DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-10, 12-15, and 17-20 are pending.
Claims 11 and 16 are canceled.
Claims 1-10, 12-15, and 17-20 are 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 arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections (Remarks pp. 10-13) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections (Remarks pp. 13-17) have been fully considered but are moot in view of the Examiner’s new ground of rejections. However, the Examiner would like to address Applicant’s following arguments.
1. The applicant argues that neither Afek nor any of the other references used in the rejection teaches “wherein the first group of virtual machines is visible to the first cluster of storage nodes and the second group of virtual machines is visible to the second cluster of storage nodes”, because “restriction of resources based on location, as described by Afek, does not teach or suggest any ‘cluster of storage nodes,’ nor that a ‘virtual machine is included in both the first group of virtual machines visible to the first cluster of storage nodes and the second group of virtual machines visible to the second cluster of storage nodes,’” (Remarks pp. 13-15).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement. Afek indeed does not teach “cluster of storage nodes”, which is why Iwamitsu, which does teach “cluster of storage nodes”, was added as a reference for the rejection of the amended independent claims. Furthermore, in contrast to the applicant’s statement that “the resources of Afek are restricted to each region”, Afek teaches a multi-region consisting of at least two different regions that a computing resource (e.g. a virtual machine or a storage node) could be part of (
Afek discloses, “FIG. 5 illustrates a block diagram of an example of a security domain, role based access control (SD-RBAC) model according to an embodiment of the present disclosure. From the example given in FIG. 4, program instructions can be executed to define a security domain for a property of a resource, e.g., a tenant property and/or region attribute. That is, given a first region (1), a second region (2), a third region (3), and a multi-region (4) classification, the program instructions are executed to define four (4) security domains, one for each region classification where the hardware, software, firmware and data resources of that region are the tenant, so that visibility of resources can be restricted per region,” ¶ 0030.).
2. The applicant also argues that Afek does not teach “a selection of a cluster of storage nodes of the plurality of clusters of storage nodes to have visibility of the virtual machine” or “configuring, by the data management system, the selected cluster of storage nodes to have visibility of the virtual machine in response to the indication of the selection”, because “Afek does not teach or suggest that the described resources include any ‘virtual machine,’ nor that the regions are any ‘cluster of storage nodes.’ Further, Afek does not teach or suggest any ‘selection’ of any particular region of Afek ‘to have visibility of the virtual machine.’ That is, the visibility of resources of Afek is based on location, and thus there is no ‘selection’ of which region may have visibility of a given resource. Thus, Afek does not teach or suggest ‘a selection of a cluster of storage nodes of the plurality of clusters of storage nodes to have visibility of the virtual machine’ and ‘configuring, by the data management system, the selected cluster of storage nodes to have visibility of the virtual machine in response to the indication of the selection of the cluster of storage nodes being received via the user interface of the data management system,’” (Remarks pp. 15-17).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this statement. The combination of the Examiner’s references teaches the limitation.
After the combination of Bobbitt with Afek, the computing resources in the regions from Afek are replaced with the virtual machines from Bobbitt and the storage nodes from Iwamitsu.
Furthermore, Bobbitt in view of Afek teaches ‘selection’ of any particular region ‘to have visibility of the virtual machine’ (
Afek discloses, “From the example given in FIG. 4, program instructions can be executed to define a security domain for a property of a resource, e.g., a tenant property and/or region attribute. That is, given a first region (1), a second region (2), a third region (3), and a multi-region (4) classification, the program instructions are executed to define four (4) security domains, one for each region classification where the hardware, software, firmware and data resources of that region are the tenant, so that visibility of resources can be restricted per region… region1 DB expert user 501-1 is granted the DB expert role in the context of region1 security domain 509-1, region2 DB expert user 501-2 is granted the DB expert role in the context of region2 security domain 509-2…” ¶ 0030.
A security domain is defined for each region, which defines the level of visibility to other regions or entities. Thus, it is selecting of which regions may have visibility of a given resource.).
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 1-2, 10, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bobbitt (US 20190138336 A1) in view of Afek (US 20130283350 A1), Iwamitsu (US 10229021 B1), Reddy (US 20150106809 A1), and Kumar (US 20210357246 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Bobbitt teaches a method for managing virtual machines, comprising:
identifying, at a data management system
Bobbitt discloses, “During an automatic execution, the automation script may determine a first list of virtual machines that has not been used for at least a certain amount of time by going through a dry-run…. Upon receiving the authorization, the automation script may determine a second list of virtual machines, compare the first list with the second list and delete each particular virtual machine that is in both lists provided of course that the particular virtual machine has not been active since the time the dry-run had executed.” ¶ 0053.);
determining, by the data management system, that a virtual machine is included in both the first group of virtual machines and the second group of virtual machines (
Bobbitt discloses, “The process then determines whether the first virtual machine in the second list is also in the first list (step 415),” ¶ 0056.); and
identifying a single entry for the virtual machine based at least in part on determining that the virtual machine is included in both the first group of virtual machines and the second group of virtual machines (
Bobbitt discloses, “If the virtual machine is in both the first list and the second list, using the execution time of the first run, the process determines whether the virtual machines has been active since the first list was generated (step 430).” ¶ 0056.),
the single entry comprising an active entry for the virtual machine (
Bobbitt discloses, “If the virtual machine is in both the first list and the second list, using the execution time of the first run, the process determines whether the virtual machines has been active since the first list was generated (step 430).” ⁋ 0056.
In the mapping for Claim 1, a common list between the first and second lists is displayed. Since the determined active virtual machine is included in this common list, it is therefore displayed as well.).
Bobbitt does not teach identifying the two groups of virtual machines using a data management system that comprises a first cluster of storage nodes in communication with a virtual machine management system and a second cluster of storage nodes in communication with the virtual machine management system, wherein the first group of virtual machines is visible to the first cluster of storage nodes and the second group of virtual machines is visible to the second cluster of storage nodes,
displaying, via at least one view of a user interface of the data management system, the identified single entry for the virtual machine,
and performing one or more operations on one of the first cluster of storage nodes or the second cluster of storage nodes that includes the active entry of the virtual machine, the one or more operations comprising managing protection of a plurality of virtual machines, initiating a live mount, or both.
However, Afek teaches identifying the two groups of virtual machines using a data management system that comprises a first cluster of computing resources in communication with a virtual machine management system and a second cluster of computing resources in communication with the virtual machine management system, wherein the first group of virtual machines is visible to the first cluster of computing resources and the second group of virtual machines is visible to the second cluster of computing resources (
Afek discloses, “FIG. 5 illustrates a block diagram of an example of a security domain, role based access control (SD-RBAC) model according to an embodiment of the present disclosure. From the example given in FIG. 4, program instructions can be executed to define a security domain for a property of a resource, e.g., a tenant property and/or region attribute. That is, given a first region (1), a second region (2), a third region (3), and a multi-region (4) classification, the program instructions are executed to define four (4) security domains, one for each region classification where the hardware, software, firmware and data resources of that region are the tenant, so that visibility of resources can be restricted per region,” ¶ 0030.
The “first cluster of computing resources” is mapped to a cluster of computing resources that comprises a first region that is given a first security domain managed by role A, so that resource visibility is restricted to the first region. After Bobbitt is combined with Afek, administrators with role A would have access to a first list of virtual machines.
The “second cluster of computing resources” is mapped to a cluster of computing resources that comprises a second region that is given a second security domain managed by role B, so that resource visibility is restricted to the second region. After Bobbitt is combined with Afek, administrators with role B would have access to a second list of virtual machines.
The claimed “virtual machine management system” is mapped to the disclosed administrative system that defines security domains for the two regions/lists of virtual machines.
After Bobbitt and Afek are combined, the administrative system now manages the virtual machines from Bobbitt.).
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 Bobbitt to incorporate the teachings of Afek and provide a data management system that comprises a first cluster of computing resources in communication with a virtual machine management system and a second cluster of computing resources in communication with the virtual machine management system, wherein the first group of virtual machines is visible to the first cluster of computing resources and the second group of virtual machines is visible to the second cluster of computing resources. Doing so would help improve management of the virtual machines and enhance security. Assigning roles to access lists of virtual machines would restrict access to the virtual machines to enhance security. Otherwise, all administrators may have access to call virtual machines, even though they are not supposed to. (Afek discloses, “…the embodiments of the present disclosure execute program instructions to represent the security domain as a way to restrict the permission of a user by context,” ¶ 0047.)
Bobbitt in view of Afek does not teach identifying the two groups of virtual machines using a data management system that comprises a first cluster of storage nodes in communication with a virtual machine management system and a second cluster of storage nodes in communication with the virtual machine management system, wherein the first group of virtual machines is visible to the first cluster of storage nodes and the second group of virtual machines is visible to the second cluster of storage nodes,
displaying, via at least one view of a user interface of the data management system, the identified single entry for the virtual machine,
and performing one or more operations on one of the first cluster of storage nodes or the second cluster of storage nodes that includes the active entry of the virtual machine, the one or more operations comprising managing protection of a plurality of virtual machines, initiating a live mount, or both.
However, Iwamitsu teaches that the cluster of computing resources is a cluster of storage nodes (
Iwamitsu discloses, “a system including a cluster formed of a plurality of storage nodes,” Col 1, Lines 66-67, and “Each of the compute nodes 2 is a general purpose computer apparatus which functions as a host (host apparatus) for the storage nodes 3. The compute node 2 may be a virtual computer apparatus such as a virtual machine,” Col 5, Lines 28-31.
After Bobbitt in view of Afek, and Iwamitsu are combined, each of the two clusters of computing resources as taught by Bobbitt in view of Afek are replaced by clusters of storage nodes as taught by Iwamitsu.).
Bobbitt in view of Afek, and Iwamitsu are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of virtual machine management. 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 Bobbitt in view of Afek to incorporate the teachings of Iwamitsu and provide that the cluster of computing resources is a cluster of storage nodes. Doing so would help ensure that if an individual storage node fails, the rest of the storage nodes can still function (Iwamitsu discloses, “In a case where it is detected that a failure occurs in any storage node 3 during the health check, the master cluster control module 25 specifies the other storage control module (passive storage control module) 21 forming the same storage control module pair 28 along with the active storage control module 21 disposed in the storage node (hereinafter, referred to as a failure storage node) 3 in which the failure occurs (S30),” Col 21, Lines 38-45.).
Bobbitt in view of Afek and Iwamitsu does not teach displaying, via at least one view of a user interface of the data management system, the identified single entry for the virtual machine,
and performing one or more operations on one of the first cluster of storage nodes or the second cluster of storage nodes that includes the active entry of the virtual machine, the one or more operations comprising managing protection of a plurality of virtual machines, initiating a live mount, or both.
However, Reddy teaches displaying, via at least one view of a user interface of the data management system, identified virtual machine(s) (
Reddy discloses, “The example inventory user interface generator 310 of the illustrated example displays the virtual machines identified at block 906 under an identification of the first function (block 908),” ¶ 0064.).
Bobbitt in view of Afek and Iwamitsu, and Reddy 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 Bobbitt in view of Afek and Iwamitsu to incorporate the teachings of Reddy and provide displaying, via at least one view of a user interface of the data management system, identified information. Doing so would help allow more user-friendly and ascertainable feedback to a user based on the user’s information request, so that the user would make informed decisions (Reddy discloses, “Accordingly, even if the virtual machine name is not descriptive or is unknown to the user, the workload to which the virtual machine belongs is readily ascertainable,” ¶ 0046.).
Bobbitt in view of Afek, Iwamitsu, and Reddy does not teach performing one or more operations on one of the first cluster of storage nodes or the second cluster of storage nodes that includes the active entry of the virtual machine, the one or more operations comprising managing protection of a plurality of virtual machines, initiating a live mount, or both.
However, Kumar teaches performing one or more operations on one of the first cluster of storage nodes or the second cluster of storage nodes that includes the active entry of the virtual machine, the one or more operations comprising managing protection of a plurality of virtual machines, initiating a live mount, or both (
Kumar discloses, “Storage manager 340 is analogous to storage manager 140 and additionally comprises features for operating in system 300 and/or system 400 (see FIG. 4A), e.g., for initiating and managing VM live mount, initiating and managing VM live recovery, managing the creation of VM backup copy 116, initiating the creation of VM snapshot 316, etc.” ⁋ 0334.).
Bobbitt in view of Afek, Iwamitsu, and Reddy, and Kumar are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of virtual machine management. 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 Bobbitt in view of Afek, Iwamitsu, and Reddy to incorporate the teachings of Kumar and provide performing one or more operations on one of the first cluster of storage nodes or the second cluster of storage nodes that includes the active entry of the virtual machine, the one or more operations comprising managing protection of a plurality of virtual machines, initiating a live mount, or both. Doing so would help ensure faster, live recovery in case of a system crash. (Kumar discloses, “Storage manager 340 is generally responsible for managing storage operations in system 300 and/or system 400, and includes features for administration of VM live mount and VM live recovery features,” ⁋ 0334.).
Claim 17 is an apparatus claim corresponding to the method Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 17 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, Bobbitt in view of Afek, Iwamitsu, Reddy, and Kumar teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
determining, for the user interface, a first entry for the virtual machine corresponding to the first group of virtual machines and a second entry for the virtual machine corresponding to the second group of virtual machines (
Bobbitt discloses, “Upon starting, the process again determines all virtual machines that have not been used for at least a certain amount of time (step 405). The process then puts the determined virtual machines in a second list in a file (step 410). The process then determines whether the first virtual machine in the second list is also in the first list (step 415).” ⁋ 0056.);
and determining that one of the first entry or the second entry corresponds to the active entry of the virtual machine (
Bobbitt discloses, “If the virtual machine is in both the first list and the second list, using the execution time of the first run, the process determines whether the virtual machines has been active since the first list was generated (step 430).” ⁋ 0056.
In the mapping for Claim 1, a common list between the first and second lists is displayed. Since the determined active virtual machine is included in this common list, it is therefore displayed as well.
Claim 18 is a non-transitory storage medium claim corresponding to the method Claim 2. Therefore, Claim 18 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 10, Bobbitt in view of Afek, Iwamitsu, Reddy, and Kumar teaches the method of claim 1, wherein determining that the virtual machine is included in both the first group of virtual machines and the second group of virtual machines comprises: determining that a first group of virtual machine identifiers associated with the first group of virtual machines and a second group of virtual machine identifiers associated with the second group of virtual machines both include a virtual machine identifier associated with the virtual machine (
Bobbitt discloses, “If the virtual machine is in both the first list and the second list, using the execution time of the first run, the process determines whether the virtual machines has been active since the first list was generated (step 430).” ⁋ 0056.
Reddy discloses, “For example, the information collector 304 may retrieve a name for the virtual machine, a workload associated with the virtual machine, a network address of the virtual machine, the unique identifier for the virtual machine,” ¶ 0043.
After the combination of Bobbitt in view of Afek and Iwamitsu with Reddy, the two lists of virtual machines now store the identifiers that are used to reference the virtual machines, where it is determined whether both lists of virtual machine identifiers contain a virtual machine identifier associated with a specific virtual machine.).
Bobbitt in view of Afek and Iwamitsu, and Reddy are 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 Bobbitt in view of Afek and Iwamitsu to incorporate the teachings of Reddy and provide storing virtual machine identifiers in lists. Doing so would help allow faster and more efficient identification of each virtual machine, as comparing identifiers is faster than directly comparing all attributes of virtual machines. In addition, unique identifiers ensure accuracy in identifying a virtual machine, because no two virtual machines share the same ID. (Reddy discloses, “For example, the information collector 304 may retrieve a name for the virtual machine, a workload associated with the virtual machine, a network address of the virtual machine, the unique identifier for the virtual machine,” ¶ 0043).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bobbitt (US 20190138336 A1) in view of Afek (US 20130283350 A1), Iwamitsu (US 10229021 B1), Reddy (US 20150106809 A1), Kumar (US 20210357246 A1), and Tylik (US 20210034245 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Bobbitt in view of Afek, Iwamitsu, Reddy, and Kumar teaches the method of claim 2. Bobbitt in view of Afek, Iwamitsu, Reddy, and Kumar does not teach further comprising: identifying, in response to determining the first entry and the second entry, a first set of configurations associated with the first entry for the virtual machine and a second set of configurations associated with the second entry for the virtual machine, wherein determining that the one of the first entry or the second entry corresponds to the active entry of the virtual machine is based at least in part on the first set of configurations and the second set of configurations.
However, Tylik teaches further comprising: identifying, in response to determining the first entry and the second entry, a first set of configurations associated with the first entry for the virtual machine and a second set of configurations associated with the second entry for the virtual machine, wherein determining that the one of the first entry or the second entry corresponds to the active entry of the virtual machine is based at least in part on the first set of configurations and the second set of configurations. (
Tylik discloses, “The first snapshot of the VM and the second snapshot of the VM may be included in a same family or generation of snapshots of the VM, wherein each snapshot of the VM included in the same family or generation of snapshots of the VM may use a same set of VM configuration information. The first set of VM configuration information may include information identifying resources allocated for use by the VM at the first point in time when the first snapshot of the VM is captured. The second set of VM configuration information may include information identifying resources allocated for use by the VM at the second point in time when the second snapshot of the VM is captured.” ⁋ 0005.
Bobbitt in view of Afek, Iwamitsu, Reddy, and Kumar already teaches determining an active entry based on the first and second lists. Bobbitt discloses, “If the virtual machine is in both the first list and the second list, using the execution time of the first run, the process determines whether the virtual machines has been active since the first list was generated (step 430).” ¶ 0056. After Tylik is combined, such determination incorporates comparing each set of configuration information to determine the active entry. It would have been a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. The use of configuration replaces the use of its information for assessing virtual machines as taught in Bobbitt. The results are predictable, because is configurations are similar between two virtual machines, the two virtual machines are likely to be similar.).
Bobbitt in view of Afek, Iwamitsu, Reddy, and Kumar, and Tylik are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of virtual machine management. 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 Bobbitt in view of Afek, Iwamitsu, Reddy, and Kumar to incorporate the teachings of Tylik and provide further comprising: identifying, in response to determining the first entry and the second entry, a first set of configurations associated with the first entry for the virtual machine and a second set of configurations associated with the second entry for the virtual machine, wherein determining that the one of the first entry or the second entry corresponds to the active entry of the virtual machine is based at least in part on the first set of configurations and the second set of configurations. Doing so would help to determine activity based on comparing configuration data, like resources allocated or last activity. These configuration settings do not need to be recalculated or reacquired to save processing time and resources (Tylik discloses, “Snapshots of a VM may preserve the VM configuration and data of the VM at the time each snapshot is taken,” ⁋ 0050). It would also have been a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. The use of configuration replaces the use of information for comparing lists of virtual machines as taught in Bobbitt. The results are predictable, because if configurations are similar between two virtual machines, the two virtual machines are likely to be similar.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bobbitt (US 20190138336 A1) in view of Afek (US 20130283350 A1), Iwamitsu (US 10229021 B1), Reddy (US 20150106809 A1), Kumar (US 20210357246 A1), Tylik (US 20210034245 A1), and Mohanty (US 20220026594 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Bobbitt in view of Afek, Iwamitsu, Reddy, Kumar, and Tylik teaches the method of claim 3, wherein the active entry is associated with the one of the first set of configurations or the second set of configurations (
Bobbitt in view of Afek, Iwamitsu, Reddy, and Kumar already teaches determining an active entry based on the first and second lists. After Tylik is combined, such determination is based on configurations as taught by Tylik.).
Bobbitt in view of Afek, Iwamitsu, Reddy, Kumar, and Tylik does not teach wherein: one of the first set of configurations or the second set of configurations includes an active service level agreement.
However, Mohanty teaches wherein:
one of the first set of configurations or the second set of configurations includes an active service level agreement (
Mohanty discloses, “As an example, the cloud hosting system 220 may identify the configuration set associated with a particular group's or organization's SLA or other information that balances data richness with data transmission and storage resource consumption efficiency.” ⁋ 0063. “SLA” is an abbreviation for “service level agreement”.).
Bobbitt in view of Afek, Iwamitsu, Reddy, Kumar, and Tylik, and Mohanty are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of virtual machine management. 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 Bobbitt in view of Afek, Iwamitsu, Reddy, Kumar, and Tylik to incorporate the teachings of Mohanty and provide wherein: one of the first set of configurations or the second set of configurations includes an active service level agreement. Doing so would help allow standardizing configurations to make them easier to process. (Mohanty discloses, “In some embodiments, the configuration information may be based on constraints imposed by the cloud hosting system, and/or a service level agreement (SLA) between the onsite agent system and the cloud hosting system. In this way, the onsite agent system and the cloud hosting system may work in conjunction for providing a cloud data storage solution that standardizes data across disparate sources and formats, and further balances data richness with data transmission resource and storage consumption efficiency.” ⁋ 0020.)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bobbitt (US 20190138336 A1) in view of Afek (US 20130283350 A1), Iwamitsu (US 10229021 B1), Reddy (US 20150106809 A1), Kumar (US 20210357246 A1), and Kamath (US 20180081905 A1).
Regarding Claim 5, Bobbitt in view of Afek, Iwamitsu, Reddy, and Kumar teaches the method of claim 1.
Bobbitt in view of Afek, Iwamitsu, Reddy, and Kumar does not teach further comprising: displaying, via a second view of the user interface of the data management system, an expansion of the single entry for the virtual machine comprising an indication of the first cluster of storage nodes and the second cluster of storage nodes.
However, Kamath teaches further comprising: displaying, via a second view of the user interface of the data management system, an expansion of the single entry comprising an indication of the first cluster of storage nodes and the second cluster of storage nodes (
Kamath discloses, “…the user may select (e.g., click) on a property's update operation icon 1901. In response, as shown in FIG. 19B, the selected property expands to show both the new (requested) value 1902 and the old (current) value 1903. In some cases, the update icon may work as a toggle, so that selecting the icon 1901 again may revert to a normal request property display,” ⁋ 0139.
The claimed “expansion of the single entry” is mapped to the disclosed “selected property expands to show”.
Here, Kamath teaches expansion of the single entry comprising a first attribute value and a second attribute value.
After the combination of Bobbitt in view of Afek, Iwamitsu, Reddy, and Kumar, with Kamath, a first attribute value and a second attribute value become the indication of the first cluster of storage nodes (first role) and the second cluster of storage nodes (second role) as taught by Bobbitt in view of Afek, Iwamitsu, Reddy, and Kumar. A user may be associated with multiple roles. The indication of the first cluster of storage nodes (first role), which replaces the old first value from Kamath, and the second cluster of storage nodes (second role), which replaces the new second value from Kamath, are displayed as a result.).
Bobbitt in view of Afek, Iwamitsu, Reddy, and Kumar, and Kamath are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of virtual machine management. 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 Bobbitt in view of Afek, Iwamitsu, Reddy, and Kumar to incorporate the teachings of Kamath and provide further comprising: displaying, via a second view of the user interface of the data management system, an expansion of the single entry for the virtual machine comprising an indication of the first cluster of storage nodes and the second cluster of storage nodes. Doing so would help allow the system to show user information when needed and to more effectively communicate to a user, especially given that the amount of a screen space is limited. Additional information may be provided when a user clicks to expand an interested item for further operation visualization based on the displayed data (Kamath discloses, “The hierarchy management system 130 may provide request visualization features, including underlying request analysis components and request visualization user interfaces, to allow users to review the downstream effects of requested changes before deciding whether or not to modify and/or commit the changes,” ⁋ 0129.).
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bobbitt (US 20190138336 A1) in view of Afek (US 20130283350 A1), Iwamitsu (US 10229021 B1), Reddy (US 20150106809 A1), Kumar (US 20210357246 A1), and Vath (US 20200401684 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Bobbitt in view of Afek, Iwamitsu, Reddy, and Kumar teaches the method of claim 1. Bobbitt in view of Afek, Iwamitsu, Reddy, and Kumar does not teach further comprising: further comprising: displaying, via a second view of the user interface of the data management system, an expansion of the single entry for the virtual machine comprising an indication of a cluster of storage nodes that is actively managing the virtual machine.
However, Vath teaches further comprising: displaying, via a second view of the user interface of the data management system, an expansion of the single entry for the virtual machine comprising an indication of a cluster of storage nodes that is actively managing the virtual machine. (
Vath discloses, “For example, assuming the user has multiple active roles, the session management module displays a user interface (e.g., drop downs, radio buttons, or another suitable interface) to allow the user to select the active role,” ⁋ 0087.
The claimed “expansion of the single entry” is mapped to one of the disclosed “drop downs” that can be expanded to show an active role that can be selected.
Bobbitt in view of Afek, Iwamitsu, Reddy, and Kumar teaches that a user may have multiple roles to administer a first list of virtual machines (role A) and second list of virtual machines (role B), where each role corresponds to each cluster of storage nodes. Vath teaches an indication of an active role. After Bobbitt in view of Afek, Iwamitsu, Reddy, and Kumar is combined with Vath, the active role could be role A or B. If role A is active, the administer is actively managing the virtual machine under role A, and the cluster of storage nodes under role A has been mapped to one of the clusters of storage nodes.).
Bobbitt in view of Afek, Iwamitsu, Reddy, and Kumar, and Vath are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer system management. 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 Bobbitt in view of Afek, Iwamitsu, Reddy, and Kumar to incorporate the teachings of Vath and provide further comprising: displaying, via a second view of the user interface of the data management system, an expansion of the single entry for the virtual machine comprising an indication of a cluster of storage nodes that is actively managing the virtual machine. Doing so would help allow the user to determine whether to switch to another cluster of storage nodes for actively managing the virtual machine, which provides convenience to the user. (Vath discloses, “In this embodiment, a user can change roles during a session. For example, a user can select a “change role” action using a drop-down, link, or other user interface technique. In an embodiment, this triggers a change role action,” ⁋ 0085.).
Regarding Claim 7, Bobbitt in view of Afek, Iwamitsu, Reddy, and Kumar teaches the method of claim 1. Bobbitt in view of Afek, Iwamitsu, Reddy, and Kumar does not teach further comprising: receiving, via a second view of the user interface of the data management system, a user input to select the first cluster of storage nodes or the second cluster of storage nodes for one or more operations; and initiating the one or more operations on the selected cluster of storage nodes in response to receiving the user input.
However, Vath teaches further comprising: receiving, via a second view of the user interface of the data management system, a user input to select the first cluster of storage nodes or the second cluster of storage nodes for one or more operations; and initiating the one or more operations on the selected cluster of storage nodes in response to receiving the user input (
Vath discloses, “For example, a user can select a ‘change role’ action using a drop-down, link, or other user interface technique. In an embodiment, this triggers a change role action,” ⁋ 0085, and “For example, assuming the user has multiple active roles, the session management module displays a user interface (e.g., drop downs, radio buttons, or another suitable interface) to allow the user to select the active role,” ⁋ 0087.
The claimed “user input to select the first cluster of storage nodes or the second cluster of storage nodes” is mapped to the disclosed “a user can select a ‘change role’ action using a drop-down”, where there can be two different options to select for roles, where each role corresponds to each cluster of storage nodes.
The claimed “initiating the one or more operations on the selected cluster of storage nodes” is mapped to the disclosed “triggers a change role action.”).
Bobbitt in view of Afek, Iwamitsu, Reddy, and Kumar, and Vath are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer system management. 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 Bobbitt in view of Afek, Iwamitsu, Reddy, and Kumar to incorporate the teachings of Vath and provide further comprising: receiving, via a second view of the user interface of the data management system, a user input to select the first cluster of storage nodes or the second cluster of storage nodes for one or more operations; and initiating the one or more operations on the selected cluster of storage nodes in response to receiving the user input. Doing so would help allow for switching to the other cluster of storage nodes if desired (Vath discloses, “In an embodiment, as discussed above, a user can be associated with multiple potential roles for a system (e.g., primary care provider, secondary care provider, observer, administrator, patient, patient guardian, patient assistant, etc.). In this embodiment, a user can change roles during a session,” ⁋ 0085).
Regarding Claim 8, Bobbitt in view of Afek, Iwamitsu, Reddy, Kumar, and Vath teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the one or more operations further comprise capturing an on-demand snapshot (
Kumar discloses, “Storage manager 340 is analogous to storage manager 140 and additionally comprises features for operating in system 300 and/or system 400 (see FIG. 4A), e.g., for initiating and managing VM live mount, initiating and managing VM live recovery, managing the creation of VM backup copy 116, initiating the creation of VM snapshot 316, etc.” ⁋ 0334.).
Bobbitt in view of Afek, Iwamitsu, and Reddy, and Kumar are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of virtual machine management. 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 Bobbitt in view of Afek, Iwamitsu, and Reddy to incorporate the teachings of Kumar and provide wherein the one or more operations further comprise capturing an on-demand snapshot. Doing so would help ensure faster, live recovery in case of a system crash. (Kumar discloses, “Storage manager 340 is generally responsible for managing storage operations in system 300 and/or system 400, and includes features for administration of VM live mount and VM live recovery features,” ⁋ 0334.)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bobbitt (US 20190138336 A1) in view of Afek (US 20130283350 A1), Iwamitsu (US 10229021 B1), Reddy (US 20150106809 A1), Kumar (US 20210357246 A1), and Lokanath (US 20210241241 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Bobbitt in view of Afek, Iwamitsu, Reddy, and Kumar teaches the method of claim 1. Bobbitt in view of Afek, Iwamitsu, Reddy, and Kumar does not teach further comprising: initiating a periodic backend job to determine that that the virtual machine is included in both the first group of virtual machines and the second group of virtual machines.
However, Lokanath teaches further comprising: initiating a periodic backend job to determine that that the virtual machine is included in both the first group of virtual machines and the second group of virtual machines (
Lokanath discloses, “According to certain embodiments, the monitoring bot periodically checks the status of machines, VMs, clusters, compute pods, applications, etc., which are executing within the host organization's cloud computing infrastructure,” ⁋ 0150.
After the combination of Bobbitt in view of Afek, Iwamitsu, Reddy, and Kumar, with Lokanath, the periodic checking of the status of virtual machines in a host organization’s cloud computing infrastructure is replaced with a periodic checking of the status of virtual machines in two groups of virtual machines, in order to determine if one or more virtual machines exists in both groups.).
Bobbitt in view of Afek, Iwamitsu, Reddy, and Kumar, and Lokanath are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cloud 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 Bobbitt in view of Afek, Iwamitsu, Reddy, and Kumar to incorporate the teachings of Lokanath and provide further comprising: initiating a periodic backend job to determine that that the virtual machine is included in both the first group of virtual machines and the second group of virtual machines. Doing so would help allow updated notifications indicating the health of each virtual machine (Lokanath discloses, “…the monitoring bot periodically checks the status of machines, VMs, clusters, compute pods, applications, etc., which are executing within the host organization's cloud computing infrastructure and writes a status to the blockchain indicating the hea[l]th of the monitored computing infrastructure,” ⁋ 0150. Based on the health notifications of the virtual machine, a user could take quick action if there are problems with the virtual machine.).
Claims 12-15 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bobbitt (US 20190138336 A1) in view of Afek (US 20130283350 A1), Iwamitsu (US 10229021 B1), Vath (US 20200401684 A1), and Kumar (US 20210357246 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Bobbitt teaches a method for managing virtual machines, comprising:
identifying, at a data management system that comprises(
Bobbitt discloses, “During an automatic execution, the automation script may determine a first list of virtual machines that has not been used for at least a certain amount of time by going through a dry-run…. Upon receiving the authorization, the automation script may determine a second list of virtual machines, compare the first list with the second list and delete each particular virtual machine that is in both lists provided of course that the particular virtual machine has not been active since the time the dry-run had executed.” ¶ 0053.
The component that manages the data access of the Bobbitt system is mapped to the claimed “data management system.”).
Bobbitt does not teach a data management system that comprises a plurality of clusters of storage nodes in communication with a virtual machine management system, wherein the virtual machine is associated with the virtual machine management system,
receiving, via a user interface of the data management system, an indication of a selection of a cluster of storage nodes of the plurality of clusters of storage nodes to have visibility of the virtual machine; and configuring, by the data management system, the selected cluster of storage nodes to have visibility of the virtual machine in response to the indication of the selection of the cluster of storage nodes being received via the user interface of the data management system,
and performing one or more operations on the cluster of storage nodes based at least in part on the selection, the one or more operations comprising managing protection of a plurality of virtual machines, initiating a live mount, or both.
However, Afek teaches a data management system that comprises a plurality of clusters of computing resources in communication with a virtual machine management system, wherein the virtual machine is associated with the virtual machine management system. (
Afek discloses, “FIG. 5 illustrates a block diagram of an example of a security domain, role based access control (SD-RBAC) model according to an embodiment of the present disclosure. From the example given in FIG. 4, program instructions can be executed to define a security domain for a property of a resource, e.g., a tenant property and/or region attribute. That is, given a first region (1), a second region (2), a third region (3), and a multi-region (4) classification, the program instructions are executed to define four (4) security domains, one for each region classification where the hardware, software, firmware and data resources of that region are the tenant, so that visibility of resources can be restricted per region,” ¶ 0030.
The “plurality of clusters of computing resources” is mapped to a plurality of clusters of computing resources that each comprise a region that is given a specific security domain managed by a unique role, so that resource visibility is restricted for each region. After Bobbitt is combined with Afek, administrators with a specific role from all roles would have access to the corresponding list of virtual machines from the security domain associated with the role.
The claimed “virtual machine management system” is mapped to the disclosed administrative system that defines security domains for the plurality of regions/lists of virtual machines.
After Bobbitt and Afek are combined, the administrative system now manages the virtual machines from Bobbitt.);
Afek also teaches a selection of a cluster of computing resources of the plurality of clusters of computing resources to have visibility of the virtual machine; and configuring, by the data management system, the selected cluster of computing resources to have visibility of the virtual machine in response to the indication of the selection of the cluster of computing resources being received (
Afek discloses, “That is, given a first region (1), a second region (2), a third region (3), and a multi-region (4) classification, the program instructions are executed to define four (4) security domains, one for each region classification where the hardware, software, firmware and data resources of that region are the tenant, so that visibility of resources can be restricted per region… region1 DB expert user 501-1 is granted the DB expert role in the context of region1 security domain 509-1, region2 DB expert user 501-2 is granted the DB expert role in the context of region2 security domain 509-2…” ¶ 0030.
The “cluster of computing resources” is mapped to a cluster of computing resources that comprises a first region that is given a first security domain managed by a role, e.g., role A, so that resource visibility is restricted to the first region. After Bobbitt is combined with Afek, administrators with role A would have access to a first list of virtual machines.).
Bobbitt and Afek are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of virtual machine management. 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 Bobbitt to incorporate the teachings of Afek and provide a data management system that comprises a plurality of clusters of computing resources in communication with a virtual machine management system, wherein the virtual machine is associated with the virtual machine management system; and a selection of a cluster of computing resources of the plurality of clusters of computing resources to have visibility of the virtual machine; and configuring, by the data management system, the selected cluster of computing resources to have visibility of the virtual machine in response to the indication of the selection of the cluster of computing resources being received. Doing so would help improve management of the virtual machines and enhance security. Assigning roles to access lists of virtual machines would restrict access to the virtual machines to enhance security. Otherwise, all administrators may have access to call virtual machines, even though they are not supposed to. (Afek discloses, “…the embodiments of the present disclosure execute program instructions to represent the security domain as a way to restrict the permission of a user by context,” ¶ 0047.)
Bobbitt in view of Afek does not teach a data management system that comprises a plurality of clusters of storage nodes in communication with a virtual machine management system, wherein the virtual machine is associated with the virtual machine management system,
receiving, via a user interface of the data management system, an indication of a selection of a cluster of storage nodes of the plurality of clusters of storage nodes to have visibility of the virtual machine; and configuring, by the data management system, the selected cluster of storage nodes to have visibility of the virtual machine in response to the indication of the selection of the cluster of storage nodes being received via the user interface of the data management system,
and performing one or more operations on the cluster of storage nodes based at least in part on the selection, the one or more operations comprising managing protection of a plurality of virtual machines, initiating a live mount, or both.
However, Iwamitsu teaches that the cluster of computing resources is a cluster of storage nodes (
Iwamitsu discloses, “a system including a cluster formed of a plurality of storage nodes,” Col 1, Lines 66-67, and “Each of the compute nodes 2 is a general purpose computer apparatus which functions as a host (host apparatus) for the storage nodes 3. The compute node 2 may be a virtual computer apparatus such as a virtual machine,” Col 5, Lines 28-31.
After Bobbitt in view of Afek, and Iwamitsu are combined, each of the clusters of computing resources as taught by Bobbitt in view of Afek are replaced by clusters of storage nodes as taught by Iwamitsu.).
Bobbitt in view of Afek, and Iwamitsu are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of virtual machine management. 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 Bobbitt in view of Afek to incorporate the teachings of Iwamitsu and provide that the clusters of computing resources are clusters of storage nodes. Doing so would help ensure that if an individual storage node fails, the rest of the storage nodes can still function (Iwamitsu discloses, “In a case where it is detected that a failure occurs in any storage node 3 during the health check, the master cluster control module 25 specifies the other storage control module (passive storage control module) 21 forming the same storage control module pair 28 along with the active storage control module 21 disposed in the storage node (hereinafter, referred to as a failure storage node) 3 in which the failure occurs (S30),” Col 21, Lines 38-45.).
Bobbitt in view of Afek and Iwamitsu does not teach receiving, via a user interface of the data management system, an indication of a selection of a cluster of storage nodes, and the indication of the selection of the cluster of storage nodes being received via the user interface of the data management system,
and performing one or more operations on the cluster of storage nodes based at least in part on the selection, the one or more operations comprising managing protection of a plurality of virtual machines, initiating a live mount, or both.
However, Vath teaches receiving, via a user interface of the data management system, an indication of a selection of a cluster of storage nodes, and the indication of the selection of the cluster of storage nodes being received via the user interface of the data management system (
Vath discloses, “For example, a user can select a ‘change role’ action using a drop-down, link, or other user interface technique. In an embodiment, this triggers a change role action,” ⁋ 0085, and “For example, assuming the user has multiple active roles, the session management module displays a user interface (e.g., drop downs, radio buttons, or another suitable interface) to allow the user to select the active role,” ⁋ 0087.
The “indication of a selection of a cluster of storage nodes” is mapped to the disclosed trigger that “triggers a change role action” that indicates that a role has been selected.
This is selection of a cluster of storage nodes because a role is selected to be the active role from a plurality of roles, each of which give access to different permissions. Said different permissions can be used for having visibility of different virtual machines.);
After Bobbitt in view of Afek and Iwamitsu, and Vath are combined, the ‘change role’ action now selects the cluster of storage nodes, which allows the user associated with the role to have visibility of the virtual machine associated with the selected cluster of storage nodes.).
Bobbitt in view of Afek and Iwamitsu, and Vath are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of virtual machine management. 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 Bobbitt in view of Afek and Iwamitsu to incorporate the teachings of Vath and provide receiving, via a user interface of the data management system, an indication of a selection of a cluster of storage nodes of the plurality of clusters of storage nodes to have visibility of the virtual machine; and configuring, by the data management system, the selected cluster of storage nodes to have visibility of the virtual machine in response to the indication of the selection of the cluster of storage nodes being received via the user interface of the data management system. Doing so would help allow for switching to another cluster of storage nodes if desired (Vath discloses, “In an embodiment, as discussed above, a user can be associated with multiple potential roles for a system (e.g., primary care provider, secondary care provider, observer, administrator, patient, patient guardian, patient assistant, etc.). In this embodiment, a user can change roles during a session,” ⁋ 0085).
Bobbitt in view of Afek, Iwamitsu, and Vath does not teach performing one or more operations on the cluster of storage nodes based at least in part on the selection, the one or more operations comprising managing protection of a plurality of virtual machines, initiating a live mount, or both.
However, Kumar teaches performing one or more operations on the cluster of storage nodes based at least in part on the selection, the one or more operations comprising managing protection of a plurality of virtual machines, initiating a live mount, or both (
Kumar discloses, “Storage manager 340 is analogous to storage manager 140 and additionally comprises features for operating in system 300 and/or system 400 (see FIG. 4A), e.g., for initiating and managing VM live mount, initiating and managing VM live recovery, managing the creation of VM backup copy 116, initiating the creation of VM snapshot 316, etc.” ⁋ 0334.).
Bobbitt in view of Afek, Iwamitsu, and Vath, and Kumar are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of virtual machine management. 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 Bobbitt in view of Afek, Iwamitsu, and Vath to incorporate the teachings of Kumar and provide performing one or more operations on the cluster of storage nodes based at least in part on the selection, the one or more operations comprising managing protection of a plurality of virtual machines, initiating a live mount, or both. Doing so would help ensure faster, live recovery in case of a system crash. (Kumar discloses, “Storage manager 340 is generally responsible for managing storage operations in system 300 and/or system 400, and includes features for administration of VM live mount and VM live recovery features,” ⁋ 0334.).
Claim 19 is an apparatus claim corresponding to the method Claim 12. Therefore, Claim 19 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 12.
Regarding Claim 13, Bobbitt in view of Afek, Iwamitsu, Vath, and Kumar teaches the method of claim 12, wherein another cluster of storage nodes of the plurality of cluster of storage nodes does not have visibility of the virtual machine based at least in part on not being the selected cluster of storage nodes. (
Afek discloses, “FIG. 5 illustrates a block diagram of an example of a security domain, role based access control (SD-RBAC) model according to an embodiment of the present disclosure. From the example given in FIG. 4, program instructions can be executed to define a security domain for a property of a resource, e.g., a tenant property and/or region attribute. That is, given a first region (1), a second region (2), a third region (3), and a multi-region (4) classification, the program instructions are executed to define four (4) security domains, one for each region classification where the hardware, software, firmware and data resources of that region are the tenant, so that visibility of resources can be restricted per region,” ¶ 0030.
The claimed “[in]visibility of the virtual machine based at least in part on not being the selected cluster of storage nodes” is mapped to the situation where a region that a cluster of computing resources comprises is not given permission to view resources that are visible to another region that a different cluster of computing resources comprises, if said different cluster of computing resources is selected but the first cluster of computing resources is not.
After the combination of Bobbitt with Afek, the resources that are visible to each region are replaced with virtual machines, so that a region that a cluster of computing resources comprises is not given permission to view virtual machines of a different, selected cluster of computing resources’ region. The additional combination of Bobbitt in view of Afek with Iwamitsu results in the clusters of computing resources being replaced with clusters of storage nodes to achieve the same functionality.).
Bobbitt, Afek, and Iwamitsu are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer management. 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 Bobbitt to incorporate the teachings of Afek and Iwamitsu and provide wherein another clusters of storage nodes of the plurality of clusters of storage nodes does not have visibility of the virtual machine based at least in part on not being the selected clusters of storage nodes. Doing so would help improve management of the virtual machines and enhance security. Assigning roles to access lists of virtual machines would restrict access to the virtual machines to enhance security. Otherwise, all administrators may have access to call virtual machines, even though they are not supposed to. (Afek discloses, “…the embodiments of the present disclosure execute program instructions to represent the security domain as a way to restrict the permission of a user by context,” ¶ 0047.)
Claim 20 is an apparatus claim corresponding to the method Claim 13. Therefore, Claim 20 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 13.
Regarding Claim 14, Bobbitt in view of Afek, Iwamitsu, Vath, and Kumar teaches the method of claim 13, further comprising: receiving, via the user interface of the data management system, an indication of a selection of a second cluster of storage nodes of the plurality of clusters of storage nodes to have visibility of the virtual machine (
Vath discloses, “For example, a user can select a ‘change role’ action using a drop-down, link, or other user interface technique. In an embodiment, this triggers a change role action,” ⁋ 0085, and “For example, assuming the user has multiple active roles, the session management module displays a user interface (e.g., drop downs, radio buttons, or another suitable interface) to allow the user to select the active role,” ⁋ 0087.
The claimed “receiving, via the user interface of the data management system, an indication of a selection of a second cluster of storage nodes” is mapped to a second instance of the disclosed “triggers a change role action”, where it is indicated that a second role is being selected, where each role corresponds to each cluster of storage nodes.
This is selection of a cluster of storage nodes because a role is selected to be the active role from a plurality of roles, each of which give access to different permissions such as managing each cluster. Said different permissions can be used for having visibility of different virtual machines.).
and configuring, by the data management system, the second cluster of storage nodes to have visibility of the virtual machine in response to the indication of the selection of the second cluster of storage nodes being received via the user interface of the data management system (
Vath discloses, “For example, a user can select a ‘change role’ action using a drop-down, link, or other user interface technique. In an embodiment, this triggers a change role action,” ⁋ 0085, and “For example, assuming the user has multiple active roles, the session management module displays a user interface (e.g., drop downs, radio buttons, or another suitable interface) to allow the user to select the active role,” ⁋ 0087.
After Bobbitt in view of Afek and Iwamitsu, and Vath are combined, the ‘change role’ action that is selected by the user now selects the second cluster of storage nodes, which associates the user with the role and allows the user to have visibility of the virtual machine associated with the selected second cluster of storage nodes.).
Bobbitt in view of Afek, and Iwamitsu and Vath are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of virtual machine management. 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 Bobbitt in view of Afek to incorporate the teachings of Iwamitsu and Vath and provide configuring, by the data management system, the second cluster of storage nodes to have visibility of the virtual machine in response to the indication of the selection of the cluster of storage nodes being received via the user interface of the data management system. Doing so would help allow for switching to another cluster of storage nodes if desired (Vath discloses, “In an embodiment, as discussed above, a user can be associated with multiple potential roles for a system (e.g., primary care provider, secondary care provider, observer, administrator, patient, patient guardian, patient assistant, etc.). In this embodiment, a user can change roles during a session,” ⁋ 0085).
Regarding Claim 15, Bobbitt in view of Afek, Iwamitsu, Vath, and Kumar teaches the method of claim 14, wherein receiving the indication of the selection of the cluster of storage nodes and receiving the indication of the selection of the second cluster of storage nodes comprises: receiving an indication of a selection of a group of clusters of storage nodes to have visibility of the virtual machine, the group of clusters of storage nodes comprising the cluster of storage nodes and the second cluster of storage nodes (
Afek discloses, “FIG. 5 illustrates a block diagram of an example of a security domain, role based access control (SD-RBAC) model according to an embodiment of the present disclosure. From the example given in FIG. 4, program instructions can be executed to define a security domain for a property of a resource, e.g., a tenant property and/or region attribute. That is, given a first region (1), a second region (2), a third region (3), and a multi-region (4) classification, the program instructions are executed to define four (4) security domains, one for each region classification where the hardware, software, firmware and data resources of that region are the tenant, so that visibility of resources can be restricted per region,” ¶ 0030.
The claimed “selection of a group of clusters of storage nodes to have visibility of the virtual machine” is mapped to the granting of a specified group of roles to a user.
After Bobbitt, Afek, Iwamitsu, and Vath are combined, the single cluster of storage nodes, where a role access level is given to a user to have visibility of a virtual machine in a region, is replaced by a group of clusters of storage nodes that each have a role access level given to a user to have visibility of a virtual machine in a region.
Vath teaches receiving the indication, disclosing “For example, a user can select a ‘change role’ action using a drop-down, link, or other user interface technique. In an embodiment, this triggers a change role action,” ⁋ 0085. After the combination of Bobbitt in view of Afek, with Iwamitsu and Vath, an indication of the “selection of a group of clusters of storage nodes to have visibility of the virtual machine” is now received by the user interface.)
Bobbitt in view of Afek, and Iwamitsu and Vath are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of virtual machine management. 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 Bobbitt in view of Afek to incorporate the teachings of Iwamitsu and Vath and provide receiving an indication of a selection of a group of clusters of storage nodes to have visibility of the virtual machine, the group of clusters of storage nodes comprising the cluster of storage nodes and the second cluster of storage nodes. Doing so would help allow for switching to another combination of clusters of storage nodes if desired (Vath discloses, “In an embodiment, as discussed above, a user can be associated with multiple potential roles for a system (e.g., primary care provider, secondary care provider, observer, administrator, patient, patient guardian, patient assistant, etc.). In this embodiment, a user can change roles during a session,” ⁋ 0085).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nagaraja et al. (US 20130232463 A1): System and Method for Customizing a Deployment Plan for a Multi-tier Application in a Cloud Infrastructure
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