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 04/14/2026. Claims 1-2, 4, 6-9, 11, 13-15, 17, and 19-26 are pending. Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 11, 13-15, 17, 19, 20 and 24-26 have been amended. Claims 3, 5, 10, 12, 16 and 18 were previously canceled.
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 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});
a respective device configuration contained in the configuration template see for example Jodoin, this limitation is disclosed such that an infrastructure template (i.e. configuration template) for a beta stage that is utilized to deploy infrastructure such as virtual machine instances and storage systems in a specified configuration, corresponding to Applicant’s configuration template that contains a respective device configuration; 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; a respective device configuration contained in the configuration template, 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 virtualized storage 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 at least one virtualized storage system, the plurality of virtualized devices being deployed in the virtualized storage 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 the at least one 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 the at least one virtualized storage system ([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 virtualized devices of the plurality of virtualized devices, state information describing a current state of the one or more virtualized devices and configuration information of the one or more virtualized device, wherein the state information is maintained in a repository, and wherein maintaining the state information comprises determining compliance of the virtualized storage environment with the configuration template by comparing the current state of the one or more virtualized devices against a respective device configuration contained in the configuration template.
However, Javadekar discloses and maintaining, for one or more virtualized devices of the plurality of virtualized devices, state information describing a current state of the one or more virtualized devices (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 one or more virtualized devices, 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.),
and wherein maintaining the state information comprises determining compliance of the virtualized storage environment by comparing the current state of the one or more virtualized devices against a respective device configuration ([0036] In one embodiment, at step 506, the queried virtual device 136 compares the current state data of the virtual device with a copy of state data retained from a prior checkpoint. At step 508, if the values do not match, i.e., responsive to determining the current state data of the virtual device does not match state data saved from a prior checkpoint, virtual device 136 returns data to incremental checkpoint module 204 representing a current state of the queried virtual device. […] the queried virtual device may retain a library of copies of state data for a pre-determined number of prior checkpoints. Please note that comparing the current state data of the virtual device with a copy of state data retained from a prior checkpoint to determine if they match, where there may be a retained library of copies of state data for prior checkpoints, corresponds to Applicant’s maintaining the state information comprising determining compliance of the virtualized storage environment by comparing the current state of the one or more virtualized devices against a respective device configuration.).
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, with the maintaining comprising determining compliance of the virtualized storage environment by comparing the current state of the virtual devices against a respective device configuration as taught by Javadekar, utilizing the previously disclosed configuration templates, 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 and improving system stability with the compliance determination being performed against Jodoin’s previously taught configuration template (as suggested by Javadekar, see for example paragraph [0028]).
Regarding Claim 8, Jodoin discloses 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 6, Jodoin further discloses the configuration template (see for example Jodoin, this limitation is disclosed such that an infrastructure template (i.e. configuration template) for a beta stage that is utilized to deploy infrastructure such as virtual machine instances and storage systems in a specified configuration, corresponding to Applicant’s configuration template; col.8 line {49} – col.9 line {34}).
Javadekar further discloses detecting that the current state of the one or more virtualized devices has deviated from the corresponding device configuration comprises: comparing the state information describing a current state of the one or more virtualized devices to the configuration template ([0036] In one embodiment, at step 506, the queried virtual device 136 compares the current state data of the virtual device with a copy of state data retained from a prior checkpoint. At step 508, if the values do not match, i.e., responsive to determining the current state data of the virtual device does not match state data saved from a prior checkpoint, virtual device 136 returns data to incremental checkpoint module 204 representing a current state of the queried virtual device. […] the queried virtual device may retain a library of copies of state data for a pre-determined number of prior checkpoints. Please note that comparing the current state data of the virtual device with a copy of state data retained from a prior checkpoint to determine if they match or not, i.e., detect a deviation, where there may be a retained library of copies of state data for prior checkpoints, corresponds to Applicant’s detecting that the current state of the one or more virtualized devices has deviated from the corresponding device configuration comprising comparing the state information describing a current state of the one or more virtualized devices to the configuration template.).
Regarding Claim 14, it is an apparatus claim having similar limitations cited in claim 7. Thus, claim 14 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 20 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 associated with operating characteristics of the one or more virtualized devices ([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 associated with 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 the plurality 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 the plurality 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]).
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.
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 the at least one virtualized storage system.
However, Matsuzawa discloses the limitation wherein one or more virtual machines issue input/output (‘I/O’) operations to the at least one virtualized storage system (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 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 the one or more 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 04/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments are summarized as the following:
None of the cited combinations of references for the Claims, alone or in combination, teach the elements of the Claims. Firstly, Javadekar does not teach the amended limitations regarding “determining compliance of the virtualized storage environment with the configuration template by comparing the current state of the one or more virtualized devices against a respective device configuration contained in the configuration template” as part of the “maintaining” feature of the independent Claims. Javadekar generally discloses a virtualization platform providing fault tolerance for a virtual machine by transmitting checkpoint information to a collector process, and an instance where updated state reflected in the received checkpoint information packet is merged into the current state of the backup VM. Therefore, Javadekar teaches consistent observance of a current state of a virtual machine, but not the recited limitations of the amended Claim. Even if the comparison of a current device state with a state saved from a previous checkpoint described by Javadekar is characterized as a comparison, it is fundamentally different from the recited comparison. Javadekar discloses comparing a current runtime state of a virtual device against a previously saved runtime snapshot for the purpose of determining whether to include the device in an incremental checkpoint. The previously saved state in Javadekar merely reflects an earlier operational condition of the virtual device, whereas the amended claims have a comparison performed against a declarative, intended device configuration defined in a configuration template, not a prior runtime snapshot. Therefore, the checkpoint-based state comparison disclosed by Javadekar is different from determining compliance of a virtualized storage environment against a configuration template, and the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be withdrawn.
Though the Office Action asserts that it would have been obvious to combine Jodoin, Petrov, Mesika, and Javadekar to arrive at the claimed invention, the rationale is insufficient because it does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the template-based infrastructure provisioning framework of Jodoin with the virtual appliance construction of Petrov, the storage virtualization of Mesika, and the checkpoint-based runtime state comparison of Javadekar to arrive at the claimed determination of compliance of the virtualized storage environment with the configuration template by comparing the current state of the one or more virtualized devices against a respective device configuration contained in the configuration template. It does not identify a problem in Jodoin that the other references are said to solve, nor a problem in the other references that Jodoin is said to solve; additionally, none of the references recite the additional amended limitations reciting comparing the current state. There is no clear linkage between the cited references nor an explanation of how one of ordinary skill in the art would combine them, so the combination is unsupported as it does not describe how the mechanisms would be integrated to perform the determination, and therefore the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be withdrawn.
The rejections of the Office Action also rely on hindsight construction to arrive at the claimed subject matter, as the knowledge of Applicant’s invention is required to determine the relevancy of Javadekar to the Claimed invention in combination with the other references, which do not discuss integrating the mechanisms together. Javadekar does not disclose comparing a device state against a device configuration contained in a configuration template, and the other references do not teach determining compliance via the comparison. The rejection thus impermissibly “fills in the gaps” by equating a checkpoint-based runtime comparison with the claimed configuration-template-based compliance determination, using the amended claim language as a roadmap. The claims have also not been evaluated as a whole, as the claims recite a coordinated mechanism performing the steps, which is not taught by the cited references as they do not have an articulated explanation and rest on hindsight. Therefore, the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be withdrawn.
No combination of the cited references teach the limitations recited within the claims, and thus, the office action fails to present a prima facie case of obviousness, because the combined references do not teach each limitation of the claims and they thus cannot be obvious. Therefore, all 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, the examiner respectfully disagrees. As Javadekar recites comparing the current state data of the virtual device with a copy of state data retained from a prior checkpoint to determine if they match or not, where there may be a retained library of copies of state data for prior checkpoints, corresponding to comparing the current state of the one or more virtualized devices against a respective device configuration to determine compliance of the virtualized storage environment, and Jodoin discloses an infrastructure template (i.e. configuration template) for a beta stage that is utilized to deploy infrastructure such as virtual machine instances and storage systems in a specified configuration, corresponding to Applicant’s configuration template that contains a respective device configuration, the combination of the two teachings from the system would allow one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the process as recited in the limitations of the amended Claim, comparing the current state to the configuration template, substituting for the prior checkpoint data, to determine compliance in a consistent manner.
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, the examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, as at least Jodoin from the system discloses using an infrastructure template for testing to verify functionality of a service, and Javadekar from the system discloses comparing the current state data of the virtual device with a copy of state data retained from a prior checkpoint to determine if they match or not, where there may be a retained library of copies of state data for prior checkpoints, at least these references in conjunction with the others in the combination of references are concerned with using comparisons between current and expected statuses of systems to validate compliance of the system, and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the infrastructure template to compare the virtualized device states to.
Regarding C, the examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Regarding D, the examiner respectfully disagrees. 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]).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights