DETAILED ACTION
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 Amendment
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed, 27 May 2026, of application filed, with the above serial number, on 11 January 2022 in which claims 1, 3, 5-9, 18 have been amended and claims 19-28 have been added. Claims 1-9, 18-28 are pending in the application.
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 1-9, 18-28 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. The claims are amended to add ‘determine that the old host machine is not reachable to receive the port-delete notification, precluding deletion of the old instance of the virtual resource hosted on the old host machine’. It is indefinite if such result occurs as the notification is described to be a port delete command not a virtual resource delete command; are the notifications themselves moving the resources or adding ports or addresses to the host machines for them to be available? It is not clear if the resources are being copied or moved with a port delete notification, the specification does not clearly indicate, for example, that deleting a port deletes the resources.
The term “at least a same or at least a similar level of networking connectivity that was previously provided to the old instance of the virtual resource” in claim 1, 18, 24, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “at least a same or at least a similar level” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 18-22, 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al (hereinafter “Wu”, 2015/0112944) in view of Marklund (hereinafter “Marklund”, 2004/0057429), further in view of Asayag (hereinafter “Asayag”, 2018/0349164).
As per Claim 1, Wu discloses a computing system comprising:
one or more processors; and memory that stores instructions that are executable by the one or more processors to cause the computing system to:
monitor and provide policies to a plurality of virtual resources in a network (at least paragraph 69, 71; virtualization module monitoring virtual machines and provide storage resources for virtual machines);
determine that the new and old instances of the virtual resource comprise identical virtual resource identifiers (at least paragraph 114-117; redundant virtual machines wherein the identifier of the backup virtual machine may be the same as or different from the identifier of the source virtual machine; paragraph 114-117; eg. VM1 and VM2 with same uuid; source and backup virtual machines);
in response to the determining that the new and old instances of the virtual resource comprise identical virtual resource identifiers, select the new instance of the virtual resource to instantiate a set of resources for (at least paragraph 116-122; determine storage unit for virtual machine), the set of resources being ones designed to accommodate the old instance of the virtual resource, the selecting being based on multi-dimensional information and comprising:
determining that the new instance of the virtual resource is either (a) a most recently instantiated virtual resource as compared to the old instance of the virtual resource, or (b) a resource that is connected to a particular storage node (at least paragraph 116, 122-126; determine which virtual machine is the backup and which is the production VM according to information about storage units occupied and connected to the VMs);
determining that the old instance of the virtual resource is in a non-running state (at least paragraph 304, 150-157; redundancy incident occurs, stop the redundancy site from replicating the data of the first storage unit to the second storage unit);
determining that the new instance of the virtual resource is in a running state (at least paragraph 304, 150-157; cloud application needing redundancy at production site/VM); and
causing the new instance of the virtual resource to operate as the selected virtual resource (at least paragraph 116-126; determine which virtual machine is the backup and which is the production VM according to information about storage units occupied and connected to the VMs; paragraph 304, 150-157; production and backup VM state needing recovery).
Wu fails to explicitly disclose cause a virtual resource control system to send a port-add notification to a new host machine to which a virtual resource is being copied, resulting in generation of a new instance of the virtual resource; cause the virtual resource control system to send a port-delete notification to an old host machine from which the virtual resource is being copied, the old host machine hosting an old instance of the virtual resource; determine that the old host machine is not reachable to receive the port-delete notification, precluding deletion of the old instance of the virtual resource hosted on the old host machine, determine that the set of resources, which are originally designed to accommodate the old instance of the virtual resource, are not sufficient due to a loss of the old instance of the virtual resource from a failover or migration. However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Marklund. Marklund discloses, in an analogous art, creating a new IP host to replace an old IP host, the old IP host may be failed or unreachable and assigning the same IP address (port) for the two hosts with the old IP host deprived of its address with the forwarding engine (at least paragraph 48-55). Marklund teaches the failure being failure of an IP-host, a failure of a forwarding engine or a failure of an IP-port It is also possible that several units on the same processor fail at the same time. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Marklund’s host addressing with Wu as Marklund teaches it is advantageous to reduce the need to inform other addresses of a new IP address, the new IP host simply takes over and assumes the old IP host duties.
Wu and Marklund fail to disclose in addition to the set of resources, instantiate additional networking resources for the new instance of the virtual resource based on a determination that the failover or migration resulted from insufficient networking resources available to the old instance, wherein the additional networking resources are configured to provide at least a same or at least a similar level of networking connectivity that was previously provided to the old instance of the virtual resource. Asayag discloses, in an analogous art, determining the network that a virtual machine is currently on cannot operate and migrating and choosing where to migrate the VM based on the network having the resources that the VM needs (at least paragraph 11-12, 16, 20-21). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Asayag’s migration strategy with Wu and Markland as Asayag teaches it would be obvious that if a host and network of a VM cannot provide the resources needed, the VM could be migrated to a host and network that have the resources in order for the VM to operate as required. Thus, for example, if a VM is on a slow network and the VM is streaming multimedia, the VM can be moved to a faster network to provide it’s functionality, which would be obvious in light of Asayag’s teachings and for Wu and Marklund to incorporate.
As per Claim 2. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further executable to cause the computing system to provide network configuration updates to one or more networking resources in the network, the network configuration updates providing networking connectivity to the selected virtual resource (at least paragraph 116-126).
As per Claim 3. Wu fails to explicitly disclose the computing system of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further executable to cause the computing system to selectively determine to provide connectivity to the new instance of the virtual resource. However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Becker. Marklund discloses, in an analogous art, that the new IP host replaces the old IP host and replaces the IP address destination with forwarding engines to forward to the new IP host with the same IP address (at least paragraph 48-55). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Marklund’s host addressing with Wu as Marklund teaches it is advantageous to reduce the need to inform other addresses of a new IP address, the new IP host simply takes over connectivity with the IP address.
As per Claim 4. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the multi-dimensional information further includes resource port version information (at least paragraph 114-126; eg. “’” of VM11’ of VM1; ‘backup virtual machine VM11'(uuid=11) is correspondingly configured for VM1 (uuid=1)’).
As per Claim 5. The computing system of claim 1, wherein selecting the new instance of the virtual resource is further based on metadata that includes, at least in part, statuses of the new and old instances of the virtual resource, and wherein the statuses are based at least in part on connectivity to the particular storage node (at least paragraph 116-126; determine which virtual machine is the backup and which is the production VM according to information about storage units occupied and connected to the VMs).
As per Claim 6. Wu fails to explicitly disclose the computing system of claim 1, wherein selecting the new instance of the virtual resource is further based on metadata that includes, at least in part: port versions of the new and old instances of the virtual resource; and statuses of the new and old instances of the virtual resource (at least paragraph 116-126; determine which virtual machine is the backup and which is the production VM according to information about storage units occupied and connected to the VMs).
As per Claim 7. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the new and old instances of the virtual resource are virtual machines (at least paragraph 69, 71; virtual machines).
As per Claim 8. The computing system of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further executable to cause the computing system to select network configuration updates for one or both of the new and old instances of the virtual resource based at least in part on networking connectivity to be provided to a group of virtual resources that the new instance of the virtual resource belongs to (at least paragraph 116-126).
As per Claim 9. The computing system of claim 8, wherein the group of virtual resources is identified based at least on a group identifier of the new instance of the virtual resource, the group identifier tracked separately from a virtual resource identifier of the new instance of the virtual resource (at least paragraph 116-126; eg. VLAN).
Claim 18 does not, in substance, add or define any additional limitations over claim 1 and therefore is/are rejected for similar reasons, supra. The method steps claimed are performed within claim 1’s system performing the like method via instructions.
As per Claim 19. The method of claim 18, wherein the multi-dimensional information includes a port version assigned to each instance of the virtual resource, and wherein selecting the new instance of the virtual resource is further based on the new instance having a most recent port version relative to the old instance of the virtual resource (at least paragraph 114-126; eg. “ ’ ” of VM11’ of VM1; ‘backup virtual machine VM11'(uuid=11) is correspondingly configured for VM1 (uuid=1)’).
As per Claim 20. The method of claim 18, wherein determining that the old instance of the virtual resource is in the non-running state is based at least in part on the old instance lacking connectivity to a storage node, and wherein determining that the new instance of the virtual resource is in the running state is based at least in part on the new instance having connectivity to the storage node (at least paragraph 118-125; selecting the second storage unit of the redundancy site according to information about the first storage unit; the storage art the redundancy site is not available at the production site and vice versa).
As per Claim 21. The method of claim 18, further comprising maintaining, by a control and monitoring node, a policy store that tracks (i) virtual resource identifiers, (ii) port versions, and (iii) state information for the new and old instances of the virtual resource, and selecting the new instance of the virtual resource based on information stored in the policy store (at least paragraph 114-126; eg. “’” of VM11’ of VM1; ‘backup virtual machine VM11'(uuid=11) is correspondingly configured for VM1 (uuid=1)’; eg. VM1 and VM2 with same uuid; source and backup virtual machines).
As per Claim 22. The method of claim 18, further comprising providing network configuration updates to networking resources in the network to map networking policies associated with the virtual resource to the new host machine hosting the new instance of the virtual resource while removing networking connectivity to the old instance of the virtual resource (at least Marklund paragraph 48-55; eg. old IP host deprived of its address; either updating new IP host with the old IP address or informing other network components of new IP address).
As per Claim 25. The hardware storage device of claim 24, wherein the instructions are further executable to cause the computing system to receive, at a control and monitoring node, update communications indicating instantiation or removal of virtual resources, and to determine the new and old instances of the virtual resource based on the received update communications (at least Wu paragraph 275-276; send the first description information to the redundancy management module; Marklund paragraph 48-55; eg. old IP host deprived of its address; either updating new IP host with the old IP address or informing other network components of new IP address).
As per Claim 26. The hardware storage device of claim 24, wherein the instructions are further executable to cause the computing system to assign a new port version to the new instance of the virtual resource upon detection of the new instance in the network, and to maintain an ordering of port versions such that a temporal order of instantiation of virtual resource instances is determinable (at least paragraph 114-126; eg. “ ’ ” of VM11’ of VM1; ‘backup virtual machine VM11'(uuid=11) is correspondingly configured for VM1 (uuid=1)’).
Claim(s) 23, 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Marklund and Asayag, further in view of Mittal et al (hereinafter “Mittal”, 9,712,455).
As per Claim 23, Wu, Marklund, and Asayag fail to explicitly disclose wherein the additional networking resources comprise at least one of a firewall resource, a virtual private network (VPN) node, or a routing resource that is instantiated to provide the same or similar level of networking connectivity to the new instance of the virtual resource. However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Mittal (at least col. 2:53-58; 3:44-67). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Mittal’s target domain compatibility check with Wu, Marklund, and Asayag as Mittal teaches ensuring the necessary networking and storage configurations are established successfully before migration commences so that the migration will then operate as expected.
As per Claim 27. Wu, Marklund, and Asayag fail to explicitly disclose wherein the instructions are further executable to cause the computing system to update networking policies to include at least one of firewall rules, routing paths, access control lists, or address mappings that enable communication to the new instance of the virtual resource. However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Mittal (at least col. 2:53-58; 3:44-67). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Mittal’s target domain compatibility check with Wu, Marklund, and Asayag as Mittal teaches ensuring the necessary networking and storage configurations are established successfully before migration commences so that the migration will then operate as expected.
Claim(s) 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Marklund and Asayag, further in view of Cao et al (hereinafter “Cao”, 10,536,355).
Wu, Marklund, and Asayag fail to explicitly disclose wherein the instructions are further executable to cause the computing system to log events including at least one of (i) detection of duplicate virtual resource instances, (ii) selection of the new instance of the virtual resource, or (iii) instantiation of the additional networking resources, and to store the logged events with time stamps. However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Cao (at least col. 4:34-5:22). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Cao’s logging with Wu, Marklund, and Asayag as Cao teaches tracking migrations of VMs among hosts by monitoring the metrics associated with the components so as to associate metrics of prior hosts and after migration new hosts to monitor health of the hosts and virtual machines to offer the optimal conditions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9, 18-28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
See also at least Shilmover par. 94; Forrester par. 50; Pershin par. 53-54.
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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY TODD whose telephone number is (303)297-4763. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5 MST.
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached on 571-272-3889. 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.
/GREGORY TODD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights