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 .
Detail Information
In the amendment filed on 01/15/2026, claims 1-23 are pending, claims 1-9, and 16-23 are amended.
This is a Final Action.
Response to Arguments
35 USC § 101
Applicant’s argued that the newly amended limitations “storing by an operating system associated with the server computer… traversing, by the operating system, the selection tree… … Wherein: The selection tree is to be generated based upon basic input/output system data.“ overcomes the 101 rejection.
Examiner disagrees:
The courts have found following to be abstract idea/ mental process:
a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);
claims to "comparing BRCA sequences and determining the existence of alterations," where the claims cover any way of comparing BRCA sequences such that the comparison steps can practically be performed in the human mind, University of Utah Research Foundation v. Ambry Genetics, 774 F.3d 755, 763, 113 USPQ2d 1241, 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2014);
a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind, Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Biogen IDEC, 659 F.3d 1057, 1067, 100 USPQ2d 1492, 1500 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
Here “traversing, by the operating system, the selection tree…Wherein: The selection tree is to be generated based upon basic input/output system data,” similar to collecting data
comparing known information, and generate result based on the comparison. Therefore, claim 1 discloses an abstract idea/ mental process.
Court has found following to be well-understood routine, conventional activity:
Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log);
Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;
Here, “storing by an operating system associated with the server computer” is similar to storing and retrieving information in memory. Therefore it is well-understood, routine, conventional activity.
35 USC § 102/103
Applicant argued that Gummaraju fails to teach “when executed by at least one machine that is associated with a server computer, results in performance of operations comprising storing by an operating system associated with the server computer.a selection tree, the selection tree including a plurality of Input/Output Memory Management Units (IOMMU) for a preferred node and a device for each IOMMU; and traversing. by the operating system, the selection tree to select an Assignable Device Interface (ADI) for a virtual device (VDEV) based on affinity to a same node as a running Virtual Machine (VM), first utilization metrics for the IOMMUs and second utilization metrics of a device of a same device class; wherein: the selection tree is to be generated based upon basic input/output system data.
Examiner disagrees. Gummaraju teaches these limitations because the its cloud operating system provides virtual hardware platform includes a virtual disk that is associated with or "mapped to" one or more virtual disk images stored on a disk (e.g., a hard disk or solid-state disk) of host computing device. The virtual disk image represents a file system (e.g., a hierarchy of directories and files) used by first VM in a single file or in a plurality of files, each of which includes a portion of the file system. In addition, or alternatively, virtual disk images may be stored on one or more remote computing devices, such as in a storage area network (SAN) configuration. In such embodiments, any quantity of virtual disk images may be stored by the remote computing devices; Fig. 2 p0029-p0032; Fig. 3-6 p0043-p0064; And the memory stores a plurality of VM templates, which re arranged in a hierarchy, such as a tree hierarchy. Fig. 3-6 p0043-p0064; The operating can traverse a tree hierarchy of parent VM templates searching for parent VM template associated with the requested child VM. If parent VM template associated with the requested child VM exists in the set of parent VM templates, computing device selects one of the child VMs already instantiated from parent VM template. Fig. 3-6 p0043-p0064.
Therefore Gummaraju teaches these limitation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea/mental process without significantly more.
Claim 1:
(Prong 2A)
Claim 1 recites the step of:
…traversing, by the operating system, the selection tree to select an Assignable Device Interface (ADI) for a virtual device (VDEV) based on affinity to a same node as a running Virtual Machine (VM), first utilization metrics for the IOMMUs and second utilization metrics of a device of a same device class… Wherein: The selection tree is to be generated based upon basic input/output system data. MPEP 2106.04(a);
This step can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recite a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites mere instructions to apply an exception (non-transitory machine-readable storage medium), with additional elements comprising only insignificant extra-solution activity.
(Prong 2B)
Claim 1 recites the additional element of:
One or more non-transitory machine-readable storage media storing a plurality of instructions that when executed by at least one machine that is associated with a server computer, results in performance of operations comprising:
Storing, by an operating system associated with the server computer, a selection tree, the selection tree including a plurality of Input/Output Memory Management Units (IOMMU) for a preferred node and a device for each IOMMU;…
MPEP 2106.05(d);
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Further, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 2:
(Prong 2A)
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 2 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (non-transitory machine-readable storage medium) and insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP 2106.04(a)
(Prong 2B)
Claim 2 recites the additional element of:
wherein the traverse of the selection tree is performed in response to a request from an application through an application programming interface (API) call. MPEP 2106.05(d)
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 2 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 3:
(Prong 2A)
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 3 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (non-transitory machine-readable storage medium) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(Prong 2B)
Claim 3 recites the additional element of:
wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed, further result in the operating system periodically updating the first utilization metrics and the second utilization metrics in the selection tree. MPEP 2106.05(d)
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 3 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 4
(Prong 2A)
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 4 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (non-transitory machine-readable storage medium) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(Prong 2B)
Claim 4 recites the additional element of:
wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed, further result in the operating system selecting an IOMMU with a lowest first utilization metrics. MPEP 2106.05(d)
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 4 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 5:
(Prong 2A)
Claim 5 is dependent on claims 1 and 4, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 4 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (non-transitory machine-readable storage medium) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(Prong 2B)
Claim 5 recites the additional element of:
wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed, further result in the operating system selecting the device with a lowest second utilization metrics. MPEP 2106.05(d)
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 5 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claims 1 and 4, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 6:
(Prong 2A)
Claim 6 is dependent on claims 1 and 4, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 4 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (non-transitory machine-readable storage medium) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(Prong 2B)
Claim 6 recites the additional element of:
the device is Scalable I/O virtualization. MPEP 2106.05(d)
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 6 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claims 1 and 4, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 7:
(Prong 2A)
Claim 7 is dependent on claims 1 and 4, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 4 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (non-transitory machine-readable storage medium) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(Prong 2B)
Claim 7 recites the additional element of:
further result in the operating system to selecting a first free ADI. MPEP 2106.05(d)
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 7 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claims 1 and 4, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 8:
(Prong 2A)
Claim 8 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claim 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (non-transitory machine-readable storage medium) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(Prong 2B)
Claim 8 recites the additional element of:
Wherein the preferred node is a non-uniform memory access (NUMA) preferred node and the same node is a NUMA same node. MPEP 2106.05(d)
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 8 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claims 9-16 are directed to a method comprise the steps which the at least one processing platform of the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claims 1-8 are configured to perform. Claims 9-16 recite the same limitations as claims 1-8, respectively; therefore, claims 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a method without significantly more for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 1-8. See above.
Claims 17-23 are directed to a method comprise the steps which the at least one processing platform of the non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claims 1-6 and 8 are configured to perform. Claims 17-23 recite the same limitations as claims 1-6 and 8, respectively; therefore, claims 17-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a method without significantly more for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 1-6 and 8. See above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 8, 9-11, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gummaraju US Publication 2015/0178107.
17/903,327
Gummaraju US Publication 2015/0178107
Claim 1
One or more non-transitory machine-readable storage media storing a plurality of instruction that , when executed by at least one machine that is associated with a server computer, results in performance of operation comprising:
Storing, by a operating system associated with the service computer, a selection tree, the selection tree including a plurality of Input/Output Memory Management Units (IOMMU) for a preferred node and a device for each IOMMU; and
Gummaraju teaches In some embodiments, memory in first virtual hardware platform includes a virtual disk that is associated with or "mapped to" one or more virtual disk images stored on a disk (e.g., a hard disk or solid-state disk) of host computing device. The virtual disk image represents a file system (e.g., a hierarchy of directories and files) used by first VM in a single file or in a plurality of files, each of which includes a portion of the file system. In addition, or alternatively, virtual disk images may be stored on one or more remote computing devices, such as in a storage area network (SAN) configuration. In such embodiments, any quantity of virtual disk images may be stored by the remote computing devices; Fig. 2 p0031;
Gummaraju Fig 2 p0029-p0032; Fig. 3-6 p0043-p0064;
Gummaraju teaches a cloud operating system that maintain, pre-register and operate child VMs. P0042-0052
Traverse, by the operating system, the selection tree to select an Assignable Device Interface (ADI) for a virtual device (VDEV) based on affinity to a same node as a running Virtual Machine (VM), first utilization metrics for the IOMMUs and second utilization metrics of a device of a same device class.
Gummaraju Fig 2 p0029-p0032; Gummaraju teaches forking of VM template Hierarchy and each operating system can be considered its own class. Fig. 4-6 p0042-p0064;
Wherein:
the selection tree is to be generated based upon basic input/out system data.
Gummaraju Fig. 4-6 p0042-p0064.
Claim 2
The one or more non-transitory machine-readable storage media of Claim 1, wherein the traversing of the selection tree is performed in response to a request from an application through an application programming interface (API) call.
Gummaraju Fig 2 p0029-p0032; Fig. 4-6 p0043-p0064;
Claim 3
The one or more non-transitory machine-readable storage media of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed, further result in the operating system to periodically update the first utilization metrics and the second utilization metrics in the selection tree.
Gummaraju p0068-p0089
Claim 8
The one or more non-transitory machine-readable storage media of Claim 1, wherein the preferred node is a non-uniform memory access NUM, preferred node is and the same node is a NUMA same node.
Gummaraju Fig 2 p0029-p0032; Fig. 4-6 p0043-p0064;
As per claims 9-11; and 17-19; they are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1-3. See rejection above.
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 4-7, 12-16, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gummaraju US Publication 2015/0178107 in view of Lee US Publication 2010/0306773.
17/903,327
Gummaraju US Publication 2015/0178107 in view of Lee US Publication 2010/0306773
Claim 4
The one or more non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of Claim 1, wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed, further cause the system to select an IOMMU with a lowest first utilization metrics.
Gummaraju teaches low priority p0078-p0081; and
Lee teaches VM selects different personality. (see Lee Fig. 6 p0113-p0116)
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Lee’s teaches with method of Gummaraju in order to provide user with different resource allocation.
Claim 5
The one or more non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of Claim 4, wherein the plurality of instructions, when executed, further cause the system to select the device with a lowest second utilization metrics.
Gummaraju teaches low priority p0078-p0081; and
Lee teaches VM selects different personality. (see Lee Fig. 6 p0113-p0116)
Claim 6
the one or more non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of Claim 4, wherein the device is Scalable I/O virtualization.
Gummaraju Fig 2 p0029-p0032; Fig. 4-6 p0043-p0064;
Gummaraju p0078-p0081; and
Lee teaches VM selects different personality. (see Lee Fig. 6 p0113-p0116)
Claim 7
The one or more non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of Claim 4, further cause the system to select a first free ADI.
Gummaraju Fig 2 p0029-p0032; Fig. 4-6 p0043-p0064;
As per claims 12-15, they are rejected under the same rationale as claims 4-7. See rejections above.
17/903,327
Gummaraju US Publication 2015/0178107 in view of Lee US Publication 2010/0306773
Claim 16
The method of claim12, wherein the preferred node is a NUMA preferred node and the same node is a NUMA same node.
Gummaraju Fig 2 p0029-p0032; Fig. 4-6 p0043-p0064;
As per claims 20-23, they are rejected under the same rationale as claims 4-6, and 16. See rejections above.
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PENG KE whose telephone number is (571)272-4062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-5:00.
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, Kevin Young can be reached at (571) 270-3180. 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.
/PENG KE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194