DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-23 and 25-26 are pending.
Claim 24 has been canceled.
Claims 1-23 and 25-26 have been rejected.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s following arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections (Remarks p. 8) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s following arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections (Remarks pp. 8-11) have been fully considered but are moot in view of the Examiner’s new ground of rejections based on an added reference to address applicant’s amendments.
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 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman (US 10983877 B1) in view of Putman (US 20220179398 A1), Appellof (US 7672979 B1), and Clark (US 20190109714 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Hoffman teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by a processor, causes the processor to configure a data store with a configuration (
Hoffman discloses, “Many conventional backup techniques include a monitoring function that attempts to determine whether the backup data is usable,” Col 1, lines 12-14.
The claimed “data store” is mapped to the disclosed stored “backup data.”
Hoffman also discloses, “Method 300 provides a foundation for executing a number of validation operations or checks to determine the health of a reference system, backup recovery point, and/or VM,” Col 13, lines 36-39, and “One follow-up validation operation includes a “self-heal” function that attempts to repair backup data of the reference system. … a ‘healing backup’ of the data of the reference system is executed, which may include a deep scan of the reference system data in order to refresh the backup data… it guarantees that the backup data is fully synchronized and ‘healed’ from whatever corruption it was experiencing,” Col 9, Lines 48-60.
The claimed “configuration” is mapped to the disclosed many attributes of the backup data being validated or checked, which includes the disclosed “backup recovery point” and synchronization configuration.);
deploy a (
Hoffman discloses, “FIG. 2 illustrates a method 200 for validating backup data according to one or more embodiments,” Col 7, Lines 59-60, “In an embodiment, a system starts a validation VM on a writeable file system (Operation 202). The system may start the validation VM via a hypervisor or some other virtualization platform using known techniques. The validation VM is configured to determine the health of the VM and/or the underlying reference system for which a backup recovery point is established,” Col 8, Lines 11-17, and “The VM, or some other component of the system (e.g., command abstraction module) analyzes results of the validation check to determine whether the validation check executed normally (Operation 210). The VM, or other component of the system, determines that the validation check 208 executed normally in response to receiving results that are expected to be received when the system is operating correctly,” Col 8, Lines 57-64.
Hoffman discloses, “If the reference system does not have any disk corruption itself, this will fix the backup data of the reference system such that the data has integrity and is thus recoverable,” Col 9, lines 64-67.
The claimed “deployment of the data store” is mapped to recovering from the backup data (data store), which occur after the validation.),
execute, using the (
PNG
media_image1.png
543
748
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The claimed “pre-check of the configuration of the data store” is mapped to the disclosed fig. 2 206’s “PRE-CHECK CONDITION” and fig. 2 208’s “RUN VALIDATION CHECK”.
This is a proper mapping for “pre-check,” not only because of the term “pre-check condition”, but also because both the “pre-check condition” and “validation” check the necessary condition to Fig. 2 216’s “validation success” for the backup data. They are a “pre-check,” which means a check prior to actions in response to the “validation success”. In this case, the actions in response to the “validation success” are the usage of the backup data for being restored.
As explained, the pre-check and validation checks many attributes/configurations of the backup data, mapped to “data store,” and these attributes/configurations include disclosed “backup recovery point” and synchronization configuration. (Col 13, lines 36-39, and Col 9, Lines 48-60)),
wherein the pre-check validates the configuration before an initial deployment of the data store to make the data store operational (
Hoffman discloses, “FIG. 2 illustrates a method 200 for validating backup data according to one or more embodiments.… Method 200 provides a foundation for executing a number of validation operations or checks to determine the health of a reference system, backup recovery point, and/or VM,” Col 7, lines 59-67, “If the reference system does not have any disk corruption itself, this will fix the backup data of the reference system such that the data has integrity and is thus recoverable,” Col 9, lines 64-67.
When a data store is recovered, the data store has an initial deployment to the device that tries to recover the data store.
When the data store with integrity is recovered, the integrity of the data store makes the data store operational, because the plain meaning of the term “operational” is “ready or available to be used”, according to the Oxford Dictionary. Data with integrity could be trusted and be ready to be used or operated on.);
provide an indication that the pre-check has passed or has failed (
Hoffman discloses, “The VM, or some other component of the system (e.g., command abstraction module) analyzes results of the validation check to determine whether the validation check executed normally (Operation 210). The VM, or other component of the system, determines that the validation check 208 executed normally in response to receiving results that are expected to be received when the system is operating correctly,” Col 8, Lines 57-64.);
and responsive to providing the indication that the pre-check has passed, permit (
Hoffman discloses, “If the reference system does not have any disk corruption itself, this will fix the backup data of the reference system such that the data has integrity and is thus recoverable,” Col 9, lines 64-67.
The claimed “deploy the data store” is mapped to recovering from backup data.).
Hoffman does not teach executing the pre-check of the configuration of the data store using a lightweight virtual machine (VM), nor does it teach to permit a selection through an interface to deploy a data store and restrict a user from making the selection when the pre-check fails. Hoffman also does not teach wherein the pre-check includes a pre-deployment port check comprising a check of network connectivity between a network port for a first application and a network port for a second application.
However, Putman teaches executing a container using a lightweight virtual machine (VM). (
Putman discloses, “…a Linux container on Windows (LCOW) may be executed using a lightweight virtual machine running in the background,” ¶ 0050.
After the combination of Hoffman with Putnam, Hoffman’s pre-check of the configuration of the data store, as well as other pre-check functions, are now done using Putman’s lightweight virtual machine.).
Hoffman and Putman are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of system administration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hoffman to incorporate the teachings of Putman and provide executing the pre-check of the configuration of the data store using a lightweight virtual machine (VM). Doing so would help reduce the computational cost and the running time of the pre-check.
Hoffman in view of Putman does not teach to permit a selection through an interface to deploy a data store and restrict a user from making the selection when the pre-check fails. Hoffman in view of Putman also does not teach wherein the pre-check includes a pre-deployment port check comprising a check of network connectivity between a network port for a first application and a network port for a second application.
However, Appellof teaches to permit a selection through an interface, and restrict a user from making the selection when the pre-check fails (
Appellof discloses, “displaying a user interface enabling a user to select one or more backup versions to restore from the backup aggregation, wherein the user interface prevents the user from selecting backup versions of inconsistent data objects for restoration, wherein the backup version of the first data object is prevented from being selected for restoration by the user in response to identifying the backup version of the first data object as a backup version of an inconsistent data object using the stored inconsistent state indicator,” Col 14, Lines 16-25.).
Hoffman in view of Putman, and Appellof are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hoffman in view of Putman to incorporate the teachings of Appellof and provide to permit a selection through an interface to deploy a data store and restrict a user from making the selection when the pre-check fails. Doing so would help prevent system or program failures resulting from corrupted data (Appellof discloses, “In some cases, an application or a user that accesses the restored version of an inconsistent data object may be capable of recognizing the restored version as an incomplete or corrupted version of the data object, while in other cases, the data corruption or incompleteness may be undetected at least temporarily, and may eventually lead to potentially serious errors and/or failures whose root cause may be hard to detect,” Col 4, Lines 2-5.).
Hoffman in view of Putman and Appellof does not teach wherein the pre-check includes a pre-deployment port check comprising a check of network connectivity between a network port for a first application and a network port for a second application.
However, Clark teaches wherein the pre-check includes a pre-deployment port check comprising a check of network connectivity between a network port for a first application and a network port for a second application (
Clark discloses “In certain embodiments, for example, the port-to-port communications may be between user-application processes (inclusive of application processes having a process owner (or user)). In certain embodiments, for example, one or more of the user-application processes may reside in kernel and/or application space. In certain embodiments, for example, the establishing may comprise intercepting network connection requests from source ports (for example the source ports may comprise ports associated with user-application processes), the requests having associated destination port numbers. In certain embodiments, for example, the establishing may comprise verifying that the source ports are authorized to communicate with ports having the associated destination port numbers,” ⁋ 0310.).
Hoffman in view of Putman and Appellof, and Clark are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of online computing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hoffman in view of Putman and Appellof to incorporate the teachings of Clark and provide wherein the pre-check includes a pre-deployment port check comprising a check of network connectivity between a network port for a first application and a network port for a second application. Doing so would help ensure the integrity of communication between the applications (Clark discloses, “for example, the establishing may comprise verifying that the source ports are authorized to communicate with ports having the associated destination port numbers,” ⁋ 0310.).
Claim 14 is an apparatus claim corresponding to the medium Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 14 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Claims 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman (US 10983877 B1) in view of Putman (US 20220179398 A1), Appellof (US 7672979 B1), Clark (US 20190109714 A1), and Gummaraju (US 20150120928 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, and Clark teaches the medium of claim 1. Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, and Clark does not teach wherein the lightweight VM boots from an image stored in a content-based read cache (CBRC), and wherein the CBRC stores metadata about the image including at least one of a block, offset, or location information of the image.
However, Gummaraju teaches wherein the lightweight VM boots from an image stored in a content-based read cache (CBRC), and wherein the CBRC stores metadata about the image including at least one of a block, offset, or location information of the image (
Gummaraju discloses, “In one embodiment, a compute VM 134 may be a ‘lightweight’ VM configured to instantiate quickly relative to conventional VMs. In some embodiments, each compute VM 134 may include a content-based read cache (CBRC) that is used to store a boot image of the compute VM in memory. The CBRC uses a RAM-based configured to cache disk blocks of a virtual machine disk file (VMDK), and serve I/O requests from the CBRC-enabled virtual machine.” ⁋ 0027.).
Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, and Clark, and Gummaraju are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data stores. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, and Clark to incorporate the teachings of Gummaraju and provide wherein the lightweight VM boots from an image stored in a content-based read cache (CBRC), and wherein the CBRC stores metadata about the image including at least one of a block, offset, or location information of the image. Doing so would help allow the VM to be instantiated more quickly. (Gummaraju discloses, “In one embodiment, a compute VM 134 may be a ‘lightweight’ VM configured to instantiate quickly relative to conventional VMs,” ⁋ 0027).
Claim 15 is an apparatus claim corresponding to the medium Claim 2. Therefore, Claim 15 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 2.
Claims 3, 6, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman (US 10983877 B1) in view of Putman (US 20220179398 A1), Appellof (US 7672979 B1), Clark (US 20190109714 A1), and Ramalingam (US 20160285922 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, and Clark teaches the medium of claim 1. Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, and Clark does not teach wherein the pre-check includes a pre-deployment port check comprising a check of connectivity between a data store port and a second port.
However, Ramalingam teaches wherein the pre-check includes a pre-deployment port check comprising a check of connectivity between a data store port and a second port. (
Ramalingam discloses, “In a specific embodiment, the connection engine 204 may reference a database wiring plan and determine that a cable connected to a first port on a particular server should be connected to a second port on a particular switch. As such, the connection member may use the networked device identifier (e.g., a MAC address of the networked device 300a), the networked device connector identifier (e.g., a port number of the networked device 300a), and a network connection member identifier (e.g., the global identifier for the cable) along with the connectivity data to determine the proper connection for a cable to a second networked device. As such, at block 506 the connection engine 204 may determine the identity of the networked device 300b,” ⁋ 0033.).
Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, and Clark, and Ramalingam are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data stores. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, and Clark to incorporate the teachings of Ramalingam and provide wherein the pre-check includes a pre-deployment port check comprising a check of connectivity between a data store port and a second port. Doing so would help ensure that a proper connection can be determined and established (Ramalingam discloses, “…to determine the proper connection for a cable to a second networked device,” ⁋ 0033.)
Claim 16 is an apparatus claim corresponding to the medium Claim 3. Therefore, Claim 16 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 3.
Claims 4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman (US 10983877 B1) in view of Putman (US 20220179398 A1), Appellof (US 7672979 B1), Clark (US 20190109714 A1), Ramalingam (US 20160285922 A1) and Sharma (US 20230305876 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, Clark, and Ramalingam teaches the method of claim 3. Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, Clark, and Ramalingam does not teach wherein the second port comprises a port of a cluster, wherein deploying the data store comprises deploying the data store to the cluster.
However, Sharma teaches wherein the second port comprises a port of a cluster, wherein deploying the data store comprises deploying the data store to the cluster. (Sharma discloses, “The system can create a cluster database by installing a database application in at least three servers in the storage domains,” ⁋ 0033, and “All API usage from nodes, or the pods they run, terminates at an API server, which is configured to listen for remote connections on a secure HTTPS port, typically port 443. The Kubernetes control plane's components also communicate with the cluster API server over the secure port,” ⁋ 0055. The disclosed “cluster API server” is tied to the single “secure port”.
After Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, Clark, and Ramalingam, is combined with Sharma, Hoffman’s backup data could be restored to the cloud through the Sharma’s port of a cluster.).
Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, Clark, and Ramalingam, and Sharma are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of workload scheduling. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, Clark, and Ramalingam to incorporate the teachings of Sharma and provide wherein the second port comprises a port of a cluster, wherein deploying the data store comprises deploying the data store to the cluster. Doing so would help ensure the secure data transfer associated with the port.
Claim 17 is an apparatus claim corresponding to the medium Claim 4. Therefore, Claim 17 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 4.
Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman (US 10983877 B1) in view of Putman (US 20220179398 A1), Appellof (US 7672979 B1), Clark (US 20190109714 A1), Ramalingam (US 20160285922 A1), and Murray (US 20210243164 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, Clark, and Ramalingam teaches the method of claim 3. Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, Clark, and Ramalingam does not teach wherein the second port comprises a port of a domain name system (DNS) server.
However, Murray teaches wherein a second port comprises a port of a domain name system (DNS) server. (Murray discloses, “when a customer gateway and customer service are deployed in an application platform (e.g., a Kubernetes cluster), an application running in the application platform will be able to use the remote endpoints by referring to the DNS name of the corresponding service and the same port as defined on the endpoint.” ⁋ 0062. The disclosed “by referring to the DNS name of the corresponding service and the same port as defined on the endpoint” is a verification of connectivity from the source to the DNS server and port.
After Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, Clark, and Ramalingam is combined with Murray, Hoffman’s backup data could be restored based on a DNS server, e.g., identifying the destination for the recovery. Ramalingam teaches checking whether a connection to a destination device is proper, and the combination of Sharma shows that the destination could be DNS server’s port.).
Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, Clark, and Ramalingam, and Murray are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of workload scheduling. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, Clark, and Ramalingam to incorporate the teachings of Murray and provide wherein the second port comprises a port of a domain name system (DNS) server. Doing so would help improve the accessibility of the data store. (Murray discloses, “In this manner, a means is provided to locally override the domain resolution of the private network 180.” ⁋ 0046).
Claim 18 is an apparatus claim corresponding to the medium Claim 5. Therefore, Claim 18 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 5.
Claims 6 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman (US 10983877 B1) in view of Putman (US 20220179398 A1), Appellof (US 7672979 B1), Clark (US 20190109714 A1), Ramalingam (US 20160285922 A1) and Peterson (US 20220114191 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, Clark, and Ramalingam teaches the method of claim 3. Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, Clark, and Ramalingam does not teach wherein the pre-check includes a predeployment compatibility check comprising a check of compatibility between the data store and a workload configured to run the data store.
However, Peterson teaches wherein the pre-check includes a predeployment compatibility check comprising a check of compatibility between the data store and a workload configured to run the data store (
Peterson discloses, “An offline-compatible node in a database cluster is a node that is capable of performing an operation (a.k.a. task) with regard to information, which is stored by the offline compatible node…” ⁋ 0018).
Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, Clark, and Ramalingam, and Peterson are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of workload scheduling. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, Clark, and Ramalingam to incorporate the teachings of Peterson and provide wherein the pre-check includes a predeployment compatibility check comprising a check of compatibility between the data store and a workload configured to run the data store. Doing so would help improve the efficiency of the workload running the datastore (Peterson discloses, “The example techniques may reduce an amount of time and/or resources (e.g., processor, memory, network bandwidth) that are consumed to replicate and/or reconcile data in a database cluster,” ⁋ 0025-).
Claim 19 is an apparatus claim corresponding to the medium Claim 6. Therefore, Claim 19 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 6.
Claims 7, 9, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman (US 10983877 B1) in view of Putman (US 20220179398 A1), Appellof (US 7672979 B1), Clark (US 20190109714 A1), and Peterson (US 20220114191 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, and Clark teaches the method of claim 1. Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, and Clark does not teach wherein the pre-check includes a pre-deployment compatibility check comprising a check of compatibility between the data store and a workload configured to run the data store wherein the pre-check includes a predeployment compatibility check comprising a check of compatibility between the data store and a workload configured to run the data store.
However, Peterson teaches wherein the pre-check includes a pre-deployment compatibility check comprising a check of compatibility between the data store and a workload configured to run the data store wherein the pre-check includes a predeployment compatibility check comprising a check of compatibility between the data store and a workload configured to run the data store (
Peterson discloses, “An offline-compatible node in a database cluster is a node that is capable of performing an operation (a.k.a. task) with regard to information, which is stored by the offline compatible node…” ⁋ 0018).
Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, and Clark, and Peterson are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of workload scheduling. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, and Clark to incorporate the teachings of Peterson and provide wherein the pre-check includes a predeployment compatibility check comprising a check of compatibility between the data store and a workload configured to run the data store. (Peterson discloses, “The example techniques may reduce an amount of time and/or resources (e.g., processor, memory, network bandwidth) that are consumed to replicate and/or reconcile data in a database cluster,” ⁋ 0025-).
Claim 20 is an apparatus claim corresponding to the medium Claim 7. Therefore, Claim 20 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 9, Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, Clark, and Peterson teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the check of compatibility between the data store and the workload comprises a check of compatibility between the data store and a cluster, wherein the cluster includes the workload (
Peterson discloses, “An offline-compatible node in a database cluster is a node that is capable of performing an operation (a.k.a. task) with regard to information, which is stored by the offline compatible node while the offline compatible node is not connected to online nodes in the database cluster via a network, in response to (e.g., based on) the offline-compatible node being (e.g., becoming) connected to the online nodes via the network,” ⁋ 0018).
Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, and Clark, and Peterson are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of workload scheduling. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, and Clark to incorporate the teachings of Peterson and provide wherein the check of compatibility between the data store and the workload comprises a check of compatibility between the data store and a cluster, wherein the cluster includes the workload. Doing so would help improve the efficiency of the workload running the datastore (Peterson discloses, “The example techniques may reduce an amount of time and/or resources (e.g., processor, memory, network bandwidth) that are consumed to replicate and/or reconcile data in a database cluster,” ⁋ 0025-).
Claim 22 is an apparatus claim corresponding to the medium Claim 9. Therefore, Claim 22 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 9.
Claims 8 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman (US 10983877 B1) in view of Putman (US 20220179398 A1), Appellof (US 7672979 B1), Clark (US 20190109714 A1), Peterson (US 20220114191 A1), and Moore (US 20220188462 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, Clark, and Peterson teaches the method of claim 7. Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, Clark, and Peterson does not teach wherein the check of compatibility between the data store and the workload comprises determining whether an operating system of the workload is in an installed state.
However, Moore teaches wherein the check of compatibility between the data store and the workload comprises determining whether an operating system of the workload is in an installed state. (Moore discloses, “For example, the system controller 106 may provide remote management access (e.g., system console access) from a remote system such as a remote computer system regardless of whether the RCA 100 is powered on, whether a primary subsystem hardware of the PCA 100 is functioning, or whether the host OS is operating or even installed.” ⁋ 0037).
Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, Clark, and Peterson, and Moore are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of workload scheduling. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, Clark, and Peterson, to incorporate the teachings of Moore and provide wherein the check of compatibility between the data store and the workload comprises determining whether an operating system of the workload is in an installed state. Doing so would help ensure proper steps can be taken based on the installation status of the operating system, so that the system works properly (Moore discloses, “…whether the host OS is operating or even installed. The user may be able to access various functionalities offered by the system controller 106 by accessing a web-console from the remote computing system (not shown), as well.” ⁋ 0037).
Claim 21 is an apparatus claim corresponding to the medium Claim 8. Therefore, Claim 21 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 8.
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman (US 10983877 B1) in view of Putman (US 20220179398 A1), Appellof (US 7672979 B1), Clark (US 20190109714 A1), and Arroyo (US 20110004735 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, and Clark teaches the medium of claim 1. Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, and Clark does not teach wherein the lightweight VM boots from an image smaller than one gigabyte.
However, Arroyo teaches wherein the lightweight VM boots from an image smaller than one gigabyte. (
Arroyo discloses, “Each virtual machine is associated with a memory image which is 512 megabytes in size.” ⁋ 0074.).
Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, and Clark, and Arroyo are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data storage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, and Clark to incorporate the teachings of Arroyo and provide wherein the lightweight VM boots from an image smaller than one gigabyte. Doing so would help reduce the amount of storage space used.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman (US 10983877 B1) in view of Putman (US 20220179398 A1), Appellof (US 7672979 B1), Clark (US 20190109714 A1), Arroyo (US 20110004735 A1), and Gummaraju (US 20150120928 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, Clark, and Arroyo teaches the medium of claim 10. Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, Clark, and Arroyo does not teach wherein the image is stored in a content-based read cache (CBRC).
However, Gummaraju teaches wherein the image is stored in a content-based read cache (CBRC) (
Gummaraju discloses, “In one embodiment, a compute VM 134 may be a ‘lightweight’ VM configured to instantiate quickly relative to conventional VMs. In some embodiments, each compute VM 134 may include a content-based read cache (CBRC) that is used to store a boot image of the compute VM in memory. The CBRC uses a RAM-based configured to cache disk blocks of a virtual machine disk file (VMDK), and serve I/O requests from the CBRC-enabled virtual machine.” ⁋ 0027.).
Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, Clark, and Arroyo, and Gummaraju are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data stores. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, Clark, and Arroyo to incorporate the teachings of Gummaraju and provide wherein the image is stored in a content-based read cache (CBRC). Doing so would help allow the VM to be instantiated more quickly. (Gummaraju discloses, “In one embodiment, a compute VM 134 may be a ‘lightweight’ VM configured to instantiate quickly relative to conventional VMs,” ⁋ 0027).
Claims 12 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman (US 10983877 B1) in view of Putman (US 20220179398 A1), Appellof (US 7672979 B1), Clark (US 20190109714 A1), and Jobanputra (US 20230101551 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, and Clark teaches the medium of claim 1. Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, and Clark does not teach wherein deploying the data store comprises deploying the data store to a cluster located in a hybrid cloud spanning one or more data centers and one or more clouds.
However, Jobanputra teaches wherein deploying the data store comprises deploying the data store to a cluster located in a hybrid cloud spanning one or more data centers and one or more clouds. (
Jobanputra discloses, “The deployment system may receive a request to deploy an immutable instance of the database system to a database cluster,” ⁋ 0012, and “Database 110, database cluster 120, and deployment system 150 may thus execute on and use the available cloud resources of the cloud infrastructure (e.g., computing resources, storage resources, network resources, etc.) in order to facilitate their operation. As an example, the database servers of an immutable database system instance 130 may execute within virtual environments hosted on server-based hardware included in a datacenter of the cloud provider,” ⁋ 0016.).
Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, and Clark, and Jobanputra are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data storage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, and Clark to incorporate the teachings of Jobanputra and provide wherein deploying the data store comprises deploying the data store to a cluster located in a hybrid cloud spanning one or more data centers and one or more clouds. Doing so would allow for specifying which users can access the data store within the cluster (Jobanputra discloses, “Metadata store 410 may also store metadata describing the users that are permitted to access database information, analytics about tenants associated with database cluster 120, etc.,” ⁋ 0039.).
Claim 25 is an apparatus claim corresponding to the medium Claim 12. Therefore, Claim 25 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 12.
Claims 13 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman (US 10983877 B1) in view of Putman (US 20220179398 A1), Appellof (US 7672979 B1), Clark (US 20190109714 A1), and Wagner (US 20180004572 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, and Clark teaches the medium of claim 1. Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, and Clark does not teach wherein deploying the data store includes deploying one or more VMs configured to execute tasks associated with API requests received at the data store.
However, Wagner teaches wherein deploying the data store includes deploying one or more VMs configured to execute tasks associated with API requests received at the data store. (
Wagner discloses, “As a further example, the account manager 160 can enable a user to specify permissions under which the task should execute when called via an alias, resources that should be made available to the task when executed via the alias, or criteria for selecting a virtual machine instance on which to execute the task. These customizations may be stored within the account data store 164, along with a record of the alias, such that calling the alias (e.g., with appropriate credentials for the account associated with the alias) causes the task to be executed using the customizations.” ⁋ 0057, and “Illustratively, a user may designate a collection of tasks as forming an API to a service of the user (e.g., as provided by other tasks executing on the on-demand code execution environment 110, by auxiliary services 106, etc.),” ⁋ 0066.
The claimed “deploying one or more VMs configured to execute tasks” is mapped to the disclosed “selecting a virtual machine instance on which to execute the task”.
The claimed “tasks associated with API requests received at the data store” is mapped to the disclosed “As a further example, the account manager 160 can enable a user to specify permissions under which the task should execute when called via an alias, resources that should be made available to the task when executed via the alias…. These customizations may be stored within the account data store 164, along with a record of the alias”, and “collection of tasks as forming an API”.).
Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, and Clark, and Wagner are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data storage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, and Clark to incorporate the teachings of Wagner and provide wherein deploying the data store includes deploying one or more VMs configured to execute tasks associated with API requests received at the data store. Doing so would help allow ensure greater security due to the reliance on API authentications (Wagner discloses, “These customizations may be stored within the account data store 164, along with a record of the alias, such that calling the alias (e.g., with appropriate credentials for the account associated with the alias) causes the task to be executed using the customizations,” ⁋ 0057.).
Regarding Claim 26, Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, and Clark teaches the apparatus of claim 14. Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, and Clark does not teach wherein deploying the data store includes deploying one or more VMs configured to execute tasks associated with API requests received at the data store, wherein the one or more VMs are deployed after the pre-check validates the configuration.
However, Wagner teaches wherein deploying the data store includes deploying one or more VMs configured to execute tasks associated with API requests received at the data store, wherein the one or more VMs are deployed after the pre-check validates the configuration. (
Wagner discloses, “As a further example, the account manager 160 can enable a user to specify permissions under which the task should execute when called via an alias, resources that should be made available to the task when executed via the alias, or criteria for selecting a virtual machine instance on which to execute the task. These customizations may be stored within the account data store 164, along with a record of the alias, such that calling the alias (e.g., with appropriate credentials for the account associated with the alias) causes the task to be executed using the customizations.” ⁋ 0057, and “Illustratively, a user may designate a collection of tasks as forming an API to a service of the user (e.g., as provided by other tasks executing on the on-demand code execution environment 110, by auxiliary services 106, etc.),” ⁋ 0066, and “Selection of a virtual machine instance may include a variety of criteria, such as whether a virtual machine instance is available within the active pool 140A that satisfies requirements or preferences for executing the task (e.g., required permissions, resource access, dependencies, execution environment, etc.),” ¶ 0073.
The claimed “deploying one or more VMs configured to execute tasks” is mapped to the disclosed “selecting a virtual machine instance on which to execute the task”.
The claimed “tasks associated with API requests received at the data store” is mapped to the disclosed “As a further example, the account manager 160 can enable a user to specify permissions under which the task should execute when called via an alias, resources that should be made available to the task when executed via the alias…. These customizations may be stored within the account data store 164, along with a record of the alias”, and “collection of tasks as forming an API”.
The VM is deployed/selected after the pre-check, because the recovery task is created after the pre-check on validity of data to be recovered, and the VM is deployed/selected for the task, after the task has been created.).
Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, and Clark, and Wagner are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data storage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, and Clark to incorporate the teachings of Wagner and provide wherein deploying the data store includes deploying one or more VMs configured to execute tasks associated with API requests received at the data store, wherein the one or more VMs are deployed after the pre-check validates the configuration. Doing so would help allow ensure greater security due to the reliance on API authentications (Wagner discloses, “These customizations may be stored within the account data store 164, along with a record of the alias, such that calling the alias (e.g., with appropriate credentials for the account associated with the alias) causes the task to be executed using the customizations,” ⁋ 0057.).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoffman (US 10983877 B1) in view of Putman (US 20220179398 A1), Appellof (US 7672979 B1), Clark (US 20190109714 A1), Gummaraju (US 20150120928 A1), and Sancheti (US 20180113625 A1).
Regarding Claim 23, Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, Clark, and Gummaraju teaches the apparatus of claim 15. Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, and Clark does not teach wherein the image is stored in a cache, wherein the cache stores the image and metadata about the image including location information of the image.
However, Gummaraju teaches wherein the image is stored in a cache, wherein the cache stores the image (
Gummaraju discloses, “In one embodiment, a compute VM 134 may be a ‘lightweight’ VM configured to instantiate quickly relative to conventional VMs. In some embodiments, each compute VM 134 may include a content-based read cache (CBRC) that is used to store a boot image of the compute VM in memory. The CBRC uses a RAM-based configured to cache disk blocks of a virtual machine disk file (VMDK), and serve I/O requests from the CBRC-enabled virtual machine.” ⁋ 0027.).
Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, and Clark, and Gummaraju are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data stores. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, and Clark to incorporate the teachings of Gummaraju and provide wherein the image is stored in a cache, wherein the cache stores the image. Doing so would help allow the VM to be instantiated more quickly. (Gummaraju discloses, “In one embodiment, a compute VM 134 may be a ‘lightweight’ VM configured to instantiate quickly relative to conventional VMs,” ⁋ 0027).
Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, Clark, and Gummaraju does not teach wherein the cache stores metadata about the image including location information of the image.
However, Sancheti teaches wherein the cache stores metadata about the image including location information of the image (
Sancheti discloses, “In some embodiments, the information communicated to the storage manager 340 can include data regarding the completion of the snapshot operations of the virtual machines 338, as well as additional information or metadata regarding the hardware used to implement the virtual machines 338. For example, the information can include, but is not limited to, … physical location (e.g., one or more block and/or sector locations) of the virtual machine data file within the storage unit 314, etc. The storage manager 340 can store the received information in its own data store or index cache, and use the received information to identify the … physical location of the virtual machine data 336 within the storage units 314.,” ¶ 0296.).
Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, Clark, and Gummaraju, and Sancheti are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of data storage. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hoffman in view of Putman, Appellof, Clark, and Gummaraju to incorporate the teachings of Sancheti and provide wherein the cache stores metadata about the image including location information of the image. Doing so would help allow the user to retrieve images based on location in order to reduce latency. (Sancheti discloses, “The storage manager 340 can store the received information in its own data store or index cache, and use the received information to identify the virtual data store 326 associated with the virtual machines 338, the storage units 314 associated with the virtual data store 326, and the physical location of the virtual machine data 336 within the storage units 314,” ⁋ 0296).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Raitto et al. (US 20140280373 A1): Automatically Determining an Optimal Database Subsection
Pentland et al. (US 20200348949 A1): System and Methods for Loading Objects from Hash Chains
Parthasarathy (US 20190227713 A1): System and Method for Managing Object Store
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 ANDREW SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-6735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Aimee Li can be reached at (571) 272-4169. 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.
/ANDREW NMN SUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2195
/Aimee Li/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2195
Prosecution Insights