DETAILED ACTION
This Action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed on 12/30/25.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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
Argument - The applicant argues, in regards to the 103 rejection of claims 1, 8 and 15, that Towles does not disclose the amended limitation “…wherein each host provides a hypervisor that abstracts physical resources of a hardware platform of the host into one or more virtual machines (VM)”. In particular, the applicant states that Towles does not disclose a host that provides virtualization technology (see applicant’s remarks; pages 12-14).
Response to argument – While the examiner notes that Towles discloses a host system dynamically allocating a cluster of nodes presented as virtual clusters (see Towles; paragraph 0004), the examiner has relied upon Yuen to disclose the amended limitation.
In particular, the applicant merely states that claims 1, 8 and 15 are allowable over any combination of Yuen, Towles and Wan (see applicant’s remarks; page 14), without specifically pointing out the differences between the claim limitations and Yuen (emphasis added). In other words, how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from Yuen.
However, the examiner submits that Yuen does in fact disclose the amended limitation, as shown in the rejection below.
The applicant states that claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 are allowable in view of their dependency upon claims 1, 8 and 15 (see applicant’s remarks; page 14). However, the rejection of claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 has been maintained in view of the rationale discussed above regarding claims 1, 8 and 15 and the corresponding rejection below.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in India on 10/25/22. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the IN202241060686 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
The examiner notes that an attempt by the Office to electronically retrieve, under the priority document exchange program, the foreign application to which priority is claimed has failed (see status report mailed on 03/25/24).
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 7 and 14, the claims recite alternative language, i.e. using the term “or”, and as such, the Examiner interprets certain features to not be required due to the claim language listing the features in the alternative. The rejection below specifies the particular limitations.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Towles (U.S. 2022/0173973 A1) in view of Yuen et al. (U.S. 2024/0095010 A1), and further in view of Wan et al. (U.S. 2019/0342175 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 15, Towles discloses a method and system for configuring a cluster of hosts, comprising:
defining and storing a global transport node profile that defines a first configuration for the cluster of hosts (see Towles; paragraphs 0023, 0041, 0060 and 0072; Towles discloses initializing nodes of a cluster based on a configuration profile, i.e. “global transport node profile”. In particular, storing various configuration profiles that specify, i.e. “defining and storing…”, settings for the different configurations and a selecting a particular configuration for the nodes in cluster, i.e. “a first configuration for the cluster of hosts”. In other words, an initial configuration profile, i.e. “global transport node profile”, is defined and stored specifying the configuration settings);
defining and storing a sub-transport node profile that defines a second configuration (see Towles; paragraphs 0060 and 0072; Towles discloses storing various configuration profiles specifying different configurations and reconfiguring the connections among a portion of the cluster. In particular, a different particular configuration profile, i.e. “sub-transport node profile that defines a second configuration”, is selected for a number of nodes in a sub-network of the cluster of nodes. In other words, a portion of nodes within the cluster are reconfigured from an initial configuration);
assigning one or more hosts of the cluster to the sub-transport node profile (see Towles; paragraphs 0058, 0060, 0072 and 0081; Towles discloses allocating a set of nodes within the cluster, i.e. “assigning one or more hosts of the cluster”, for the particular network configuration profile, i.e. “the sub-transport node profile”).
While Towles discloses a host system dynamically allocating a cluster of nodes presented as virtual clusters (see Towles; paragraph 0004), Towles does not explicitly disclose wherein each host provides a hypervisor that abstracts physical resources of a hardware platform of the host into one or more virtual machines (VM).
In analogous art, Yuen disclose wherein each host provides a hypervisor that abstracts physical resources of a hardware platform of the host into one or more virtual machines (VM) (see Yuen; paragraphs 0017, 0018, 0020 and 0023; Yuen discloses a computing system may be a collection of one of more servers that refer to one or more hardware devices that act as a host for one or more virtual machines. The computing system, e.g. one or more servers, includes a computing system manager that manages provisioning of the virtual machines, i.e. “…into one or more virtual machines (VM)”. The computing system manager of the one or more servers, i.e. “each host provides…”, may be or include a hypervisor and may virtualize and make available resources, e.g. disk, memory, processor, i.e. “physical resources of a hardware platform”, of the one or more servers, i.e. “…of the host”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Towles and Yuen because they both disclose features of configuration management, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Yuen’s provisioning of virtual machines into the system of Towles in order provide the benefit of efficiency by allowing the cluster of processing nodes that are presented as virtual clusters (see Towles; paragraph 0004) to include a virtualized infrastructure that performs tasks such as moving virtual machines between physical hosts for load balancing purposes (see Yuen; paragraph 0023).
While Towles discloses various configuration profiles, such as the “global transport node profile” and the “sub-transport node profile”, as discussed above, the combination of Towles and Yuen does not explicitly disclose configuring the cluster of hosts based on the global transport node profile and the sub- transport node profile comprising: configuring the one or more hosts of the cluster based on the first configuration and the second configuration; and configuring at least one host of the cluster not assigned to the sub-transport node profile based on the first configuration and not the second configuration.
In analogous art, Wan discloses configuring the cluster of hosts based on the global transport node profile and the sub-transport node profile (see Wan; paragraphs 0035 and 0037; Wan discloses applying profiles which include configuration information to a group of host machines, i.e. “cluster of hosts”, implementing a group of logical entities. For example, a profile A, a profile B and a profile C are defined and applied to the group of host machines, in which, profile A, i.e. “sub-transport node profile”, is only applied to a first host and profile B, i.e. “global transport node profile”, is applied to each host machine) comprising:
configuring the one or more hosts of the cluster based on the first configuration and the second configuration (see Wan; paragraphs 0035 and 0037; Wan discloses applying to the group of host machines, i.e. “one or more hosts of the cluster”, both profile A which includes an entity configuration, i.e. “the second configuration”, and profile B which includes an entity configuration, i.e. “the first configuration”. The examiner notes that profile B is considered the first configuration since all the host machines receive it, and profile A the second configuration since a subset, e.g. just one, of the host machines receive it); and
configuring at least one host of the cluster not assigned to the sub-transport node profile based on the first configuration and not the second configuration (see Wan; paragraphs 0035 and 0037; Wan discloses providing the profile B including an entity configuration, i.e. “based on the first configuration”, to a second host machine of the group of host machines, i.e. “configuring at least one host of the cluster”. The second host machine does not receive the profile A, i.e. “not assigned to the sub-transport node profile”, and therefore does not receive the configuration from profile A, i.e. “the second configuration”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Towles, Yuen and Wan because they all disclose features of configuration management, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Wan’s profile definitions into the combined system of Towles and Yuen in order provide the benefit of allowing a portion or set number of the processing nodes of the cluster of processing nodes (see Towles; paragraph 0060) to receive multiple configuration profiles (see Wan; paragraph 0035) from the stored various configuration profiles (see Towles; paragraph 0072).
Further, Towles discloses the additional limitations of claim 8, one or more processors (see Towles; paragraphs 0121 and 0124; Towles discloses multiple processors); and at least one memory (see Towles; paragraphs 0121 and 0124; Towles discloses a memory device).
Further, Towles discloses the additional limitations of claim 15, a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a computing system, cause the computing system to perform operations (see Towles; paragraph 0121; Towles discloses a computer readable medium to implement instructions executed by a processor).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 16, Towles, Yuen and Wan disclose all the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15, as discussed above, and further the combination of Towles, Yuen and Wan clearly discloses wherein assigning the one or more hosts of the cluster to the sub- transport node profiles comprises: assigning the one or more hosts of the cluster to a sub-cluster (see Towles; paragraphs 0041 and 0042; Towles discloses allocating small groups of nodes within the cluster and assigning a sub-network to the subset of nodes, i.e. “assigning the one or more hosts”), wherein the sub-cluster comprises hosts that share a common property (see Towles; paragraph 0042; Towles discloses the subset of processing nodes are assigned a shared sub-network, i.e. “common property”); and associating the sub-cluster with the sub-transport node profile (see Towles; paragraphs 0060 and 0072; Towles discloses selecting particular network configuration of the configuration profile, i.e. “the sub-transport node profile”, for the group of nodes out of the cluster, i.e. “associating the sub-cluster”).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 17, Towles, Yuen and Wan disclose all the limitations of claims 2, 9 and 16, as discussed above, and further the combination of Towles, Yuen and Wan clearly discloses wherein the common property comprises a subnet common among each of the hosts (see Towles; paragraph 0042; Towles discloses assigning a sub-network, i.e. “subnet”, to the subset of nodes).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 18, Towles, Yuen and Wan disclose all the limitations of claims 1, 8 and 15, as discussed above, and further the combination of Towles, Yuen and Wan clearly discloses wherein configuring the cluster of hosts based on the global transport node profile and the sub-transport node profile comprises, for each host of the cluster: determining whether the host is assigned to the sub-transport node profile (see Wan; paragraphs 0035, 0037 and 0049; Wan discloses identifying association for each host, e.g. a first, second and third host, with the configuration profile A, i.e. “whether the host is assigned to the sub-transport node profile”);
when the host is assigned to the sub-transport node profile: applying the first configuration defined by the global transport node profile and the second configuration defined by the sub-transport node profile assigned to the host (see Wan; paragraphs 0035, 0037 and 0049; Wan discloses a host, i.e. “when the host”, such as a first host machine, has an association with profile A, i.e. “sub-transport node profile”, including an entity configuration and profile B, i.e. “global transport node profile”, including an entity configuration, therefore receives the set of configurations of both profile B and profile A, i.e. “the first configuration defined by the global transport node profile and the second configuration defined by the sub-transport node profile”);
when the host is not assigned to the sub-transport node profile: applying the first configuration defined by the global transport node profile to the host (see Wan; paragraphs 0035, 0037 and 0049; Wan discloses a host, i.e. “when the host”, is not associated, i.e. “not assigned”, with profile A, and receives the configuration from profile B, i.e. “the global transport node profile”).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivations as was applied in claims 1, 8 and 15.
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 19, Towles, Yuen and Wan disclose all the limitations of claims 4, 11 and 18, as discussed above, and further the combination of Towles, Yuen and Wan clearly discloses wherein applying the first configuration defined by the global transport node profile and the second configuration defined by the sub-transport node profile comprises: determining configuration parameters of the first configuration do not conflict with configuration parameters of the second configuration (see Wan; paragraphs 0035 and 0051; Wan discloses associated profiles, e.g. profile A, i.e. “sub-transport node profile”, and profile B, i.e. “the global transport node profile”, and determining whether there are any conflicts between profiles); and
applying both the configuration parameters of the first configuration and the configuration parameters of the second configuration to the host (see Wan; paragraphs 0047, 0051 and 0055; Wan discloses if there are no conflicts, the profile set, i.e. including profiles A and B configuration, are applied to each associated host machine).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivations as was applied in claims 4, 11 and 18.
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 20, Towles, Yuen and Wan disclose all the limitations of claims 4, 11 and 18, as discussed above. Further, the combination of Towles, Yuen and Wan clearly discloses determining at least one configuration parameter is defined in both the first configuration and the second configuration (see Yuen; paragraphs 0054, and 0087; Yuen discloses a first configuration has a first set of configuration parameters with first values and a second configuration has a second set of configuration parameters with second values);
determining a first value of the at least one configuration parameter in the first configuration conflicts with a second value of the at least one configuration parameter in the second configuration (see Yuen; paragraphs 0054, 0062, 0064, 0073 and 0075; Yuen discloses the first and second configurations may share common configuration parameters or may include different configuration parameters. The parameters may indicate values for a first update version field. And a determination is made on if the setting of first update version field in a configuration conflicts with the setting of the first update field of an earlier configuration, i.e. “…conflicts with a second value of the at least one configuration parameter in the second configuration”); and
applying the second value of the at least one configuration parameter to the host (see Yuen; paragraphs 0073 and 0075; Yuen discloses if there is a conflict then the setting of the earlier configuration may override the setting of the first update version field, i.e. “applying the second value…”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Towles, Yuen and Wan because they all disclose features of configuration management, and as such, are within the same environment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the features of Yuen into the combined system of Towles and Wan in order provide the benefit of efficiency by allowing the storing of multiple configuration profiles specifying different configurations (see Towles; paragraph 0022) for a portion or set number of the processing nodes of the cluster of processing nodes (see Towles; paragraph 0060) to include a determination between non-updated configurations and updated configurations (see Yuen; paragraph 0064).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Towles, Yuen and Wan disclose all the limitations of claims 1 and 8, as discussed above, and further the combination of Towles, Yuen and Wan clearly discloses wherein each of the first configuration and the second configuration define configuration parameters that comprise at least one of: virtual switches; virtual switch configurations (see Towles; paragraphs 0004 and 0041; Towles processing nodes can be presented as virtual clusters and configuration parameters, such as, interconnect scheme for switches, i.e. “virtual switch configurations”, are selected); transport zones; network input/output configurations; uplink profiles; or internet protocol pool addresses (see Wan; paragraph 0049; Wan discloses configuration data for the entities such as IP addresses). (The claim list features in the alternative. While the claim lists a number of optional limitations only one limitation from the list is required and needs to be met by the prior art. The Examiner has chosen the “virtual switch configurations” alternative).
The prior art used in the rejection of the current claim is combined using the same motivations as was applied in claims 1 and 8.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Dong et al. (U.S. 2022/0121928 A1) discloses storing multiple configuration profiles for a cluster of processing nodes.
Kanevsky et al. (U.S. 2021/0377117 A1) discloses assign roles and services to node devices defined in a cluster configuration.
Danilov et al. (U.S. 2017/0373930 A1) discloses a change to a configuration parameter associated with a first cluster node in a cluster configuration.
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 ADAM A COONEY whose telephone number is (571)270-5653. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-5:00pm (every other Fri off).
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/A.A.C/Examiner, Art Unit 2458 01/15/26
/UMAR CHEEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2458