DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 11/14/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending and examined in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Per 101 abstract idea rejection, applicant’s arguments filed on 11/14/2025 have been fully considered, and they are persuasive. The previously issued 101 rejection is withdrawn.
Per 103 rejection, applicant argued the cited prior art do not teach the amended claim limitations. Specifically, applicant stated “McGuire does not teach or suggest the claimed invention's lightweight, real-time routing of network traffic for an individual connection request by intercepting a DNS request and providing a dynamic response. The problem solved by McGuire (long-term hosting strategy) is fundamentally different from the problem solved by the claimed invention (real-time, per- connection traffic steering). The Examiner cites Brar for the DNS functionality. However, Brar teaches a system for providing static physical topology information (e.g., rack, block, building location, as shown in Brar's FIGs. 8-9) to optimize the initial placement of a workload for low latency ([0157]-[0158]). Brar is entirely silent on analyzing dynamic, real-time energy metrics. The claimed "energy telemetry engine" that generates an "energy efficiency quotient (EEQ)" based on power generation types and energy expenditure is wholly absent from Brar. Brar's DNS provides static locality data; the claimed invention's DNS server provides a dynamic response based on a real-time analysis of both energy and latency”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended claim 1 does not positively recite analyzing dynamic real-time energy metrics or real-time, per-connection traffic steering. The claim 1 recites receiving a DNS request, which can be an initial workload placement request. Brar discloses (paragraphs [0006][0048][0161]-[0163]; receiving a DNS request to place a workload in a selected host). Thus, Bar discloses after receiving an initial DNS request, a workload is placed in a selected target host based on certain criteria. Furthermore, both Vohra and McGuire disclose migrating workload based on performance metrics of hosts, i.e. selecting a host based on certain criteria: a workload is migrated from one host to another host based on analysis of performance metrics (Vohra; claims 1-3; determine performance metrics (including latency) of a target storage system, determine if the performance metrics of a target storage system is better than source storage system (threshold); performing a migration from a source storage system to a target storage system based on a performance improvement; McGuire, claim 1; migrating at least a portion of one or more workloads between one or more data centers automatically to maximize a usage of renewable energy based on a predetermined threshold score of input power and a combination of renewal energy sources; dictating, by a policy engine, where at least a portion of the one or more workloads can be hosted). Therefore, the examiner believes the combination of prior art would teach the claim limitations (based on an initial DNS request, a host server is selected to host a workload based certain criteria, such as runtime performance/power metrics of various hosts).
Applicant further argued “Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the references as suggested. An artisan would not look to McGuire's system for strategic workload migration and combine it with Brar's system for static workload placement to arrive at the claimed invention, which performs real-time, DNS-triggered traffic routing. The references address different problems, and their combination to arrive at the claimed invention—a specific secure internet gateway architecture that performs this integrated, real-time analysis—is a product of improper hindsight”. Again, as the examiner explained above, the amended claim 1 does not positively recite real-time, DNS-triggered traffic routing. The DNS request in claim 1 can be an initial hosting request. Brar discloses placing a workload on a host based on a DNS request. McGuire discloses migrating a workload to a target host based on analyzing power consumption data of each host. Therefore, the combination of prior art would teach the limitations in amended claim 1 (see the updated 103 rejection below).
The examiner is available for a phone interview with applicant for further clarification.
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, 9-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGuire et al. (US PGPUB 2022/0398515) hereinafter McGuire, in view of Vohra (US patent 10795598), in view of Brar et al. (US PGPUB 2023/0224223) hereinafter Brar.
Per claim 1, McGuire teaches a method comprising: at a secure internet gateway comprising an energy telemetry engine, identifying, by the energy telemetry engine, host locations at which a workload is hosted, wherein individual ones of the host locations include computing resources provided by a cloud service provider (Paragraph [0027]; “component 122 identifies and selects a temporary ‘poorer choice’ location, based on a generated ranked suitable DC list, to be used”; the server (a secure internet gateway) including Component 122 (energy telemetry engine) can identify and select a location from the list where one or more workloads can be hosted; Paragraph [0019] “In other embodiments, server computer(s) 120 may represent a server computing system utilizing multiple computers such as, but not limited to, a server system, such as in a cloud computing environment.”. The computing resources provided by the cloud service provider corresponds to the computer system utilizing multiple computes within a cloud computing environment); determining, by the energy telemetry engine, energy efficiency metrics for the individual ones of the host locations by: determining types of power generation used to supply power to the individual ones of the host locations; and determining, by the energy telemetry engine, energy expenditure values for compute tasks performed at the individual ones of the host locations (paragraphs [0012][0022]; determine a score of the input power of a data center based on combination of renewal energy sources (in a hybrid environment where both renewable energy and non-renewable energy sources are available) and shutting down the DC until it is back within the threshold; the monitored DC features and tagged DC data comprise, the energy consumption of the DC, the location of the DC, the country and company policy and guidelines, renewable energy capacity, workload capacity and energy consumption); determining, by the energy telemetry engine, that the first host location is more energy efficient than the second host location based at least in part on a first energy efficiency metric of the first host location and a second energy efficiency metric for the second host location; causing the workload to be migrated to the first host location based at least in part on the first host location being more energy efficient than the second host location, wherein the workload being hosted at the first host location has a reduced carbon footprint compared to the workload being hosted at the second host location (paragraphs [0004][0028][0033]; rank the data centers based on the ranking of energy sources, and predict energy usage, capacity and availability of a data center; migrating a workload between one or more data centers automatically to maximize a usage of renewable energy (i.e. reducing carbon footprint) based on a predetermined threshold score of input power and a combination of renewal energy sources).
McGuire does not explicitly teach determining, by the energy telemetry engine, that a first latency measurement associated with the workload being hosted at a first host location and a second latency measurement associated with the workload being hosted at a second host location of the host locations are less than a threshold latency value; causing the workload to be migrated to the first host location based at least in part on the first latency measurement being less than the threshold latency value. However, Vohra further suggests the above (claims 1-3; determine by a storage array controller, performance metrics (including latency) of a target storage system, determine if the performance metrics of a target storage system is better than source storage system (threshold); ranking the performance metrics of two or more target storage systems; performing a migration from a source storage system to a target storage system based on a performance improvement). McGuire further suggests (paragraph [0024]; a policy engine may dictate where workload can be migrated based on a latency requirement (latency threshold)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine McGuire and Vohra to migrate a workload from a first host location to a second host location based on the second host location has a better latency performance than a threshold, this would ensure the quality of service of the second host location is better than a minimum (threshold) level.
McGuire does not explicitly teach at a secure internet gateway comprising a Domain Name System (DNS) server, receiving a Domain Name System (DNS) request from a device to connect to the workload; in response to the DNS request, determining a host location for the workload, providing, to the device, a DNS response that indicates the workload being hosted at the first host location based at least in part on the first latency measurement being less than the threshold latency value and the first host location being more energy efficient than the second host location, wherein the workload being hosted at the first host location has a reduced carbon footprint as compared to the workload being hosted at the second host location. However, Brar suggests at a secure internet gateway comprising a Domain Name System (DNS) server, receiving a Domain Name System (DNS) request from a device to connect to the workload; in response to the DNS request, determining a host location for the workload, providing, to the device, a DNS response that indicates the workload being hosted at the first host location (paragraphs [0006][0048][0083][0161]-[0163]; a DNS based network comprised of servers to be allocated to host workload, a device requesting execution of a workload, and receiving a response that indicates locations of host machines that can execute the workload). McGuire further discloses causing the workload to be migrated to the first host location based at least in part on the first host location being more energy efficient than the second host location, wherein the workload being hosted at the first host location has a reduced carbon footprint compared to the workload being hosted at the second host location (paragraphs [0004][0028][0033]; rank the data centers based on the ranking of energy sources, and predict energy usage, capacity and availability of a data center; migrating a workload between one or more data centers automatically to maximize a usage of renewable energy (i.e. reducing carbon footprint) based on a predetermined threshold score of input power and a combination of renewal energy sources); and (Fig. 1; paragraph [0018]; a graphical interface on a client device to send instructions (request) to a server for selecting a host for a workload migration). Vohra further suggests causing the workload to be migrated to the first host location based at least in part on the first latency measurement being less than the threshold latency value (claims 1-3; determine performance metrics (including latency) of a target storage system, determine if the performance metrics of a target storage system is better than source storage system (threshold); ranking the performance metrics of two or more target storage systems; performing a migration from a source storage system to a target storage system based on a performance improvement). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine McGuire, Vohra and Brar, that based on a DNS request, migrating a workload from a first host location to a second host location based on the second host location has a better latency performance and reduced carbon footprint, and sending a DNS response to indicate such migration; so the user is informed the current status of workload execution (where the workload is being hosted) for better workload management.
Per claim 2, McGuire further suggests selecting a different host location to host the workload based, at least in part, on a change in the first energy efficiency metric of the first host location (paragraphs [0031] “component 122 (i) migrates at least a portion of one or more workloads between one or more data centers automatically to maximize a usage of renewable energy based on a predetermined threshold score of input power and a combination of renewal energy sources,”. The relocation of workload from one host to another based on the change in value of the EEQ corresponds to migrating workloads between one or more data center to maximize the usage of sustainable energy; paragraph [0022]; each data center is being monitored for energy consumption of the DC, the location of the DC, the country and company policy and guidelines, renewable energy capacity, workload capacity and energy consumption, and/or other DC features; i.e. monitoring for a change).
Per claim 3, McGuire further suggests generating a ranking the host locations according to the energy efficiency metrics and selecting the first host location is based, at least in part, on the ranking (paragraph [0028] “rank the data centers based on the ranking of energy sources, and predict energy usage, capacity and availability of a data center, coupled with policy control”; ETE corresponds to Component 122 which selects the host location which is the data center based on ranking of energy analysis).
Per claim 4, McGuire further suggests wherein the energy efficiency metrics relate to a level of sustainability and one or more other metrics related to one or more performance characteristics (paragraphs [0022][0024]; “The monitored DC features and tagged DC data comprise, but are not limited to, the energy consumption of the DC, the location of the DC, the country and company policy and guidelines, renewable energy capacity, workload capacity and energy consumption, and/or other DC features and tagged data known in the art”) .
Per claim 5, McGuire further suggests removing one or more of the host locations to host the workload based, at least in part, on one or more other metrics, wherein the one or more other metrics include at least one of a latency metric, a bandwidth metric, and a type of energy used metric (paragraph [0031] “generates placement predictions for at least a portion of the one or more workloads based on collected data, wherein the collected data comprises: data center capacity, anticipated power generation of a workload, workload data, location of the one or more data centers, type of energy used to power the one or more data centers”; paragraph [0012] “Additionally, embodiments of the present invention improve the art by (i) shutting down an entire DC or at least a portion of a DC and terminating one or more workloads during a lower renewable power generation period or when the Power Usage Effectiveness (PUE) effectiveness has dropped below a predetermined target threshold,”) prior art describes shutting down data centers during low renewable power periods and using the collected data such as data center capacity and energy type to generate workload placement, this corresponds with the claimed inventions method of removing host locations based on metrics like type of energy used).
Per claim 6, McGuire further suggests the host locations include at least one of different data centers of a cloud service provider or different cloud services (paragraph [0019]; “Server computer 120 may be a standalone computing device, a management server, a web server, a mobile computing device, one or more client servers, one or more data centers, or any other electronic device or computing system capable of receiving, sending, and processing data. In other embodiments, server computer(s) 120 may represent a server computing system utilizing multiple computers such as, but not limited to, a server system, such as in a cloud computing environment.”). Server computers that can represent a server computing system, including multiple computers in a cloud computing environment or different data center align with the claimed inventions host locations that comprise different data centers of a cloud service provider or different cloud services).
Per claim 7, McGuire further suggests tracking an energy consumption of the workload over a time period, wherein the workload is migrated from the host location to at least one or more other host locations over the time period (paragraph [0031]; "(viii) monitors and tags data center data, wherein the data center data comprises: energy consumption of the one or more data centers”; paragraph [0031]; "component 122 (i) migrates at least a portion of one or more workloads between one or more data centers"). The migrating portions of workloads between data centers and monitoring data such as energy consumption and location correspond with the claimed inventions tracking the energy consumption of a workload over time while it is migrated between host locations).
Per claims 9-15, they recite system claims having similar limitations as claims 1-7. Thus, claims 9-15 are also rejected under the similar rationales as claims 1-7.
Per claims 17-20, they recite media claims having similar limitations as claims 1, 3-5. Thus, claims 17-20 are rejected under the similar rationales as claims 1, 3-5.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGuire, in view of Vohra, in view of Brar, and further in view of Kamikura US 20090254658 A1 (hereafter Kamikura).
Per claim 8, McGuire further teaches: associating the energy expenditure values with respective hosts (paragraph [0034]; “component 122 retrieves meta parameters of green powered energy from shared storage 124 or collects the meta parameters of green powered energy from DCs in the predetermined system,”). This involves obtaining data related to energy sources and consumption which is used to calculate a measure of energy efficiency or an energy efficiency score similar to the EEQ. While McGuire teaches associating the EEQ with a host, McGuire does not explicitly state the host has a domain name system address record. However, Kamikura teaches: a domain name system address record (paragraph [0037]; host information storage section 304 stores domain names and IP addresses of general hosts in external network 200. Host information storage section 304 may also store domain names and IP addresses of secure hosts in external network 200 as shown, for example, in FIG. 5B. In the following explanation, it is assumed that host information storage section 304 stores a host list.”). Kamikura’s teaching of domain names and IP addresses of hosts corresponds with the domain name system address record. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify McGuire such that the host has a domain name system address record, as conceptually taught by Kamikura, as these modifications provide each host location to have an address record. Thereby allowing these host locations to be differentiated from each other so it increases the ability of the users to select and pick locations, increasing user control of which location to host the workload. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the purpose of associating each EEQ with a domain name system address record, because these modifications allow for each host locations to have a unique address as provided by the domain name system address record.
Per claim 16, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 8. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under similar rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 8 above.
Conclusion
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 HANG PAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7667. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM to 5 PM.
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, Chat Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/HANG PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193