DETAILED ACTION
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 . Claims 1, 5-8, 12-15, and 19-24 are pending.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 5-8, 12-15, and 19-24 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (The Statutory Categories): Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? MPEP 2106.03.
Per Step 1, claim 1 is directed to a method (i.e., a process), claim 8 is directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (i.e., machine or manufacture), and claim 15 is directed to a computing device (i.e., a machine). Thus, the claims are directed to statutory categories of invention. However, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed to an abstract idea, a judicial exception, without reciting additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The analysis proceeds to Step 2A Prong One.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? MPEP 2106.04.
The abstract idea of claims 1, 8, and 15 (claim 1 being representative) is:
determining a first number in the pool to undergo maintenance during a first maintenance window based on a first risk model and on a capacity risk level;
determining, using the first risk model, a duration of the first maintenance window for performing maintenance on the determined first number;
transmitting an instruction to allocate one or more sessions to the determined first number, wherein the one or more sessions are selected to be allocated to the determined first number based on a predicted logoff time of each of said one or more sessions;
determining a first start time for the first maintenance window, wherein the first start time corresponds to the predicted logoff time of the one or more sessions such that the one or more sessions are predicted to log off before the first start time of the maintenance window;
monitoring the one or more sessions allocated to the determined first number after the first start time is determined;
detecting whether an actual logoff time of the one or more sessions on at least one of the determined first number is later than the predicted logoff time thereby causing a delay in the first start time;
in response to detecting that the actual logoff time of the one or more sessions on at least one of the determined first number is later than the predicted logoff time, evaluating, using a second capacity risk model and a current time value, whether powering off the first number with the delay in the first start time maintains capacity risk below the capacity risk level during the determined duration of the first maintenance window;
in response to the second capacity risk model indicating that the capacity risk remains below the capacity risk level, powering off the first number and performing maintenance on the first number during the first maintenance window, wherein performing the maintenance starts at the first start time and is completed in a time span after the first start time; (Examiner notes that while the underlined limitation was removed from claim 1, is still present in independent claims 8 and 15).
determining an actual time span taken to perform the maintenance on the first number during the first maintenance window;
determining a next number in the pool to undergo maintenance during a next maintenance window, wherein a length of the next maintenance window is established based on the actual time span taken to perform the maintenance on the first number during the first maintenance window;
determining a next start time for the next maintenance window, wherein the next number and the next start time are determined based on the first risk model and on the capacity risk level; and
performing maintenance on the next number during the next maintenance window, starting at the next start time.
The abstract idea steps italicized above are directed to automating maintenance in a virtualized computing environment. This is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), could be performed mentally, including with pen and paper. This is further supported by paragraphs [0014] – [0016] of applicant’s specification as filed. If a claim limitation, under its BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, including observations, evaluations, judgements, and/or opinions, then it falls within the Mental Processes – Concepts Performed in the Human Mind grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Additionally and alternatively, the claim is directed to evaluating and calculating computational capacity, which constitutes a process that, under its BRI, covers mathematical concepts. This is further supported by paragraphs [0031] – [0035] of applicant’s specification as filed. If a claim limitation, under its BRI, covers mathematical concepts, including mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations, then it falls within the Mathematical Concepts grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? MPEP §2106.04.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, as described in MPEP §2106.05(f).
Claim 1 recites the following additional elements: by a session allocator executing on one or more processors, to one or more hypervisors executing on the determined first number of hosts.
Claim 8 recites the following additional elements: A non-transitory computer-readable medium; one or more processors; by a session allocator executing on one or more processors, to one or more hypervisors executing on the determined first number of hosts.
Claim 15 recites the following additional elements: A computing device; one or more processors; a non-transitory computer-readable medium coupled to the one or more processors; by a session allocator executing on one or more processors, to one or more hypervisors executing on the determined first number of hosts.
These elements are merely instructions to apply the abstract idea to a computer, per MPEP §2106.05(f). Applicant has only described generic computing elements in their specification, as seen in paragraphs [0075] – [0081] of applicant’s specification as filed, for example. Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system.
Accordingly, these additional elements, alone and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B (The Inventive Concept): Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? MPEP §2106.05.
Step 2B involves evaluating the additional elements to determine whether they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The examination process involves carrying over identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two and carrying over conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §2106.05(f).
The additional elements and their analysis are therefore carried over: applicant has merely recited elements that facilitates the tasks of the abstract idea, as described in MPEP §2106.05(f).
Further, the combination of these elements is nothing more than a generic computing system. When the claim elements above are considered, alone and in combination, they do not amount to significantly more.
Therefore, per Step 2B, the additional elements, alone and in combination, are not significantly more. The claims are not patent eligible.
Further, the analysis takes into consideration all dependent claims as well:
Claims 5, 7, 12, 14, 19, and 21-24 further narrows the abstract idea with additional steps and/or description, in addition to including additional elements: hosts. Examiner notes that this is an example of “apply it” and is simply being used to facilitate the tasks of the abstract idea. This further narrowing of the abstract idea, along with the elements alone and in combination, is not enough to demonstrate integration into practical and is not significantly more. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20, applicant further narrows the abstract idea with additional step(s). There are no further additional elements to consider, beyond those highlighted above. This further narrowing of the abstract idea, similar to above, is also not patent eligible.
Accordingly, claims 1, 5-8, 12-15, and 19-24 are rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
No Prior Art Applied to Claims 1, 5-8, 12-15, and 19-24
Claims 1, 8, and 15
There is no prior art applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 because the cited prior art fails to disclose or suggest the complete feature set recited in the claims. Maldaner (US 20110276695), considered the closest prior art, discloses (claim 1 being representative):
(claim 1) A method for maintenance of hosts in a pool of hosts, the method comprising: {“In certain aspects described herein are methods and systems for automating a maintenance event rollout to a group of load balanced computers.” (paragraph 0006).}
(claim 8) A non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon, which in response to execution by one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform a method for maintenance of hosts in a pool of hosts, wherein the method comprises: {“The article of manufacture includes hardware logic as well as software or programmable code embedded in a computer readable medium that is executed by a processor.” (paragraph 0243).}
(claim 15) A computing device, comprising: {“It should be understood that the systems described above may provide multiple ones of any or each of those components and these components may be provided on either a standalone machine or, in some embodiments, on multiple machines in a distributed system.” (paragraph 0243).} one or more processors; and {“In some embodiments, the processing unit 121 can include one or more processing cores.” (paragraph 0048)} a non-transitory computer-readable medium coupled to the one or more processors and having instructions stored thereon, which in response to execution by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform or control performance of operations for maintenance of hosts in a pool of hosts, wherein the operations comprise: {“The article of manufacture includes hardware logic as well as software or programmable code embedded in a computer readable medium that is executed by a processor.” (paragraph 0243).}
determining a next start time for the next maintenance window, wherein the next number of hosts and the next start time are determined based on the first risk model and on the capacity risk level {The maintenance agent may determine whether to remove a computer for maintenance based on utilization levels to maintain spare capacity, thereby considering “risk of service unavailability” if risk is too high (paragraph 0199). The load balancer determines whether the spare capacity is above a threshold before removing another computer for maintenance (paragraph 0233). The removal and timing of maintenance are based on spare capacity calculations and thresholds derived from risk assessments (paragraph 0236).}
performing maintenance on the next number of hosts during the next maintenance window, starting at the next start time {After determining that spare capacity is sufficient and the first computer is idle, the maintenance agent removes the computer from the plurality of computers for maintenance (paragraph 0236). After successful maintenance, the maintenance agent identifies the computer as up-to-date, i.e., it shows that maintenance operations are performed during the maintenance window initiated after the corresponding start time determination (paragraph 0241).}
Madishetti (US 20210103644) teaches:
determining a first number of hosts in the pool to undergo maintenance during a first maintenance window based on a first risk model and on a capacity risk level {The desktop management system uses a machine learning model built from user login/logoff data and performance metrics to predict user activity and determine when to activate or deactivate servers (i.e., to undergo maintenance) (paragraphs 0049, 0056). It then determines whether the current capacity is adequate and activates or deactivates servers accordingly (paragraph 0056). By using this predictive model and capacity adequacy assessment, the system determines a number of hosts in a pool to suspend or maintain during an inactive (i.e., maintenance) window based on a first risk model (i.e., ML prediction model) and a capacity risk level (i.e., adequacy of host capacity).}
transmitting, by a session allocator executing on one or more processors, to one or more hypervisors executing on the determined first number of hosts, an instruction to allocate one or more sessions to the determined first number of hosts, wherein the one or more sessions are selected to be allocated to the determined first number of hosts based on a predicted logoff time of each of said one or more sessions {A ML module builds models from “login, disconnect, and logoff” history and determines “start time, length of activity, and end time for the user” (paragraphs 0044 – 0045, 0049). Based on these predictions, the system allocates capacity across hosts by activating or deactivating application servers to support user sessions (paragraphs 0019, 0056).}
determining a first start time for the first maintenance window, wherein the first start time corresponds to the predicted logoff time of the one or more sessions such that the one or more sessions are predicted to log off before the first start time of the maintenance window {The system determines when to suspend resources based on the predicted end of user activity (i.e., logoff). (paragraphs 0049, 0053)}
detecting whether an actual logoff time of the one or more sessions on at least one of the determined first number of hosts is later than the predicted logoff time thereby causing a delay in the first start time {The system monitors actual logoff events and compares them to expected activity windows. (paragraphs 0044, 0051 – 0052)}
in response to the second capacity risk model indicating that the capacity risk remains below the capacity risk level, powering off the first number of hosts and performing maintenance on the first number of hosts during the first maintenance window {The system deactivates (e.g., powers off/suspends) hosts when capacity is sufficient and users are inactive. The deactivation occurs based on an evaluation of capacity adequacy. {Paragraphs 0052, 0056)}
(claims 8 and 15) wherein performing the maintenance starts at the first start time and is completed in a time span after the first start time {The system defines suspension timing tied to predicted activity windows and executes suspension during that period. (paragraphs 0048, 0052 – 0053)}
determining a next number of hosts in the pool to undergo maintenance during a next maintenance window, wherein a length of the next maintenance window is established based on the actual time span taken to perform the maintenance on the first number of hosts during the first maintenance window {The desktop management system monitors when desktops are suspended and resumed and uses historical operational data, including connection history and performance metrics, to predict future activation and deactivation timing (paragraphs 0049, 0056). This indicates that subsequent scheduling (i.e., next number of hosts to suspend for maintenance) and timing are based on the observed duration and performance of prior suspensions and resumptions.
Kalaskar (US 20210004000) teaches:
determining an actual time span taken to perform the maintenance on the first number of hosts during the first maintenance window; {The system records the actual elapsed time required to perform completed maintenance or update operations, together with when those operations occurred. (paragraphs 0020, 0031).}
However, neither Maldaner, Madishetti nor Kalaskar disclose or suggest “determining, using the first risk model, a duration of the first maintenance window for performing maintenance on the determined first number of hosts; monitoring the one or more sessions allocated to the determined first number of hosts after the first start time is determined; in response to detecting that the actual logoff time of the one or more sessions on at least one of the determined first number of hosts is later than the predicted logoff time, evaluating, using a second capacity risk model and a current time value, whether powering off the first number of hosts with the delay in the first start time maintains capacity risk below the capacity risk level during the determined duration of the first maintenance window.”
Examiner also considered the following additional references:
US 20080172419 A1, which teaches: The claimed invention provides a method for managing response time in a database system. The method includes monitoring a plurality of events that impact on the operation of the database system, identifying at least one event that impacts on at least one of the performance and availability of the database, and initiating an action in response to the identified event.
US 20090132536 A1, which teaches: A computer-implemented apparatus, method, and article of manufacture provide the ability to manage a plurality of database systems. A domain contains the database systems, and a database in one of the systems has segmented global memory partitions. A virtual monitor partition provides logon access to the segmented global memory partitions in a form of a virtual database. Open application programming interfaces (API) enable logon access to the virtual monitor partition to access data in the virtual database. A multi-system regulator manages the domain and utilizes the open APIs to access data in the virtual database.
US 20190026141 A1, which teaches: In a computer-implemented method for maintaining unallocated hosts of a pre-configured hyper-converged computing device at a baseline operating system version, a plurality of hosts of a pre-configured hyper-converged computing device is managed, where the plurality of hosts are allocable to workload domains, where the plurality of hosts each have an operating system version within a range of supported operating system versions, where unallocated hosts of the plurality of hosts are maintained within a pool of unallocated hosts, and where the unallocated hosts of the pool of unallocated hosts have a baseline operating system version of the range of supported operating system versions. A new unallocated host is received at the pre-configured hyper-converged computing device for inclusion to the pool of unallocated hosts. An operating system version of the new unallocated host is determined. Provided the new unallocated host has an operating system version other than the baseline operating system version, the new unallocated host is updated to the baseline operating system version. The new unallocated host is released to the pool of unallocated hosts for allocation to a workload domain.
US 20200034206 A1, which teaches: Methods, apparatus and articles of manufacture for governance of virtual computing infrastructure resources are disclosed. An example cloud management system includes a plurality of hosts. The hosts are to manage requests and allocate resources through one or more virtual machines. The example system also includes an administrator to configure the plurality of hosts to accommodate resource provisioning requests by assigning a constraint and a skill to the hosts to define a placement of the hosts. The placement of a respective host is to dictate an availability of the host for provisioning.
However, neither reference discloses nor suggests the aforementioned claim limitations.
Accordingly, there is no prior art applied to claims 1, 8, and 15. The rest of the claims, by virtue of their dependency, also have no prior art applied.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 07/08/2026 have been carefully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §101
The amended claims remain directed to determining maintenance parameters based on predicted and actual session information, evaluating capacity risk, and adjusting maintenance scheduling based on the evaluation. These limitations amount to collecting and analyzing information and making determinations concerning when maintenance should occur. Reciting the identified additional elements above, does not, by itself, remove the claimed concept from the abstract idea category.
The additional limitations also do not demonstrate an improvement to the operation of the computer or virtualized computing environment itself. The claims do not recite a specific improvement to the operation of the identified additional elements above but instead use those components as tools for performing the claimed analysis and scheduling. Likewise, monitoring actual logoff times, comparing them to with predicted logoff times, evaluating capacity risk, and using measured maintenance duration to determine a subsequent maintenance window apply the abstract analysis to maintenance management rather than improve the computing technology.
Applicant’s argument that the claimed operations cannot be performed mentally is also not persuasive. The use of computer components to perform the analysis more quickly or on larger amounts of data does not, without more, establish that the claims are integrated into a practical application.
Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101 is maintained.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. §103
Arguments are moot under 35 USC §103 because there is no prior art applied to claims 1, 5-8, 12-15, and 19-24. Accordingly, Examiner directs Applicant’s attention to the analysis above.
In summary, examiner has responded to all arguments and found them unpersuasive.
Conclusion
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 CARLOS F MONTALVO whose telephone number is (703)756-5863. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00AM - 5:30PM; First Fridays OOO.
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, Sarah Monfeldt can be reached at 571-270-1833. 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.
/C.F.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3629 /SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629
Prosecution Insights