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 the amendment filed on 4/30/2026. This action is made FINAL.
Claims 1-21 are pending and they are presented for examinations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 (similarly claims 8 and 15) recite: “receiving, by a single hypervisor-implemented load balancer”.
After careful search of the instant application, the examiner was unable to find any disclosure wherein which a single hypervisor-implemented load balancer is disclosed.
On the contrary, the specification discloses load balancer (i.e. hypervisor implemented) is distributed and on multiple hosts (e.g. 210A/210B). In particular, the examiner assumes “the computer system” recited in the claim, includes multiple hosts which its own hypervisor/load balancer as disclosed in the instant specification. Therefore, the computer system includes multiple host with corresponding hypervisors/load balancers.
[PGPub paragraph 12], “In practice, SDN environment 100 may include any number of hosts (also known as “computer systems,” “computing devices”, “host computers”, “host devices”, “physical servers”, “server systems”, “transport nodes,” etc.).”
[PGPub paragraph 13], “In the example in FIG. 1, load balancer 110 may be deployed to perform traffic distribution to multiple (N) server pools that are each denoted as POOL-i, where i=1, . . . , N.”
[PGPub paragraph 16], “Using the example in FIG. 2, “computer system” 110 implementing a load balancer may be VM 231/232/233/234 or host 210A/210B with hypervisor-implemented load balancer 218A/219A.”
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-21 are rejected based on rejection of its corresponding dependent claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-21 is/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.
Claim 1 (similarly claims 8 and 15) recites the limitation “the computer system” and/or “the single load balancer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The examiner is unclear what “computer system” and “single load balancer” are referring to.
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-21 are rejected based on rejection of its corresponding dependent claim.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-21 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
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, 8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daoud et al. (Pub 20020087694) (hereafter Daoud) in view of Kim et al. (Pub 20110019531) (hereafter Kim).
As per claim 1 Daoud teaches:
A method, comprising: (“FIG. 7 shows a method for routing the transaction 200 to a server based on a requested level of service associated with the transaction 200 generated in step 710, using suitable program code and stored on a number of (i.e., one or more) suitable computer readable storage media. In step 700, the load balancer 300 (or a suitable software/hardware agent) monitors the server pool 320, 500 to determine the service level of each server in the server pool” [0049])
receiving, by a single hypervisor-implement load balancer and from a client system, a service request that requires processing by one of multiple server pools that are reachable via the computer system, “FIG. 3 shows the transaction 200 received at a load balancer 300 and directed to a server 311, 312, 313 in a server pool 310 that is best able to process the transaction 200 based on the requested level of service indicated by the service tag 220” [0037]; “It is understood that the load balancing schemes shown in FIG. 3 and FIG. 5 are illustrative of the apparatus and method of the present invention and are not intended to limit the scope of the invention. Other configurations are also contemplated as being within the scope of the invention. For example, multiple load balancers can be networked to administer a single server pool or multiple server pools” [0048]; “FIG. 2 shows a packetized transaction 200. The packetized transaction 200 includes a data packet 210 (i.e., the data to be processed) and a service tag 220” [0025]; “Preferably, the transaction 200 is assigned a service tag 220 at its source (i.e., where the transaction 200 originates)” [0031];
wherein the multiple server pools are associated with respective multiple service tiers; “The service level being provided by each server can be based on, as illustrative but not limited to, the server meeting the service level objectives of a single user, a user group (e.g., the accounting department), or a transaction type (e.g., email). That is, preferably the load balancer 300 (or suitable software/hardware agent) monitors the service level provided by each server in the server pool to generate the server index. For example, the load balancer 300 can measure or track processing parameters of a server (e.g., total processing time, processor speed for various transactions, etc.) with respect to a single user, a user group, a transaction type, etc. Alternatively, the server index can be based on known capabilities (e.g., processor speed, memory capacity, etc.) and/or predicted service levels of the servers in the server pool (e.g., based on past performance, server specifications, etc.).” [0045]; “When the transaction 200 is received at the load balancer 300, the load balancer 300 reads the requested level of service from the service tag 220. Based on the server index 600 (FIG. 6), the load balancer 300 selects the server (e.g., 512) from the server group (e.g., 510) that is best providing the requested level of service (e.g., "premium")” [0047]; “It is understood that the load balancing schemes shown in FIG. 3 and FIG. 5 are illustrative of the apparatus and method of the present invention and are not intended to limit the scope of the invention. Other configurations are also contemplated as being within the scope of the invention. For example, multiple load balancers can be networked to administer a single server pool or multiple server pools… A possible hierarchical configuration could comprise a gatekeeping load balancer that directs transactions either to a load balancer monitoring a premium server pool or to a load balancer monitoring a standard server pool, and the individual load balancers can then select a server from within the respective server pool.” [0048];
obtaining, by the single load balancer, identity information identifying a user associated with the service request from the client system; and When the transaction 200 is received at the load balancer 300, the load balancer 300 reads the requested level of service from the service tag 220. Based on the server index 600 (FIG. 6), the load balancer 300 selects the server (e.g., 512) from the server group (e.g., 510) that is best providing the requested level of service (e.g., "premium")” [0047]; “It is also understood that the service tag 220 can include multiple packets. Similarly, an individual service tag 220 may comprise more than one indicator. These multiple packets, or indicators within a packet, may be combined to indicate the requested level of service. Separate packets (or indicators) may be included, such as, a time-stamp, an origination ID, an application ID, a user ID, a project ID, etc. In such an embodiment, the requested service level can be a combination of some or all of the packets included therein” [0027]; “Preferably, the transaction 200 is assigned a service tag 220 at its source (i.e., where the transaction 200 originates)” [0031];
forwarding by the single load balancer, the service request towards a destination server for processing, “Thus, for example, where the service tag 220 indicates that the requested level of service is "premium", the load balancer 300 directs the transaction 200 to any one of the servers 511, 512, 513 in the premium group 510. The load balancer can use conventional load balancing algorithms (e.g., next available, fastest available, or any other suitable algorithm) to select a specific server 511, 512, 513 within the premium group 510” [0047];
wherein the destination server is selected from a particular server pool identified as being associated with a particular service tier mapped to the service request based on the identity information. “The requested level of service may also be based on the user identification. For example, users that generally require faster processing speeds (the CAD department or an administrator) may be assigned faster servers than those who require the servers only to back up data. Likewise, users (e.g., an administrator) can be designated as having the highest priority, overriding competing transactions” [0032]; “When the transaction 200 is received at the load balancer 300, the load balancer 300 reads the requested level of service from the service tag 220. Based on the server index 600 (FIG. 6), the load balancer 300 selects the server (e.g., 512) from the server group (e.g., 510) that is best providing the requested level of service (e.g., "premium")” [0047]; “It is understood that the load balancing schemes shown in FIG. 3 and FIG. 5 are illustrative of the apparatus and method of the present invention and are not intended to limit the scope of the invention. Other configurations are also contemplated as being within the scope of the invention. For example, multiple load balancers can be networked to administer a single server pool or multiple server pools… A possible hierarchical configuration could comprise a gatekeeping load balancer that directs transactions either to a load balancer monitoring a premium server pool or to a load balancer monitoring a standard server pool, and the individual load balancers can then select a server from within the respective server pool.” [0048];
Although Daoud discloses of a load balancer.
Daoud does not explicitly disclose a hypervisor-implement load balancer.
Kim teaches hypervisor-implement load balancer. ([Paragraph 40], The hypervisor 206 may control the overall distribution and/or configuration of the functionality of the VMs, and may perform load balancing, managing resources in devices across the network 205, thereby enabling scaling and optimization of performance dependent on available network resources, for example. [Paragraph 36], For the hypervisor 207 to be abstracted in the network 205, the devices 205A-205F may be aware of communication of information to and from processors in the devices 205A-205F as well as configurations of the various devices 205A-205F controlled by the hypervisor 207. Communicated information may comprise the state of a VM and network 205 and device 205A-205F resources used by the VMs. In this manner, load balancing may be configured, optimizing the performance of the VMs 203A and 203B. For example, since the hypervisor 207 and the sub-hypervisors 209A and 209B may be distributed over the network 205, they may be network-aware as opposed to just aware of resources in a single device. Thus, the VM parameters may be shared among the devices 201A-201F, enabling the dynamic prioritization and resource allocation of the networked devices. [Paragraph 8], Another approach for improving server efficiency may be to utilize multiple operating systems running concurrently so that each operating system supports a different server operation or application or service, for example. The multiple operating systems may be referred to as guest operating systems (GOSs) or child partitions. This approach maintains the level of protection provided when server operations are not consolidated under a single operating system while also enabling the optimization of the usage of the processing resources available to the server. The use of multiple guest operating systems may be referred to as OS virtualization because each GOS perceives to have full access to the server's hardware resources. )
It would have been obvious to a person with ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine the teachings of Daoud wherein service request by a client system is received by a load balancer which requires processing by one of multiple server pools having respective tiers, user identity associated with the service request is obtained and forwarded to a destination server for processing which is associated with a tier, into teachings of Kim wherein the load balancer is implemented via a hypervisor, because this would enhance the teachings of Kim wherein by implementing a virtualized environment via a hypervisor, it allows sharing of underlying physical resources amongst virtual machine(s) enabling scaling and optimization of performance dependent network resources. Furthermore, it facilitates server efficiency by utilizing multiple operating systems via virtual machines concurrently so that each operating system can support different operations, applications or services. [Kim paragraph 8, 36, 40]
As per claim 8, this is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim corresponding to the method claim 1. Therefore, rejected based on similar rationale.
As per claim 15, this is a system claim corresponding to the method claim 1. Therefore, rejected based on similar rationale.
Claim 2, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14, 16, 20, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daoud, in view of Kim and further in view of US 20070263541 A1 – hereinafter “Cobb”.
With respect to claim 2, Daoud teaches The method of claim 1,
Daoud and Kim do not explicitly teach wherein obtaining the identity information comprises: obtaining the identity information based on (a) source address information specified by the service request or (b) the client system in the form of a source virtualized computing system.
Cobb teaches,
wherein obtaining the identity information comprises: obtaining the identity information based on (a) source address information specified by the service request or (b) the client system in the form of a source virtualized computing system. “Further, a user identity can be related to transactions. A user ID may be identified and associated with a session by examining and parsing a login transaction for user identity information, for example. In those cases where the login transaction possesses a session identifier, for example, this session ID may be used to establish a relationship between the user ID and the session ID, which may in turn share a relationship with one or more transactions. Another example of user to transaction binding is through the intermediary of a network address, for example where the IP source address of the packets related to the transaction is used to look up user identity in a table of IP address to user identity relationships” [0106];
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Daoud and Kim to include, wherein obtaining the identity information comprises: obtaining the identity information based on (a) source address information specified by the service request using the teachings of Cobb. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of facilitating management of service quality that is agreeable to a business as well as to the service provider by accurately identifying identity information based on source address. Network services are important to businesses and placing performance thresholds ensures satisfaction from both parties (Cobb, 0002-0003).
With respect to claim 6, Daoud teaches The method of claim 1,
Daoud teaches,
wherein obtaining the identity information comprises: extracting, from the service request, session information specifying (a) the identity information identifying the user, or (b) both the identity information and the particular service tier assigned to the user. “It is also understood that the service tag 220 can include multiple packets. Similarly, an individual service tag 220 may comprise more than one indicator. These multiple packets, or indicators within a packet, may be combined to indicate the requested level of service. Separate packets (or indicators) may be included, such as, a time-stamp, an origination ID, an application ID, a user ID, a project ID, etc. In such an embodiment, the requested service level can be a combination of some or all of the packets included therein” [0027]; “The requested level of service may also be based on the user identification. For example, users that generally require faster processing speeds (the CAD department or an administrator) may be assigned faster servers than those who require the servers only to back up data. Likewise, users (e.g., an administrator) can be designated as having the highest priority, overriding competing transactions” [0032];
Daoud and Kim do not explicitly teach wherein obtaining the identity information comprises: extracting, from the service request, session information specifying (a) the identity information identifying the user.
Cobb teaches,
wherein obtaining the identity information comprises: extracting, from the service request, session information specifying (a) the identity information identifying the user, or (b) both the identity information and the particular service tier assigned to the user. “User identification (ID) module 260 receives the transaction components from component ID module 250 and identifies a session ID and/or user ID from the received components” [0104]; “A user ID may be identified and associated with a session by examining and parsing a login transaction for user identity information, for example. In those cases where the login transaction possesses a session identifier, for example, this session ID may be used to establish a relationship between the user ID and the session ID” [0106];
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Daoud and Kim to include, wherein obtaining the identity information comprises: obtaining the identity information based on (a) source address information specified by the service request using the teachings of Cobb. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of facilitating management of service quality that is agreeable to a business as well as to the service provider by accurately identifying identity information based on source address. Network services are important to businesses and placing performance thresholds ensures satisfaction from both parties (Cobb, 0002-0003).
With respect to claim 7, Daoud teaches The method of claim 1,
Daoud teaches,
wherein the service request is mapped to the particular service tier comprises: mapping the service request to the particular service tier based on mapping information accessible by the computer system, “The requested level of service may also be based on the user identification. For example, users that generally require faster processing speeds (the CAD department or an administrator) may be assigned faster servers than those who require the servers only to back up data. Likewise, users (e.g., an administrator) can be designated as having the highest priority, overriding competing transactions” [0032]; “It is also understood that the service tag 220 can include multiple packets. Similarly, an individual service tag 220 may comprise more than one indicator. These multiple packets, or indicators within a packet, may be combined to indicate the requested level of service. Separate packets (or indicators) may be included, such as, a time-stamp, an origination ID, an application ID, a user ID, a project ID, etc. In such an embodiment, the requested service level can be a combination of some or all of the packets included therein” [0027]; “Preferably, the transaction 200 is assigned a service tag 220 at its source (i.e., where the transaction 200 originates)” [0031];
wherein the mapping information associates (a) multiple sets of identity information identifying respective multiple users with (b) multiple service tiers assigned to the respective multiple users based on service level agreement (SLA) information. “The requested level of service may also be based on the user identification. For example, users that generally require faster processing speeds (the CAD department or an administrator) may be assigned faster servers than those who require the servers only to back up data. Likewise, users (e.g., an administrator) can be designated as having the highest priority, overriding competing transactions” [0032]; “When the transaction 200 is received at the load balancer 300, the load balancer 300 reads the requested level of service from the service tag 220. Based on the server index 600 (FIG. 6), the load balancer 300 selects the server (e.g., 512) from the server group (e.g., 510) that is best providing the requested level of service (e.g., "premium")” [0047]; “A possible hierarchical configuration could comprise a gatekeeping load balancer that directs transactions either to a load balancer monitoring a premium server pool or to a load balancer monitoring a standard server pool, and the individual load balancers can then select a server from within the respective server pool.” [0048];
Daoud and Kim do not explicitly teach based on servile Level agreement (SLA) information.
Cobb teaches,
wherein the mapping information associates (a) multiple sets of identity information identifying respective multiple users with (b) multiple service tiers assigned to the respective multiple users based on service level agreement (SLA) information. “Under an SLA, the service provider agrees to meet certain quality thresholds for the level of service provided to a particular user. For example, an SLA may indicate that a certain transaction provided by a network service provider to a user must have an average response time of one second or less over a month” [0003];
Examiners note: An SLA is simply an agreement between two parties for the expected level of service. Agreed upon response times can be mapped to a particular tier of service.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Daoud and Kim to include, based on service level agreement (SLA) information using the teachings of Cobb. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of facilitating management of service quality that is agreeable to a business as well as to the service provider by accurately identifying identity information based on source address. Network services are important to businesses and placing performance thresholds ensures satisfaction from both parties (Cobb, 0002-0003).
As per claims 9, 13 and 14. These are non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claims corresponding to the method claims 2, 6 and 7. Therefore, rejected based on similar rationale.
As per claims 16, 20 and 21. These are system claims corresponding to the method claims 2, 6 and 7. Therefore, rejected based on similar rationale.
Claims 3, 10, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Daoud”, in view of Kim, and “Cobb” and further in view of US 20200349238 A1– hereinafter “Tyagi”.
With respect to claim 3, Daoud and Cobb teach The method of claim 2,
Daoud, Kim and Cobb do not explicitly teach wherein obtaining the identity information comprises: generating and sending a query that (a) specifies the source address information or (b) identifies the source virtualized computing system; and based on a response to the query, determining the identity information identifying the user.
Tyagi teaches,
wherein obtaining the identity information comprises: generating and sending a query that (a) specifies the source address information or (b) identifies the source virtualized computing system; and based on a response to the query, determining the identity information identifying the user. “Software application 608 can then use the target computing device's network address to identify the target computing device, such as by querying a database (e.g., CMDB 500) to determine whether a computing device is associated with the network address of the target computing device. For instance, the database might return a unique alphanumeric identifier of the target computing device, a location of the target computing device within managed network 300, and/or other information identifying the target computing device.” [0144]; “In particular, as an example process, software application 608 can be configured to read a set of multiple records (e.g., across multiple tables) and take, from the set of multiple records, a first type of information shared across the set of records. Using the first type of information as a reference, software application 608 can identify, in two or more records of the set of records, at least one other type of information that is associated with the reference. For example, software application 608 can locate one record with entries that identify, for a particular session between target computing device 614 and server device 602, a user identifier and a hostname” [0177];
Examiners note: The target computing device’s identity information is returned by the CMDB, it is then correlated with multiple records to identify a user. A CMDB is ordinarily part of infrastructure management (it inventories or tracks servers, software, and hardware dependencies). It’s a key element of infrastructure management approach, enabling the system to discover computing devices and their relationship.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Daoud, Kim and Cobb to include wherein obtaining the identity information comprises: generating and sending a query that (a) specifies the source address information and based on a response to the query, determining the identity information identifying the user using the teachings of Tyagi. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of tracking down a request to a particular user or device in a large environment (Tyagi, 0003).
As per claim 10, this is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim corresponding to the method claim 3. Therefore, rejected based on similar rationale.
As per claim 17, this is a system claim corresponding to the method claim 3. Therefore, rejected based on similar rationale.
Claims 4, 11, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Daoud”, in view Kim and “Cobb” and further in view of US 20200186501 A1– hereinafter “Neystadt”.
Daoud, Kim and Cobb do not explicitly teach wherein obtaining the identity information comprises: determining the identity information based on the response received from a configuration management database (CMDB) associated with at least one of the following: (a) an infrastructure management platform and (b) a network monitoring tool.
Neystadt teaches,
wherein obtaining the identity information comprises: determining the identity information based on the response received from a configuration management database (CMDB) associated with at least one of the following: (a) an infrastructure management platform and (b) a network monitoring tool. “The bouncer 110 acquires client identifier, such as IP address. There are a variety of kinds of client identifiers and methods for capturing client identifiers. For example, if the client identifier is the private network IP address of the client 100, the bouncer 110 can obtain it by extracting it from the source IP address field of the packets received by the client 100 carrying the request in step (5) or other method… As yet another example, the client identifier could be a name or other identifier obtained by the bouncer 110 lookup the client in the organizational CMDB (Configuration Management Database), LDAP server, or other database to get an assigned identifier. The CMDB or LDAP database may provide a user or device attribute in response. Many kinds of client identifier can be used in the teachings hereof, but preferably the client identifier uniquely identifies the client amongst other clients in the private network, or uniquely identifies a particular class or category of clients within the private network to which the client 100 belongs.” [0052];
Examiners note: A CMDB is ordinarily part of infrastructure management (it inventories or tracks servers, software, and hardware dependencies). It’s a key element of infrastructure management approach, enabling the system to discover computing devices and their relationships. The bouncer extracts information from packets, effectively making it a network monitoring tool.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Daoud, Kim and Cobb to include, wherein obtaining the identity information comprises: determining the identity information based on the response received from a configuration management database (CMDB) associated with at least one of the following: (a) an infrastructure management platform and (b) a network monitoring tool using the teachings of Neystadt. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose, regardless of interacting with an environment that obfuscates the IP addresses within the packets, being able to track down the source of a service request (Neystadt, 0005).
As per claim 11, this is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim corresponding to the method claim 4. Therefore, rejected based on similar rationale.
As per claim 18, this is a system claim corresponding to the method claim 4. Therefore, rejected based on similar rationale.
Claim 5, 12, 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Daoud”, in view Kim and “Cobb” and further in view of US 20170353433 A1 – hereinafter “Antony”.
With respect to claim 5, Daoud and Cobb teach The method of claim 2,
Doaud, Kim and Cobb do not explicitly teach wherein obtaining the identity information comprises: determining the identity information based on the response received from a guest operating system (OS) associated with the client system, wherein the guest OS supports a virtual machine (VM) management tool or a network introspection driver.
Antony teaches,
wherein obtaining the identity information comprises: determining the identity information based on the response received from a guest operating system (OS) associated with the client system, “At 710 and 720 in FIG. 7, upon detecting a traffic flow of packets from “C1”, “VM1” tags the traffic flow with any suitable data identifying “C1”. The traffic flow from “C1” represents an egress traffic flow (may also be referred to as “outgoing packets”) from “C1” to a destination accessible via physical network 150 In practice, the traffic flow may be detected and tagged by “VM1” using a guest agent that hooks onto the network stack of guest OS 122. As described using FIG. 3, “VM1” is aware of, or has access to, the mapping between container ID (see 318 in FIG. 3), container IP address (see 320 in FIG. 3) and tag data (see 328 in FIG. 3).” [0074]; “The guest agent may be installed on guest OS 122 as part of a suite of utilities (e.g., known as “VM tools”)” [0034];
wherein the guest OS supports a virtual machine (VM) management tool or a network introspection driver. “Example process 500 may be implemented by virtual machine 120, 121 (e.g., using guest agent or “VM tools” on guest OS 122, 123)” [0057]; “The guest agent may be installed on guest OS 122 as part of a suite of utilities (e.g., known as “VM tools”) for enhancing the performance of virtual machine 120, 121” [0035];
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by Daoud, Kim and Cobb to include, wherein the guest OS supports a virtual machine (VM) management tool or a network introspection driver using the teachings of Antony. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of implementing a suite of utilities (Tools) in the VM that enhance its performance, as well as managing resources when tens to hundreds of virtual machines have the same physical resources (Antony, 0004, 0035).
As per claim 12, this is a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium claim corresponding to the method claim 5. Therefore, rejected based on similar rationale.
As per claim 19, this is a system claim corresponding to the method claim 5. Therefore, rejected based on similar rationale.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONG U KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1313. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Bradley Teets can be reached at 5712723338. 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.
/DONG U KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights