same rationales as cited in the rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 11, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations cited in claim 4. Thus, claim 11 is also rejected under the same rationales as cited in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 17, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 4. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationales as cited in the rejection of claim 4.
Claims 6, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jodoin (U.S. 10,318,285) in view of Petrov (U.S. 2016/0098288), further in view of Nandan (U.S. 2009/0006519), and further in view of Mesika (US 20140337282 A1), and further in view of Javadekar (U.S. 2015/0154081) as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, respectively, and further in view of Kobayashi, Makoto (U.S. 2013/0016399) (Hereinafter Kobayashi).
As per claim 6, Jodoin in view of Petrov, further in view of Nandan, further in view of Mesika, further in view of Javadekar discloses the method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but does not explicitly teach detecting that the current state of one or more of the virtualized devices has deviated from a corresponding device configuration that is included in the configuration template.
However, Kobayashi discloses detecting that the current state of one or more of the virtualized devices has deviated from a corresponding device configuration that is included in the configuration template (see for example Kobayashi, this limitation is disclosed such that virtual device configuration data is acquired from a processing target virtual device, and a determination is made if the data satisfies a condition defined in a schema (i.e. configuration template); paragraphs [0126], [0153]).
Jodoin in view of Petrov, further in view of Nandan, further in view of Mesika, further in view of Javadekar is analogous art with Kobayashi because they are from the same field of endeavor, virtualization.
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 method as taught by Jodoin in view of Petrov, further in view of Nandan, further in view of Mesika, further in view of Javadekar by determining if virtual device configuration satisfies a schema condition as taught by Kobayashi because it would enhance the teaching of Jodoin in view of Petrov, further in view of Nandan, further in view of Mesika, further in view of Javadekar with an effective means of detecting abnormalities (as suggested by Kobayashi, see for example paragraph [0007]).
Regarding claim 13, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations cited in claim 6. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected under the same rationales as cited in the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 19, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 6. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationales as cited in the rejection of claim 6.
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jodoin (U.S. 10,318,285) in view of Petrov (U.S. 2016/0098288), further in view of Nandan (U.S. 2009/0006519), further in view of Mesika (US 20140337282 A1), and further in view of Javadekar (U.S. 2015/0154081) as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, respectively, and further in view of Beaty et al. (U.S. 2012/0005318) (Hereinafter Beaty – art made of record).
As per claim 21, Jodoin in view of Petrov, further in view of Nandan, further in view of Mesika, further in view of Javadekar discloses the method of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), further disclosing a virtualized storage system (see for example Petrov, this limitation is disclosed such that a base virtual appliance in a virtualized computing environment (i.e. a virtualized device of a virtualized storage environment) includes a virtual machine (i.e. virtualized devices comprise one or more virtual machines) and a virtual disk (i.e. virtualized devices comprise at least one virtualized storage system); clm.9 and associated text, paragraph [0022]).
Jodoin in view of Petrov, further in view of Nandan, further in view of Mesika, further in view of Javadekar does not explicitly teach detecting that a current state of at least one virtualized system has deviated from a corresponding device configuration that is included in a configuration template.
However, Beaty discloses detecting that a current state of at least one virtualized system has deviated from a corresponding device configuration that is included in the configuration template (see for example Beaty, this limitation is disclosed such that deviations in the configuration of problematic VM resources is detected (i.e. detecting that a current state of at least one virtualized instance has deviated). The deviations are differences from configuration parameters in a golden template of common configuration (i.e. deviation is from a corresponding device configuration that is included in a configuration template); paragraph [0028]).
Jodoin in view of Petrov, further in view of Nandan, further in view of Mesika, further in view of Javadekar is analogous art with Beaty because they are from the same field of endeavor, virtualization.
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 method as taught by Jodoin in view of Petrov, further in view of Nandan, further in view of Mesika, further in view of Javadekar by determining deviations from a template as taught by Beaty because it would enhance the teaching of Jodoin in view of Petrov, further in view of Nandan, further in view of Mesika, further in view of Javadekar with an effective means of fixing configurations of problematic resources of affected VMs (as suggested by Beaty, see for example paragraph [0028]).
Regarding claim 22, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations cited in claim 21. Thus, claim 22 is also rejected under the same rationales as cited in the rejection of claim 21.
Regarding claim 23, it is a medium claim having similar limitations cited in claim 21. Thus, claim 23 is also rejected under the same rationales as cited in the rejection of claim 21.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are summarized as the following:
The amended independent Claims 1, 8, and 15 are patentable over the combination Jodoin-Petrov-Nandan-McCune, as they do not teach the amended features of the Claims. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be withdrawn.
The dependent Claims 2, 4, 6, 9, 11, 13, 17, 19, and 21-23 depend on respective allowable Independent claims 1, 8, and 15, and the references introduced to remedy the shortcomings of Jodoin-Petrov-Nandan-McCune (Matsuzawa for Claims 2, 4, 9, 11, and 17; Kobayashi for Claims 6, 13, and 19; Beaty for Claims 21-23) fail to do so. Therefore, these dependent Claims are patentable over the proposed combinations of references, and their rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be withdrawn.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Regarding A, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. The Applicant merely states that the limitations of the amended independent Claims are not taught by the cited combination of references, but does not specify which limitations are not taught, nor how the amendments overcome the cited references.
Additionally, Applicant’s arguments are moot as the rejection relies on a new combination of references, Jodoin-Petrov-Nandan-Mesika. Therefore, the recited features can be found in the combination of references, amended independent Claims 1, 8, and 15 remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 for the reasons stated above, and the combinations would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the application.
Regarding B, independent Claims 1, 8, and 15 remain rejected for the reasons stated above. Thus, contrary to Applicant’s arguments, because the dependent claims depend from unpatentable independent claims and do not add limitations that overcome the rejection, they likewise remain rejected.
Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dornemann et al. (US 20170168903 A1) discloses a VM test client, creating a recovery point (point in time backup copy), carrying out test operations, VM and cloud configurations, determining whether an application can operate properly in a virtualized environment (see [0360-0362]).
McCune et al (US-20090327211-A1) discloses a virtual management system using a server to manage virtual machines, provisioning virtual hosts are provisioned and managing them by a centralized server, assigning computing resources to run virtual machines to the hosts, and the centralized server retrieving items from a storage device (see [0011, 0019, 0029, 0031]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARAZ T AKBARI whose telephone number is (571)272-4166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:30am-7:30pm ET.
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, April Blair can be reached at (571)270-1014. 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.
/FARAZ T AKBARI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2196
/APRIL Y BLAIR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2196