Detailed Action
This action is in response to application filed on 01/25/2023.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 01/25/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings submitted on 01/25/2023 are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Representative claim 1 is directed to a non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to:
receive a request to prevent overallocation of a resource in a software-defined datacenter associated with a customer; (including two clusters)
determine an amount of the resource available to the customer; and
assign a respective portion of the amount of the resource available to the customer to each of a plurality of virtual computing instances (VCIs) irrespective of a power state of each of the plurality of VCIs.
Per prong 1, Step 2A, the above emphasized element/concepts are not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract, namely,
Mental processes including concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and/or humans using pen and paper (see, October 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance Update, 84 Fed. Reg. 55,942, hereinafter “PEG”).
For instance, humans can mentally and/or via aid of pen/paper determine an amount of the resource available to the customer; and assign a respective portion of the amount of the resource available to the customer to each of a plurality of virtual computing instances (VCIs) irrespective of a power state of each of the plurality of VCIs.
Per prong 2, Step 2A, the additional non-emphasized elements as noted above; namely; “non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to: receive a request to prevent overallocation of a resource in a software-defined datacenter associated with a customer”; are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(f, g, h). Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results.
Per Step 2B, the additional non-emphasized elements as noted above; namely; “non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to: receive a request to prevent overallocation of a resource in a software-defined datacenter associated with a customer”; are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h). Additionally, the recited claim limitations do not improve the functionality of the electronic device or achieve improved technical results. Accordingly, the above limitations singularly or in combination do not result in the claim as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 8, and 17 are method and system claims corresponding to medium claim 1 as noted above and are of substantially same scope.
Accordingly, claims 8, and 17 are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-15, 18-20 when considered individually or in combination per steps as noted above are rejected under the same rational as set forth above for claims 1, 8, and 17. In particular, claims 2-7, 9-15, 18-20 describe mental steps with aid of paper/pen to assign, as well as additional elements of power on VCIs with associated amount of resource without exceeding, resource being storage/memory/cpu, receive requests having various parameters/modification etc., interface are mere data gathering/sending steps/insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; are merely adding words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception/mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(d, f, g, h) which does not impose meaningful limitation to abstract idea (Per prong 2, Step 2A, and Step 2B) and same analysis and conclusion apply as noted for claims 1, 8, and 17.
Accordingly, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract idea.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9, 13, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Baron (US 20120272237 A1, referred herein after as D1).
As per claim 1, D1 discloses,
A non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to, (D1, title, abstract).
receive a request to prevent overallocation of a resource in a software-defined datacenter associated with a customer, (D1, abstract, fig. 1-3, 0014, 0030 shows/discloses receive a request/information (e.g. quota) to prevent overallocation (e.g. allocation over quota) of a resource in a software-defined datacenter associated with a customer).
determine an amount of the resource available to the customer, (D1, fig. 2-3, 0014, 0030 shows/discloses determining an amount/quota of the resource available to the customer).
and assign a respective portion of the amount of the resource available to the customer to each of a plurality of virtual computing instances (VCIs) irrespective of a power state of each of the plurality of VCIs, (D1, fig. 2-3, 0014, 0030 shows/discloses determine an amount/quota of the resource available to the customer, and dividing the resource/storage among one or more Virtual Machines (VMs), where the resource is allocated equally without taking into account power state of VM per 310-315 as shown in figure 3.).
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
including instructions to: assign a first portion of the amount of the resource available to the customer to a powered-on VCI, (D1, fig. 2-3, 0014, 0030 shows/discloses determine an amount/quota of the resource available to the customer, and dividing the resource/storage among users VM, where the resource is allocated equally without taking into account power state of VM per 310-315 as shown in figure 3, and thereafter per steps 320-325 assigning same or new portion of resource to started/powered on VM.).
and assign a second portion of the amount of the resource available to the customer to a powered-off VCI, (D1, fig. 2-3, 0014, 0030 shows/discloses determine an amount/quota of the resource available to the customer, and dividing the resource/storage among users VM, where the resource is allocated VM that has not been powered on/started yet per steps 310-315 of figure 3. D1 para 0031 further discloses allocating resource/memory to a shutdown/powered off VM.).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
including instructions to power on each of the plurality of VCIs with each of the plurality of VCIs provisioned with its respective portion of the amount of the resource available, (D1, fig. 2, fig.3, 0014, 0030, 0051 shows/discloses instructions/command to power on/start each of the plurality of VCIs with each of the plurality of VCIs provisioned with its respective portion of the amount of the resource available (e.g. see steps 310-320).).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the amount of the resource available to the customer is not exceeded by powering on each of the plurality of VCIs, (D1, fig. 2, 0014, 0030, 0050-0051 shows/discloses resource quota equally among VMs and not exceeding quota, see figure 3, steps 310-325 branching to “no”. ).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the resource is storage, (D1, 0016 discloses resource being storage/memory).
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the resource is memory, (D1, 0016 discloses resource being storage/memory).
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the resource is a central processing unit (CPU), (D1, 0016 discloses resource being storage/memory/CPU).
As per claim 8, D1 discloses,
A method, comprising, (D1, abstract).
receiving a request specifying an overallocation preference of a resource in a software- defined datacenter (SDDC) associated with a customer, (D1, abstract, fig. 1-3, 0014, 0030 shows/discloses receive a request/information (e.g. quota) to prevent overallocation (e.g. allocation over quota) of a resource in a software-defined datacenter associated with a customer).
wherein the SDDC includes at least two clusters, (D1, 0003 discloses multiple clusters).
determining an amount of the resource available to the customer, (D1, fig. 2-3, 0014, 0030 shows/discloses determining an amount/quota of the resource available to the customer).
and assigning a respective portion of the amount of the resource available to the customer to each of a plurality of virtual computing instances (VCIs) irrespective of a power state of each of the plurality of VCIs, (D1, fig. 2-3, 0014, 0030 shows/discloses determine an amount/quota of the resource available to the customer, and dividing the resource/storage among users VM, where the resource is allocated equally without taking into account power state of VM per 310-315 as shown in figure 3.).
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein receiving the request specifying the overallocation preference of the resource includes receiving a request to prevent overallocation of the resource in at least one of the two clusters, (D1, abstract, fig. 1-3, 0014, 0016, 0030 shows/discloses receive a request/information (e.g. quota) to prevent overallocation (e.g. allocation over quota) of a resource/storage in a software-defined datacenter associated with a customer, where the storage includes multiple storage clusters.).
As per claim 13, the rejection of claim 8 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the method includes receiving a request specifying a global overallocation preference that applies to a plurality of resources, (D1, abstract, fig. 1-3, 0014, 0016, 0030 shows/discloses receive a request/information (e.g. quota) to prevent overallocation (e.g. allocation over quota) of a resource/storage in a software-defined datacenter associated with a customer, where the storage includes multiple storage clusters (e.g. plurality of resources) and allocation quota applies to clusters of storage.).
As per claims 17-20:
Claims 17-20 are system claims corresponding to medium claims 1-3, and 5-6 and are of substantially same scope.
Accordingly, claims 17-20 are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claims 1-3, and 5-6.
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.
Claim 10-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baron (US 20120272237 A1, referred herein after as D1) in view of official notice.
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 8 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein receiving the request specifying the overallocation preference of the resource includes receiving an indication of [quota] of the resource available to the customer to allocate to at least one of the two clusters, (D1, abstract, fig. 1-3, 0014, 0016, 0030 shows/discloses receive a request/information (e.g. quota) to prevent overallocation (e.g. allocation over quota) of a resource/storage in a software-defined datacenter associated with a customer, where the storage includes multiple storage clusters.).
As noted, D1 discloses providing “quota” of resource; however, D1 fails to expressly disclose the resource amount in terms of - a percentage.
However, the examiner takes official notice that expressing quantity or amount in terms of percentages/fractions was notoriously well known before the effective filing of invention.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include quota expressed “a percentage”. This would have been a simple substitution/obvious with predicable results indicating quantity or amount of a resource a percentage/fraction as known in the art and to one ordinary skill in the art.
As per claim 11:
The rejection of claim 10 further incorporated.
As noted, D1 discloses providing “quota” of resource; however, D1 fails to expressly disclose - wherein the percentage is less than one hundred percent.
However, the examiner takes official notice that expressing quantity or amount in terms of percentages/fractions less than one hundred percent was notoriously well known before the effective filing of invention.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include quota expressed “less than one hundred percent”. This would have been a simple substitution/obvious with predicable results indicating quantity or amount of a resource a percentage/fraction as known in the art and to one ordinary skill in the art.
As per claim 12:
The rejection of claim 10 further incorporated.
As noted, D1 discloses providing “quota” of resource; however, D1 fails to expressly disclose -wherein the percentage is more than one hundred percent.
However, the examiner takes official notice that expressing quantity or amount in terms of percentages/fractions as more than one hundred percent was notoriously well known before the effective filing of invention.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include quota expressed “the percentage is more than one hundred percent”. This would have been a simple substitution/obvious with predicable results indicating quantity or amount of a resource a percentage/fraction as known in the art and to one ordinary skill in the art.
As per claim 14, the rejection of claim 13 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
wherein the request is made via…, (D1, abstract, fig. 1-3, 0014, 0016, 0030 shows/discloses receive a request/information (e.g. quota) to prevent overallocation (e.g. allocation over quota) of a resource/storage in a software-defined datacenter associated with a customer, where the storage includes multiple storage clusters (e.g. plurality of resources) and allocation quota applies to clusters of storage.).
D1 fails to expressly disclose request via - a user interface.
However, the examiner takes official notice using a user interface to make requests/set parameters was notoriously well known before the effective filing of invention.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include receiving request via user interface. This would have been obvious with predicable results of providing a user interface to user to interact with and make request using a computing as known in the art and to one ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baron (US 20120272237 A1, referred herein after as D1) in view of Blinn et al. (US 20150341298 A1, referred hereinafter as D2.).
As per claim 15:
The rejection of claim 13 further incorporated.
D1 discloses receiving quota/request; however, D1 fails to expressly disclose - wherein the method includes receiving a subsequent request modifying the global overallocation preference for at least one resource of the plurality of resources.
D2 (8-9, 0082-0086) disclose changing global resource quota/preference which reads on receiving a subsequent request modifying the global overallocation preference for at least one resource of the plurality of resources.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include receiving a subsequent request modifying the global overallocation preference for at least one resource of the plurality of resources. This would have been obvious with predicable results of allowing user to purchase additional resources as needed as disclosed by D2.
As per claim 16:
The rejection claim 13 further incorporated.
As noted above, D1 discloses plurality of clusters and associated quota; however, D1 fails to expressly disclose - wherein the method includes receiving a subsequent request overriding the global allocation preference for a cluster…
D2 (8-9, 0082-0086) disclose changing/overriding global resource quota/preference which reads on receiving a subsequent request modifying the global overallocation preference for at least one resource of the plurality of resources.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include receiving a subsequent request overriding the global allocation preference for a cluster. This would have been obvious with predicable results of allowing user to purchase additional resources as needed as disclosed by D2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR STORAGE ALLOCATION IN PROVISIONING OF VIRTUAL MACHINES
DOCUMENT ID
US 20100057913 A1
DATE PUBLISHED
2010-03-04
Abstract
Embodiments relate to systems and methods for storage allocation in the provisioning of virtual machines. A provisioning (or "cobbler") server can interact with a local virtual machine installation client to initiate software provisioning to a set of virtual machines. The provisioning process can entail, for example, the selection and delivery of an operating system to the target set of virtual machines, as well as the installation of applications or other software. In conjunction with the provisioning process, the virtual machine installation client can identify and access a set of storage resources, such as hard disk or other storage, to be associated with the set of virtual machines, which themselves contain no local storage. That client can determine an allocation of the set of storage resources to each virtual machine in the set of virtual machines, for instance on a pro-rata basis or based on processing consumption or other factors.
Allocating Processor Resources Based On A Service-level Agreement
DOCUMENT ID
US 9864636 B1
DATE PUBLISHED
2018-01-09
Abstract
Techniques are described for allocating computing resources to a task from a shared hardware structure. The techniques may involve receiving a request to execute a task for a tenant on shared hardware resources, and determining a set of computing resources for allocation to the task based on a service level agreement associated with the tenant. The set of computing resources can be allocated to the task based on the service level agreement associated with the tenant. In some aspects, one or more performance counters associated with one or more of the computing resources can be monitored to determine an activity level for the one or more computing resources during execution of the task, and one or more allocations of the computing resources for execution of the task can be adjusted based on the activity level for the one or more computing resources.
See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAFA A AMIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3181. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Young, can be reached on 571-270-3180. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MUSTAFA A AMIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194