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 .
Claims 1-7, 9-21 are pending for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-7, 9-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Porter et al. US Pub 2020/0379805 (hereafter Porter) in view of Pare et al. US Patent 10,960,304 (hereafter Pare) and further in view of Chen et al. US Pub 2018/0375787 (hereafter Chen).
References Porter and Pare were cited in the previous office action.
As per claim 1, Porter teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a method, comprising: monitoring, by a first computing system comprising a processor, at least one metric corresponding to at least one of a group of computing systems that are coupled with, and that provide computing services (para[0072-0073], migration criteria analyzer in a cloud service (first computing system) monitors a deployed workload by analyzing workload performance statistics (metrics) for the deployed workload and workload migration criteria);
analyzing, by the first computing system, the at least one metric with respect to at least one determined migration criterion (para[0072-0073], analyzing workload performance statistics (metrics) for the deployed workload and workload migration criteria);
and in response to the at least one metric being determined to satisfy the at least one determined migration criterion based on a result of the analyzing, initiating, by the first computing system, at least one migrating of at least one computing workload from a second computing system of the group of computing systems to a third computing system of the group of computing systems, to result in at least one initiated migration (para[0074-0075, 0099-00102], migration planner create a workload migration plan to migrate workloads on the source (second) computing device to a target (third) computing device).
Porter does not explicitly teach via a communication network; wherein the at least one metric comprises at least one spot market cost factor applicable to operation of at least one computing resource on the second computing system, wherein the at least one spot market cost factor corresponds to a price for the at least one computing resource, usable to facilitate the at least one computing workload, and wherein the at least one spot market cost factor is obtained by the first computing system from a computing resource reseller computing platform, and wherein the method further comprises: based on the at least one spot market cost factor, changing, by the at least one computing system, the at least one determined migration criterion to result in at least one determined changed migration criterion, wherein the at least one determined changed migration criterion is used to determine at least one operation corresponding to the at least one initiated migration to occur subsequent to the initiating of the at least one initiated migration.
However, Pare teaches via a communication network (col 9, line 34-67, col 12, line 5-47, resource management via communication network);
wherein the at least one metric comprises at least one spot market cost factor applicable to operation of at least one computing resource on the second computing system, wherein the at least one spot market cost factor corresponds to a price for the at least one computing resource, usable to facilitate the at least one computing workload, and wherein the at least one spot market cost factor is obtained by the first computing system from a computing resource reseller computing platform (col 4, line 62-67, col 5, line 1-30, col 7, line 15-43, col 14, line 1-16, col 15, line 6-67, col 16, line 1-14, FIG. 4, migration manager monitors and analyze information (availability/costs) to determine whether the migration criteria are satisfied, and the migration criteria include the price (spot market cost factor) of the spot market instances that can be used to host the migrated process, where the price of the spot market instance is obtained from the spot market platform (resource provider environment) where customers can bid for unused resources).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Pare’s teaching to Porter’s invention in order to improve performance, reduce latency and rebalance capacity of resources by providing a method for dynamic selection and migration of types of resource capacity to be used to host specific sessions, including utilizing spot market services and selecting the most appropriate resource capacity for hosting service based on various hosting criteria (availabilities and spot market prices) (col 18, line 4-56).
Porter and Pare do not explicitly teach wherein the method further comprises: based on the at least one spot market cost factor, changing, by the at least one computing system, the at least one determined migration criterion to result in at least one determined changed migration criterion, wherein the at least one determined changed migration criterion is used to determine at least one operation corresponding to the at least one initiated migration to occur subsequent to the initiating of the at least one initiated migration.
However, Chen teaches wherein the method further comprises: based on the at least one spot market cost factor, changing, by the at least one computing system, the at least one determined migration criterion to result in at least one determined changed migration criterion, wherein the at least one determined changed migration criterion is used to determine at least one operation corresponding to the at least one initiated migration to occur subsequent to the initiating of the at least one initiated migration (para[0031-0037], FIG. 4, receive market information (prices and availabilities for the spot instances), determine the plurality of spot instances that are available to a client at a given time, then based on the market information, reliability value of the each available spot instances are determined, and selecting a first spot instance based on the reliability values and cost to execute the container on the first spot instance (operation corresponding to the migration)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Chen’s teaching to Porter and Pare’s invention in order to provide a method for migrating containers to another spot instance before the termination of the spot instance, which allows a client of a public cloud system to use an unpredictable spot instance with less or no interruptions of service, enabling the use of cost-effective spot instances for both stateless and stateful workloads (para[0050]).
As per claim 2, Porter, Pare and Chen teach the method of claim 1, and Porter teaches further comprising storing pre-migration state information corresponding to at least one state of the at least one workload at the initiating of the at least one migrating of the at least one workload to at least one remote computing system storage that is remote from the first computing system, the second computing system, and the third computing system; and causing the reviving of the at least one workload at the second computing system with the pre-migration state information (para[0105-0108], FIG. 6, checkpoint (pre-migration state) workload state by storing snapshot as blob, and restore state of migrated workload using the blob).
As per claim 3, Chen teaches wherein the at least one computing workload comprises at least one computing instance (para[0002, 0017], schedules a container on a selected spot instance and execute the container on the spot instance).
As per claim 4, Porter teaches wherein the fourth computing system comprises the remote computing storage on which the pre-migration state information is stored (para[0077], checkpoints as a binary large object (pre-migration state) is stored in storage 108, for access by a migration target computing device to replicate the state of the source node);
In addition, Pare teaches wherein the computing workload is configured to access, and perform operations on, data that is stored by a storage of a fourth computing system that is coupled with the communication network, and wherein the operational data is not the pre-migration state information, and wherein the at least one remote computing system storage is geographically located within a defined distance of the second computing system or the third computing system (col 12, line 48-67, col 13, line 1-30, resource center includes compute instances and state and game content storages, which is accessed by the client devices, and they are located within a defined distance (different countries)).
and wherein the at least one determined migration criterion is based at least in part on at least one latency associated with the at least one remote computing system storage being geographically located within the defined distance (col 16, line 15-52, criterion includes maximum acceptable latency that can be used to select resource capacity to host sessions for the client).
As per claim 5, Porter teaches wherein the determined migration criterion is determined according to rules and factors (para[0057], criteria including communication quality, latency, edge load or capacity, performance requirement, cost of cloud workload deployment etc.)
As per claim 6, Porter teaches wherein the rules and factors are determined based on user input received by the first computing system, and wherein the user input comprises information corresponding to the rules and factors via an interface coupled with the first computing system (para[0041, 0100], the cloud service receives user defined migration conditions, and determine whether the user defined migration condition are met or not to migrate workloads).
As per claim 7, Porter teaches further comprising determining, by the first computing system, the rules and factors based on a log of migration operations performed by the first computing system before the analyzing of the at least one metric with respect to the at least one determined migration criterion (para[0045], a resource monitor generate, collect and store information about resources (resource log and metrics)).
As per claim 9, Porter further comprising outputting, by the first computing system via a user interface of the first computing system, an alert that the at least one metric has been determined to satisfy the determined migration criterion (para[0041, 0049, 0051-0052], provide cloud service GUI to customer to present to users on a display, including migration criteria (policies specifying constraints), user-defined migration, and monitor data to trigger alerts).
As per claim 10, it is a system claim of claim 1 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 11, it is a system claim of claim 2 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 12, it is a system claim of claim 4 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 13, it is a system claim of claim 5 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 14, it is a system claim of claim 6 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it is a system claim of claim 7 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 16, Porter teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a non-transitory machine-readable medium, comprising executable instructions that, when executed by a processor of a computing device coupled with a communication network, facilitate performance of operations, comprising: monitor, at least one metric corresponding to at least one of a set of computing systems (para[0072-0073], migration criteria analyzer in a cloud service (first computing system) monitors a deployed workload by analyzing workload performance statistics (metrics) for the deployed workload and workload migration criteria);
analyze the at least one metric with respect to a determined migration criterion (para[0072-0073], analyzing workload performance statistics (metrics) for the deployed workload and workload migration criteria);
in response to the at least one metric being determined to satisfy the determined migration criterion based on a result of the analyzing, initiate migration of a computing workload from a second computing system of the set of computing systems to a third computing system of the set of computing systems to result in an initiated migration (para[0074-0075, 0099-00102], migration planner create a workload migration plan to migrate workloads on the source (second) computing device to a target (third) computing device).
Porter does not explicitly teach via a communication network; wherein the at least one metric comprises a spot market cost factor applicable to operation of at least one computing resource on the second computing system, wherein the spot market cost factor corresponds to a price for the at least one computing resource, usable to facilitate the computing workload, and wherein the spot market cost factor is obtained by the first computing system from a computing resource reseller computing platform, and wherein operations further comprise: based on the spot market cost factor, changing the at least one determined migration criterion to result in a determined changed migration criterion, wherein the determined changed migration criterion is used to determine to avoid completion of the initiated migration.
However, Pare teaches via a communication network (col 9, line 34-67, col 12, line 5-47, resource management via communication network);
wherein the at least one metric comprises a spot market cost factor applicable to operation of at least one computing resource on the second computing system, wherein the spot market cost factor corresponds to a price for the at least one computing resource, usable to facilitate the computing workload, and wherein the spot market cost factor is obtained by the first computing system from a computing resource reseller computing platform (col 4, line 62-67, col 5, line 1-30, col 7, line 15-43, col 14, line 1-16, col 15, line 6-67, col 16, line 1-14, FIG. 4, migration manager monitors and analyze information (availability/costs) to determine whether the migration criteria are satisfied, and the migration criteria include the price (spot market cost factor) of the spot market instances that can be used to host the migrated process, where the price of the spot market instance is obtained from the spot market platform (resource provider environment) where customers can bid for unused resources).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Pare’s teaching to Porter’s invention in order to improve performance, reduce latency and rebalance capacity of resources by providing a method for dynamic selection and migration of types of resource capacity to be used to host specific sessions, including utilizing spot market services and selecting the most appropriate resource capacity for hosting service based on various hosting criteria (availabilities and spot market prices) (col 18, line 4-56).
Porter and Pare do not explicitly teach wherein operations further comprise: based on the spot market cost factor, changing the at least one determined migration criterion to result in a determined changed migration criterion, wherein the determined changed migration criterion is used to determine to avoid completion of the initiated migration.
However, Chen teaches and wherein operations further comprise: based on the spot market cost factor, changing the at least one determined migration criterion to result in a determined changed migration criterion, wherein the determined changed migration criterion is used to determine to avoid completion of the initiated migration (para[0031-0037], FIG. 4, receive market information (prices and availabilities for the spot instances), determine the plurality of spot instances that are available to a client at a given time, then based on the market information, reliability value of the each available spot instances are determined, and selecting a first spot instance based on the reliability values and cost to execute the container on the first spot instance (operation corresponding to the migration), thus the initiated migration plan to migrate the container to the spot instance based on cost is not completed since the first spot instance is selected based on the reliability value).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Chen’s teaching to Porter and Pare’s invention in order to provide a method for migrating containers to another spot instance before the termination of the spot instance, which allows a client of a public cloud system to use an unpredictable spot instance with less or no interruptions of service, enabling the use of cost-effective spot instances for both stateless and stateful workloads (para[0050]).
As per claim 17, it is a non-transitory machine-readable medium claim of claim 2 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 18, it is a non-transitory machine-readable medium claim of claim 4 above, thus it is rejected for the same rationale.
As per claim 19, Porter teaches wherein the pre-migration state information comprises an image of the workload (para[0077, 0105], snapshot of the workload state is created in a checkpoint and stored as a blob).
As per claim 20, Pare teaches wherein the pre-migration state information comprises state information corresponding to the workload but is not an image of the workload (col 12, line 48-67, col 13, line 1-30, resource center includes state and game content storages, which is accessed by the client devices, and they are state information).
As per claim 21, Pare teaches wherein the reseller computing platform facilitates an auction of the at least one computing resource (col 14, line 1-16, col 15, line 6-67, col 16, line 1-14, FIG. 4, spot market accept bids for resource capacity from various users, and the spot market evaluate the bid and determine whether it meets or exceeds the current spot market price, thus the spot market facilitates an auction for the resource).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7, 9-21 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAMMY EUNHYE LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-7773. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thur 9PM-4PM.
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, Meng-Ai An can be reached at (571)272-3756. 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.
/TAMMY E LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195
Prosecution Insights