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 .
DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/26/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant states: Like Desjardins, the claimed subject matter actually solves the stated technical problem of opacity in virtual resource deployment, enabling optimal selections of virtual resource allocation depending on whether co-location is desirable, while illustrating candidate alternative groupings given a range of confidence in the groupings based on limitations in how to test for co-location.
Examiner states: In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (“virtual resource deployment, enabling optimal selections of virtual resource allocation depending on whether co-location is desirable”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, merely outputting a display without applying an improvement to the functioning of a computer is interpreted as a post solution activity without significantly more. Examiner recommends incorporating a step of applying the features of the limitation for “virtual resource deployment, enabling optimal selections of virtual resource allocation depending on whether co-location is desirable” to overcome the 101 rejection.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent claims the limitations aggregating timestamps, determining subsets, outputting indicia, as drafted, recites functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a function that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitations as cited above as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process.
Thus, these limitation falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional limitations: a clock, physical hardware, processors, memory, and a user interface. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f). The step of obtaining or utilizing a graphical interface do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (Ex. v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a clock, physical hardware, processors, memory, and a user interface, amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception.
The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and mere data gathering do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 7, 15 the limitations of tracking changes are functions that can be reasonably performed in the human mind, thus, additional mental process defined in the claims. The claim does not include any additional element, thus, no limitation that needs to be analyzed under prong 2 for practical application, or under step 2B for significantly more.
Regarding claim 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 the limitation of a data structure, network packets being unrelated, and what are virtual resources are generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception Accordingly, the additional element recited in claim 2 fails to provide a practical application under prong 2, or amount to significantly more under step 2B.
Regarding claim 8, 16 the limitations of migration based on changes are nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity which is not a practical application under prong 2. Under step 2B, the courts of identified the generic function of gathering/storing data, the results of the judicial exception, is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
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/s 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cheng (Pub. No. US 2022/0150147) in view of Watanabe (Pub. No. US 2021/0306216) in further view of Li (Pub. No. US 2019/0370467) in view of Bhatnagar (Pub. No. US 2022/0368615) in view of Lawson (Pub. No. US 2022/0044077).
Claim 1, 9, 17 Cheng teaches “a computer-implemented method for determining whether subsets of a plurality of virtual resources are co-located on a physical resource, the method comprising: obtaining a plurality of raw input signals based on a plurality of network packets between sets of the plurality of virtual resources; aggregating a plurality of timestamps into a data structure, each timestamp of the plurality of timestamps corresponding to one of a sent time or a receive time of a network packet of the plurality of network packets exchanged between two of the virtual resources of the plurality of network packets, the virtual resources synchronized to a common reference clock ([0077] At 730 in FIG. 7, the end-to-end, intra-host flow-based latency (denoted as L(f3) or L3) associated with the third packet flow (f3) between VM1 131 and VM2 132 may be calculated as: L(f3)=y2−y1, which is the difference between a time point at which “P5” 710 is detected at source VIF=VNIC1 141 and a subsequent time point at which “P5” 710/720 is detected at destination VIF=VNIC2 142. The latency table storing flow-based latency measurement for traffic originating from VNIC1 141 may be updated to include mapping information that associates (a) the intra-host latency measurement L(f3) and (b) tuple information associated with intra-host packet flow f3 for the example in FIG. 7. [0036] Depending on the desired implementation, the flow-based latency L(f1) for the first packet flow (f1) may be determined based on any suitable latency measurement approach, such as by calculating L(f1)=d1−d2. In this example, a first duration (d1)=(t4−t1) may represent a time difference between a fourth timestamp (t4) and a first timestamp (t1) recorded by host-A 110A according to a first clock. A second duration (d2)=(t3−t2) may represent a time difference between a third timestamp (t3) and a second timestamp (t2) recorded by host-B 110B according to a second clock. It is not necessary for the first clock running on host-A 110A to synchronize with the second clock running on host-B 110B. In other words, inter-host clock synchronization (which may be difficult to achieve) is not required to implement the examples of the present disclosure.)”.
However, Cheng may not explicitly teach distance.
Watanabe teaches “the data structure representing one or more raw signals of distance between the sets of the virtual resources that exchanged network packets, …and outputting indicia of the subsets ([0080] For example, in a case where the communication cost between the VM1 and the VM2 in the immediately preceding communication cost model is “0” and the calculated difference between the communication costs is “10”, at the edge between the VM1 and the VM2, [0072] In step S208, the model creation unit 68 creates a communication cost model based on the communication cost matrix calculated in step S202, the communication distance relationship created in step S206, and cost definition information. The communication cost model in FIG. 4 is created by storing the communication cost of the cost definition information corresponding to the row and the column, in the value of the communication cost matrix with reference to the communication distance relationship. Since the positional relationship of the cost definition information corresponds to the communication distance relationship, it is sufficient to allocate and store the communication cost of the positional relationship of the cost definition information corresponding to the communication distance relationship. For example, since the communication distance relationship between the VM2 and the VM5 is “different business offices”, 100 that is the communication cost of the “different business offices” of the cost definition information is allocated.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Watanabe with the teachings of Cheng in order to provide a system that teaches distance based on latency. The motivation for applying Watanabe teaching with Cheng teaching is to provide a system that allows for obtaining additional information related to situational awareness. Cheng, Watanabe are analogous art directed towards management of VM resources. Together Cheng, Watanabe teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Watanabe with the teachings of Cheng by known methods and gained expected results.
However, the combination may not explicitly teach the new limitations.
Li teaches “determining, using the data structure, subsets of sets of virtual resources that are using shared physical hardware and therefore are co-located on the shared physical hardware ([0018] The untrusted application, e.g., Inspect App 106, handles two requests from the cloud customer: COLLECT and INSPECT requests. These are shown as examples in FIG. 1 as requests to physical machine 101 and physical machine 103, respectively. The COLLECT request returns evidence generated by the TEE application. Pieces of evidence obtained from all existing VMs can be collected and later used as input of the INSPECT request to a newly deployed VM. This is process is depicted in the example of FIG. 1 where the cloud customer sends a COLLECT request to VM.sub.A which provides Evidence.sub.A, and Evidence.sub.A is used by the cloud customer in an INSPECT request to VM.sub.B which ultimately provides a report. Upon an INSPECT request, the TEE Inspect App.sub.0 will verify the pieces of evidence and generate a report that states whether the new VM co-locates with any of the existing VMs. In the example of FIG. 1, evidence collection is performed on VM.sub.A and an inspection process is performed on VMB to determine whether VMA and VMB are co-located. The inspection process for the new VM does not necessarily involve interaction with already deployed VMs. In some embodiments, instead of verifying whether a new VM co-locates with any existing VMs, pieces of evidence from existing VMs are compared by a chosen VM to determine whether the chosen VM co-locates with any other existing VM.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Li with the teachings of Cheng, Watanabe in order to provide a system that teaches co-located determination. The motivation for applying Li teaching with Cheng, Watanabe teaching is to provide a system that allows for situational awareness. Cheng, Watanabe, Li are analogous art directed towards management of VM resources. Together Cheng, Watanabe, Li teaches every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Li with the teachings of Cheng, Watanabe by known methods and gained expected results.
However, the combination may not explicitly teach the new limitations.
Bhatnagar teaches “outputting indicia of the subsets, wherein outputting the indicia of the subsets comprises generating a graphical user interface that illustrates which virtual resource of the plurality of virtual resources share physical hardware, and wherein the graphical user interface further illustrates candidate alternative groupings of virtual resources that share physical hardware ([0057] For example, in the user interface 500c, the recommendation engine 110 shows three objects representing three clusters (clusters 510a, 510b, 510c), respectively. Within each object representing a cluster of containers (i.e. servers/racks of Watanabe), the recommendation engine 110 shows an object or objects that each represents an application executed by the containers in the cluster. For example, the cluster 510a executes two applications (applications 512a, 514a). Therefore, within the object representing cluster 510a, the recommendation engine 110 shows two objects representing applications 512a and 514a, respectively. The cluster 516b executes three applications (applications 512b, 514b, 516b). Therefore, within the object representing cluster 501b, the recommendation engine 110 shows three objects representing applications 512b, 514b and 516b, respectively. The cluster 510c also executes three applications (applications 512c, 514c, 516c). Therefore, within the object representing cluster 510c, the recommendation engine 110 shows three objects representing applications 512c, 514c and 516c, respectively. In some implementations, the recommendation engine 110 shows the current clusters and the applications being executed by the clusters in a portion of the user interface 500c (e.g., on the left side of the user interface 500c). [0059] For example, the recommendation engine 110 has determined that application 512b currently executing on cluster 510b can be migrated to cluster 510c (i.e. candidate alternative groupings). Accordingly, the recommendation engine 110 displays, in a different portion of the user interface 500c, the application that can be migrated (Application 512b), the cluster from which the application can be migrated (cluster 501b) and the cluster to which the application be migrated (cluster 510c). In addition, the recommendation engine 110 can display the cost savings in a first object 522 and the latency reduction in a second object 522. Further, the recommendation engine 110 can display a selectable object 524, the selection of which provides the user with a visual explanation as to why the recommendation is being presented, as described with reference to FIG. 5D) and corresponding levels of confidence with respect to each candidate alternative grouping ([0048] For each node group in the node group list 300, the recommendation engine 110 determines a ratio called a latency ratio. The latency ratio is used to evaluate the proximity of nodes to each other via mathematical constructs. The recommendation engine 110 can implement any mechanism to achieve this objective as an alternative to or in addition to a ratio determination described here. The recommendation engine 110 determines the ratio by dividing a sum of edges within nodes in the node group by a sum of edges to nodes outside the node group that are connected to nodes within the node group. In some implementations, the recommendation engine 110 determines a latency ratio using Eq. 4. Examiner notes, Lawson teaches as evidence a ratio is a confidence interval and therefore would be obvious to one of ordinarily skilled in the art, Bhatnagar teaches ratio is a confidence interval for the purposes of design choice [0060] A confidence interval may represent a percentage or ratio value which indicates a predicted accuracy of the model in verifying trial media datasets over a plurality of trials.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Bhatnagar with the teachings of Cheng, Watanabe, Li, Lawson in order to provide a system that teaches a GUI interface. The motivation for applying Bhatnagar teaching with Cheng, Watanabe, Li, Lawson teaching is to provide a system that allows for situational awareness. Cheng, Watanabe, Li, Lawson, Bhatnagar are analogous art directed towards management of distributed resources. Together Cheng, Watanabe, Li, Lawson, Bhatnagar teaches every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Bhatnagar with the teachings of Cheng, Watanabe, Li, Lawson by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim 2, 10, 18 the combination teaches the claim, wherein Watanabe teaches “the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the data structure comprises at least one distance matrix ([Fig. 4] The communication cost model in FIG. 4 is created by storing the communication cost of the cost definition information corresponding to the row and the column, in the value of the communication cost matrix with reference to the communication distance relationship. Since the positional relationship of the cost definition information corresponds to the communication distance relationship, it is sufficient to allocate and store the communication cost of the positional relationship of the cost definition information corresponding to the communication distance relationship)”.
Rationale to claim 1 is applied here.
Claim 3, 11, 19 the combination teaches the claim, wherein Watanabe teaches “the computer-implemented method of claim 2, wherein the data structure comprises a plurality of distance matrices comprising the at least one distance matrix, and wherein aggregating the plurality of timestamps into the data structure comprises combining the plurality of distance matrices into a combined distance matrix ([Fig. 4] The communication cost model in FIG. 4 is created by storing the communication cost of the cost definition information corresponding to the row and the column, in the value of the communication cost matrix with reference to the communication distance relationship. Since the positional relationship of the cost definition information corresponds to the communication distance relationship, it is sufficient to allocate and store the communication cost of the positional relationship of the cost definition information corresponding to the communication distance relationship)”.
Rationale to claim 1 is applied here.
Claim 4, 12, 20 the combination teaches the claim, wherein Cheng teaches “the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the network packets are passively exchanged based on instructions of an application that are unrelated to measuring distance between a given set of virtual resources ([0035] At 340 and 350 in FIG. 3, in response to detecting a second encapsulated packet (see “ENCAP2” 250) from host-B 110B responsive to the first encapsulated packet, host-A 110A may identify second time information from a second outer header (see “O2”) of the second encapsulated packet. The second time information may be associated with the first inner data packet (see “P1” 230) and a second inner packet (see “P2” 240) at host-B 110B. Further, at 360, based on the first time information and the second time information, host-A 110A may determine a flow-based latency measurement associated with the packet flow. [0036] Depending on the desired implementation, the flow-based latency L(f1) for the first packet flow (f1) may be determined based on any suitable latency measurement approach, such as by calculating L(f1)=d1−d2. In this example, a first duration (d1)=(t4−t1) may represent a time difference between a fourth timestamp (t4) and a first timestamp (t1) recorded by host-A 110A according to a first clock. Examiner notes a timestamp is interpreted as being unrelated to distance.)”.
Claim 5, 13, the combination teaches the claim, wherein Watanabe teaches “the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the network packets are exchanged based on instructions to measure distance between a given set of virtual resources ([0047] In the example of FIG. 10, the larger the number of the communication cost, the longer the communication distance between the virtual machines, for example, the longer the communication time. As described above, in the communication cost definition information, the communication cost is defined for each positional relationship between the virtual machines in the network configuration. The communication cost is merely an example, and may be another value such as a physical distance, the number of hops, and a communication time corresponding to the positional relationship between the two virtual machines.)”.
Rationale to claim 1 is applied here.
Claim 6, 14 the combination teaches the claim, wherein Cheng teaches “the computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the sets of virtual resources comprise one or more of virtual machines (VMs) and virtual network interface cards (vNICs) ([Fig. 4] VMs)”.
Claim 7, 15 the combination teaches the claim, wherein Watanabe teaches “the computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising tracking changes in virtual resource allocation to physical hardware over time ([0047] As illustrated in FIG. 8, for the communication relationship between the virtual machines, a communication history including a date and time, a transmission source (src in FIG. 8), and a destination (dst in FIG. 8) is used. In order to acquire the latest communication relationship, a communication history at the latest date and time among communication histories of combinations of the transmission sources and the destinations may be referred to. [0034] A problem associated with the work for the infrastructure operation occurs. For example, when an infrastructure operator changes a network configuration by migrating a virtual machine to another server, a business system may be affected. No matter which server the virtual machine is migrated to, the same function may be used in the virtual machine. However, when one of two virtual machines over the same server migrates to another server, a communication time may be longer than before the migration depending on a migration destination server.)”.
Rationale to claim 1 is applied here.
Claim 8, 16 the combination teaches the claim, wherein Watanabe teaches “the computer-implemented method of claim 6, wherein changes in virtual resource allocation to physical hardware comprise migration of a given virtual resource to different physical hardware ([0043] A configuration change of a network such as a migration of a virtual machine is controlled by the managing server 14. The business system 10 performs a configuration change such as a migration of a virtual machine in accordance with a configuration change notification received from the managing server 14.)”.
Rationale to claim 1 is applied here.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WYNUEL S AQUINO whose telephone number is (571)272-7478. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached at 571-272-3759. 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.
/WYNUEL S AQUINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights