DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-22 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, the claims recite, “whether a predetermined time interval threshold exceeds” and “in response to determining that the predetermined time interval threshold does not exceed”. It is unclear what the predetermined time interval is exceeding or not. Examiner interprets the language as some measured time that either exceeds or does not exceed the claimed threshold.
5. Regarding claim 3, it recites, “in response to the weighted sample score equalling to or greater than the predetermined sample score, determining, by the object owner, not to sample the I/O”. However, claim 1 recites “in response to the weighted sample score not less than a predetermined sample score, sampling, by the object owner, the I/O”. It is unclear whether the I/O is being sampled or not because the weighted sample score being not less than the predetermined sample score is the same as saying the weighted sample score equalling to or greater than the predetermined sample score. Claim 3 appears to claim both sampling and not sampling the I/O under the same condition. Examiner interprets claim 3 to represent instant specification [0038] where the not sampling is resulting in the weighted sample score being less than the predetermined sample score.
Regarding claims 5 and 16, the claims recite, “whether a first predetermined aggregation time interval threshold reaches” and “whether a second predetermined aggregation time interval threshold reaches”. It is unclear what reaches the first and second predetermined aggregation time interval thresholds. Examiner interprets the language as some measured time that either reaches or does not reach the first and second predetermined aggregation time interval thresholds.
Regarding claims 2-4, 6-11, 13-15, and 17-22, they inherit the deficiencies of claims 1, 5, 12, and 16 respectively. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1, 5, 12, and 16 respectively.
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 1-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception and is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application. The claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1:
Claims 1-4 are directed towards a process (i.e., method). Claims 5-11 are directed towards a process (i.e., method). Claims 12-15 are directed towards a machine (i.e., first host). Claims 16-22 are directed towards a machine (i.e., second host).
Step 2A Prong 1:
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural
phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea.
Independent claims 1, 5, 12, and 16 recite judicial exceptions in the form of abstract ideas/mathematics.
Claims 1 and 12 recite the mental processes:
determining, by the object owner, whether a predetermined time interval threshold exceeds (i.e., one is able to utilize judgement in determining whether a threshold is exceeded)
calculating, by the object owner, a first sample score associated with the object owner (i.e., one is able to utilize judgment to score a sample)
calculating, by the object owner, a weighted sample score based on the first sample score and the sample score (i.e., one is able to evaluate weighted sample scores based on known scores)
Claims 5 and 16 recite the mental processes:
determining, by the primary node, whether a first predetermined aggregation time interval threshold reaches
determining, by the primary node, whether a second predetermined aggregation time interval threshold reaches
determining, by the primary node, whether resources on the primary node are more than a resource threshold (i.e., one is able to utilize judgement in determining whether a threshold is exceeded)
calculating, by the primary node, an aggregation score of the primary node (i.e., one is able to utilize judgment to score an aggregation)
Step 2A Prong 2:
Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
Claims 1 and 12 recite the additional elements:
“receiving, by the object owner, an I/O”
“obtaining, by the object owner, a second sample score associated with a component owner of the object;”
“in response to the weighted sample score not less than a predetermined sample score, sampling, by the object owner, the I/O”
Such additional element(s) represent insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity MPEP 2106.05(g) and is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art ((buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)) or (Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (storing and retrieving information in memory))) which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
“wherein the predetermined time interval is specified in a resource-aware I/O sampling configuration distributed by a primary node of a virtual storage area network (vSAN) cluster through a cluster monitoring membership and directory service of the vSAN cluster”
Such additional element(s) represent linking the judicial exception to the technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h) which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 5 and 16 recite additional elements:
“in response to the aggregation score greater than an aggregation score threshold, aggregating, by the primary node, the trace data.”
Such additional element(s) represent insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity MPEP 2106.05(g) and is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art ((buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)) or (Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (storing and retrieving information in memory))) which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 12 and 16 further recite the additional elements:“a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium”
Such additional element(s) represent adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea MPEP 2106.05(f) which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Step 2B:
Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
As per claims 1, 5, 12, and 16, the claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, 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 amount to no more than generic computing components as tools to apply the abstract idea MPEP 2106.05(f), merely represent insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity MPEP 2106.05(g), or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h) which do not amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, the additional elements indicated as data gathering are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field ((buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)) or (Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (storing and retrieving information in memory))).
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, independent claims 1, 5, 12, and 16, do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Dependent claims 2-4, 6-11, 13-15, and 17-22 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claims xxx are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C § 101.
Claims 2 and 13 recite the additional element: “in response to determining that the predetermined time interval threshold exceeds or receiving a predetermined sampling mode specified in the resource-aware I/O sampling configuration, sampling, by the object owner, the I/O”. Such additional element(s) represent insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity MPEP 2106.05(g) and is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art ((buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)) or (Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (storing and retrieving information in memory))) which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 2 and 13 do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 2 and 13 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C § 101.
Claims 3 and 14 further recite the mental process: “in response to the weighted sample score equalling to or greater than the predetermined sample score, determining, by the object owner, not to sample the I/O” (i.e., one is able to evaluate the weighted sample score against predetermined sample score and make the judgement to not sample I/O). Claims 3 and 14 do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 3 and 14 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C § 101.
Claims 4 and 15 recite the additional element: “wherein the first sample score corresponds to a first likelihood that a first resource of the object owner being freed up and the second sample score corresponds to a likelihood that a second resource of the object component being freed up”. Such additional element(s) represent linking the judicial exception to the technological environment or field of use MPEP 2106.05(h) which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 4 and 15 do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 4 and 15 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C § 101.
Claims 6 and 17 recite the additional element: “in response to determining the second predetermined aggregation time interval threshold have been reached, aggregating, by the primary node, the trace data”. Such additional element(s) represent insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity MPEP 2106.05(g) and is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art ((buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)) or (Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (storing and retrieving information in memory))) which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 6 and 17 do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 6 and 17 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C § 101.
Claims 7 and 18 recite the additional element: “in response to determining that resources on the primary node are more than the resource threshold, aggregating, by the primary node, the trace data”. Such additional element(s) represent insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity MPEP 2106.05(g) and is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art ((buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)) or (Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (storing and retrieving information in memory))) which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 7 and 18 do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 7 and 18 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C § 101.
Claims 8 and 19 recite the additional element: “wherein the aggregating the trace data includes creating, by the primary node, an object to hold the trace data on the primary node.
”. Such additional element(s) represent insignificant extra-solution data storing activity MPEP 2106.05(g) and is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art (Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (storing and retrieving information in memory))) which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claims 8 and 19 do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 8 and 19 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C § 101.
Claims 9 and 20 recite mathematical concepts of difference, averaging, standard deviations, maximum, minimum in “wherein the aggregating the trace data includes calculating latencies between timestamps in the trace data, performing average and standard deviation operations on the latencies and identifying the maximum or the minimum among the latencies. The claimed mathematical concepts are also able to be performed mentally with the help of pen and paper. Claims 9 and 20 do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 9 and 20 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C § 101.
Claims 10 and 21 further recite the mental processes:
“calculating, by the primary node, a first time difference between a present time point and the first time point and a second time difference between the present time point and the second time point” (i.e., one is able to evaluate a time difference between present and a past time)
“comparing, by the primary node, the first time difference and the second time difference to determine whether the first time difference is greater than the second time difference” (i.e., one is able to evaluate an inequality between two time differences)
“in response to determining the first time difference greater than the second time difference, selecting, by the primary node, the second host to persist the aggregated trace data in the vSAN cluster.” (i.e., one is able to make the judgement to select a host to persist data on based on a condition).
Claims 10 and 21 recite additional elements:“querying, by the primary node, a first host and a second host in the vSAN cluster to obtain a first time point that the first host performs the latest sampling to a first 1/O to a first object or a first component owned by the first host and a second time point that the second host performs the latest sampling to a second 1/O to a second object or a second component owned by the second host”
Such additional element(s) represent insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity MPEP 2106.05(g) and is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art ((buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)) or (Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (storing and retrieving information in memory))) which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 10 and 21 do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 10 and 21 are not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C § 101.
Claims 11 and 22 recite additional element: “wherein the selecting the second host to persist the trace data in the vSAN cluster further includes transmitting, by the primary node, the aggregated trace data to the second host.” Such additional element(s) represent insignificant extra-solution data transmittting activity MPEP 2106.05(g) and is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art ((buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)) which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jorgensen US 9817756 B1 in view of Aleksandrov et al. US 20180101395 A1 in view of Shepard et al. US 20200334122 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Jorgensen teaches the invention substantially as claimed including:
A method for an object owner to sample an input/output (I/O) to an object owned by the object owner, wherein the method comprises:
receiving, by the object owner, an I/O (The service provider (or other operator) may carry out the processes to provision the virtual machine instance which will be hosted on the physical resources (e.g., host computing devices) of the service provider. After the virtual machine has been provisioned, the user may access the virtual machine using one or more application programming interfaces (APIs) provided by the operator of the virtualized environment. The user may use those APIs to manage their virtual machine and to perform various functions associated with the virtual machine (e.g., start the virtual machine, stop or suspend the virtual machine, specify or update configuration information for the virtual machine, etc., Col 7 58 – Col 8 2);
determining, by the object owner, whether a predetermined time interval threshold exceeds, wherein the predetermined time interval is specified in a resource-aware 1/O sampling configuration distributed by a primary node of a virtual storage area network (vSAN) cluster through a cluster monitoring membership and directory service of the vSAN cluster (the hypervisor monitors the memory usage by the virtual machine over a time interval, Col 8 42-43; based on the usage monitoring, the hypervisor may detect that the virtual machine has been using more than a threshold amount of memory over the monitored time interval, Col 8 50-52);
in response to determining that the predetermined time interval threshold does not exceed (when the hypervisor detects that the virtual machine has been using a lesser amount of memory (e.g., less than another threshold) over the time interval, Col 2 61-64),
calculating, by the object owner, a first sample score associated with the object owner (the memory page(s) with the highest reference frequency, Col 5 4-5);
Jorgensen does not explicitly teach the distributed storage environment being a vSAN cluster.
However, Aleksandrov teaches the distributed storage environment being a vSAN cluster ([0020] In practice, distributed storage system 150 may employ any suitable technology, such as Virtual Storage Area Network (VSAN) from VMware, Inc. Cluster 105 may be referred to as a VSAN cluster).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined Aleksandrov’s usage of vSAN distributed storage environment with the system of Jorgensen. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to provide Jorgensen’s system with the advantage of optimizing virtual memory usage in any distributed storage technologies (see Aleksandrov [0020] In practice, distributed storage system 150 may employ any suitable technology, such as Virtual Storage Area Network (VSAN) from VMware, Inc. Cluster 105 may be referred to as a VSAN cluster).
Jorgensen and Aleksandrov do not explicitly teach obtaining, by the object owner, a second sample score associated with a component owner of the object; calculating, by the object owner, a weighted sample score based on the first sample score and the sample score; and in response to the weighted sample score not less than a predetermined sample score, sampling, by the object owner, the I/O.
However, SHEPARD teaches obtaining, by the object owner, a second sample score associated with a component owner of the object ([0019] Examples of collected data include, but are not limited to, the following: [0020] system boot time by phase (including core boot time); [0021] login time by phase; [0022] application startup time (e.g., the time from when an application launches to when the user is able to interact with the application); [0023] total duration and number of times a processor utilization exceeds a threshold; [0024] total duration and number of times a memory utilization exceeds a threshold; [0025] total duration and number of times a memory I/O operation exceeds a threshold; [0026] total duration and number of times a network I/O operation exceeds a threshold; [0027] storage utilization; [0028] user device utilization (e.g., the number of hours a user device is on and a user is interacting with the device); [0029] battery utilization; [0030] health indicators: frequency and count of unexpected reboots, anticipated battery life, anticipated hard drive life, driver and/or application crash frequency and count; [0040] Collected data 230 may further comprise at least one data item selected from the list consisting of: login time, battery warning history, storage I/O performance, and network I/O performance);
calculating, by the object owner, a weighted sample score based on the first sample score and the sample score ([0030 A usability score is determined as a weighted calculation (e.g., a weighted combination) of the collected data); and
in response to the weighted sample score not less than a predetermined sample score, sampling, by the object owner, the I/O ([0036] the selection of a replacement computing device or another remediation operation is based at least on the usability score. The usability score indicates whether a computing device is sufficient for the current user; [0037] Selection engine 200 determines whether updating software or changing a boot or startup process will suffice to bring the usability score into an acceptable range according to enterprise policies 236, or whether replacement is actually needed).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined Shepards resource usability scoring with the system of Jorgensen and Aleksandrov. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to provide Jorgensen and Aleksandrov’s system with the advantage of monitoring and quantifying performance of various resources for optimization purposes (see Shepard [0003] a solution for optimizing computer hardware replacement using performance analytics that selects replacement computer hardware based on actual user needs and enterprise priorities. A tool collects key performance data to compare with various baselines, thereby identifying hardware that is performing below acceptable levels).
Regarding claim 2, Jorgensen, Aleksandrov, and Shepard teach the method of claim 1.
Jorgensen further teaches in response to determining that the predetermined time interval threshold exceeds or receiving a predetermined sampling mode specified in the resource-aware I/O sampling configuration, sampling, by the object owner, the I/O (When the hypervisor detects that the usage by a particular virtual machine is exceeding a threshold (e.g., defined threshold, dynamically computed threshold, etc.), the hypervisor may begin to progressively increase the portion of guest memory of that virtual machine that is mapped to the secondary storage, Col 4 36-41).
Regarding claim 3, Jorgensen, Aleksandrov, and Shepard teach the method of claim 1.
Shepard further teaches in response to the weighted sample score equalling to or greater than the predetermined sample score, determining, by the object owner, not to sample the I/O ([0037] bring the usability score into an acceptable range; [0039] determine, based at least on usability score 208 and the enterprise data, whether a score improvement is required; Examiner notes: a usability score in an acceptable range (i.e., less than a max threshold) does not warrant a score improvement/optimizations).
Regarding claim 4, Jorgensen, Aleksandrov, and Shepard teach the method of claim 1.
Shepard further teaches wherein the first sample score corresponds to a first likelihood that a first resource of the object owner being freed up and the second sample score corresponds to a likelihood that a second resource of the object component being freed up ([0019] [0023] total duration and number of times a processor utilization exceeds a threshold; [0024] total duration and number of times a memory utilization exceeds a threshold; [0025] total duration and number of times a memory I/O operation exceeds a threshold; [0026] total duration and number of times a network I/O operation exceeds a threshold; [0027] storage utilization; Examiner notes: utilization over time is indicative of resources being free).
Regarding claim 12, it is the first host which performs the method of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Jorgensen further teaches a first host to sample an input/output (I/O) to an object owned by the object owner, wherein the first host includes a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions that, in response to execution by the processor, cause the processor (the device includes a processor 702 for executing instructions that can be stored in a memory device or element 704. As would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art, the device can include many types of memory, data storage, or non-transitory computer-readable storage media, Col 9 26-31)
Regarding claims 13-15, they are the first host which performs the methods of claim 2-4 respectively. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons as claims 2-4 respectively.
Claims 5, 6, 7, 16, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jorgensen US 9817756 B1 in view of Aleksandrov et al. US 20180101395 A1 in view of Natu et al. US 20140282502 A1.
Regarding claim 5, Jorgensen teaches the invention substantially as claimed including,
A method for a primary node of a virtual storage area network (vSAN) cluster to aggregate trace data associated with a sampled 1/O, wherein the trace data is fetched from secondary nodes of the vSAN cluster and the method comprises:
determining, by the primary node, whether a first predetermined aggregation time interval threshold reaches (the hypervisor (or other component) monitors the usage of the available memory by each virtual machine either continuously or periodically (e.g., over one or more time intervals, Col 2 52-55);
in response to determining the second predetermined aggregation time interval threshold not being reached, determining, by the primary node, whether resources on the primary node are more than a resource threshold (When the hypervisor detects that the usage by a particular virtual machine is exceeding a threshold (e.g., defined threshold, dynamically computed threshold, etc, Col 4 36-39);
in response to determining that resources on the primary node are not more than the resource threshold (When the hypervisor detects that the usage of the virtual machine has decreased below another threshold, Col 4 59-61), calculating, by the primary node, an aggregation score of the primary node (the hypervisor transfers the most frequently used memory pages from secondary storage to RAM. For example, as described above, the system may keep track of the reference frequency for each memory page in secondary storage, Col 4 65 – Col 5 2); and
in response to the aggregation score greater than an aggregation score threshold, aggregating, by the primary node, the trace data (the system will copy the memory page(s) with the highest reference frequency to RAM and then purge those memory pages from secondary storage, Col 5 4-6).
Jorgensen does not explicitly teach the distributed storage environment being a vSAN cluster.
However, Aleksandrov teaches the distributed storage environment being a vSAN cluster ([0020] In practice, distributed storage system 150 may employ any suitable technology, such as Virtual Storage Area Network (VSAN) from VMware, Inc. Cluster 105 may be referred to as a VSAN cluster).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined Aleksandrov’s usage of vSAN distributed storage environment with the system of Jorgensen. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to provide Jorgensen’s system with the advantage of optimizing virtual memory usage in any distributed storage technologies (see Aleksandrov [0020] In practice, distributed storage system 150 may employ any suitable technology, such as Virtual Storage Area Network (VSAN) from VMware, Inc. Cluster 105 may be referred to as a VSAN cluster).
Jorgensen and Aleksandrov do not explicitly teach in response to determining the first predetermined aggregation time interval threshold being reached, determining, by the primary node, whether a second predetermined aggregation time interval threshold reaches.
However, NATU teaches in response to determining the first predetermined aggregation time interval threshold being reached, determining, by the primary node, whether a second predetermined aggregation time interval threshold reaches ([0108] determining whether the main processor element completes execution of the VMM watcher to verify integrity of a VMM of the server before a second timer of the server reaches an end of a second period of time).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined Natu’s second timer of a second period of time with the system of Jorgensen and Aleksandrov. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to provide Jorgensen and Aleksandrov’s system with sequencing of monitoring of virtual machine systems (see Natu [Abstract] An apparatus includes a first processor element; and logic to receive an indication that a first timer has reached an end of a first period of time, monitor execution of a VMM (virtual machine monitor) watcher by a second processor element, determine whether the second processor element completes execution of the VMM watcher to verify integrity of a VMM before a second timer reaches an end of a second period of time, and transmit an indication of the determination to a computing device).
Regarding claim 6, Jorgensen, Aleksandrov, and Natu teach the method of claim 5.
Natu further teaches in response to determining the second predetermined aggregation time interval threshold have been reached, aggregating, by the primary node, the trace data ([Abstract] a second timer reaches an end of a second period of time, and transmit an indication of the determination to a computing device).
Regarding claim 7, Jorgensen, Aleksandrov, and Natu teach the method of claim 5.
Jorgensen further teaches in response to determining that resources on the primary node are more than the resource threshold, aggregating, by the primary node, the trace data (When the hypervisor detects that the usage by a particular virtual machine is exceeding a threshold (e.g., defined threshold, dynamically computed threshold, etc.), the hypervisor may begin to progressively increase the portion of guest memory of that virtual machine that is mapped to the secondary storage. For example, the hypervisor may begin to transfer (e.g., copy) one or more memory pages (e.g., memory blocks) from RAM to secondary storage. In one embodiment, the memory pages transferred to secondary storage may be the least frequently used (LFU) pages. For example, the system may keep track of the number of times a memory page is referenced in RAM, i.e., the reference frequency, Col 4 36-48).
Regarding claim 16, it is the second host performing the method of claim 5. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons as claim 5.
Jorgensen further teaches the second host includes a processor; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon instructions that, in response to execution by the processor, cause the processor (the device includes a processor 702 for executing instructions that can be stored in a memory device or element 704. As would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art, the device can include many types of memory, data storage, or non-transitory computer-readable storage media, Col 26-31).
Regarding claims 17 and 18, they are the second host performing the methods of claims 6 and 7 respectively. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons as claims 6 and 7 respectively.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jorgensen US 9817756 B1 in view of Aleksandrov et al. US 20180101395 A1 in view of Natu et al. US 20140282502 A1 in view of Heckt et al. US 20070006159 A1.
Regarding claim 8, Jorgensen, Aleksandrov, and Natu teach the method of claim 5.
Jorgensen, Aleksandrov, and Natu do not explicitly teach wherein the aggregating the trace data includes creating, by the primary node, an object to hold the trace data on the primary node.
However, Heckt teaches wherein the aggregating the trace data includes creating, by the primary node, an object to hold the trace data on the primary node ([0046] e trace probe collects and timestamps the set of trace data writes to the reserved uncached memory address space and saves this trace data to a buffer).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined Heckt’s buffering of trace data with the system of Jorgensen, Aleksandrov, and Natu. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to provide Jorgensen, Aleksandrov, and Natu’s system with the advantage of organizing trace data in a ordered/consumable fashion using known data structures (see Heckt [0046] the trace probe collects and timestamps the set of trace data writes to the reserved uncached memory address space and saves this trace data to a buffer. At block 410, the collected sequence of saves to this buffer is transferred to a host machine).
Regarding claim 19, it is the second host performing the method of claim 8. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons as claim 8.
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jorgensen US 9817756 B1 in view of Aleksandrov et al. US 20180101395 A1 in view of in view of Natu et al. US 20140282502 A1 in view of Ficarra et al. US 11487738 B1.
Regarding claim 9, Jorgensen, Aleksandrov, and Natu teach the method of claim 5.
Jorgensen, Aleksandrov, and Natu do not explicitly teach wherein the aggregating the trace data includes calculating latencies between timestamps in the trace data, performing average and standard deviation operations on the latencies and identifying the maximum or the minimum among the latencies.
However, Ficarra teaches wherein the aggregating the trace data includes calculating latencies between timestamps in the trace data (The metrics manager may then calculate a latency metric associated with the replica (e.g., replica 110e) and the transaction log based on the submit timestamp and/or the arrive timestamp, Col 4 38-41), performing average and standard deviation operations on the latencies (the metrics manager may determine that the latency metric is at least a threshold amount larger than an average or median latency of the other database replicas (e.g., a certain amount of time or a certain number of standard deviations above the average or median, Col 9 54-58) and identifying the maximum or the minimum among the latencies (if the latency metric exceeds a threshold latency (e.g., exceeds a maximum acceptable latency time, Col 4 49-50).
Regarding claim 20, it is the second host performing the method of claim 9. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons as claim 9.
Claims 10, 11, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jorgensen US 9817756 B1 in view of Aleksandrov et al. US 20180101395 A1 in view of in view of Natu et al. US 20140282502 A1 in view of Korupolu US 20090228589 A1.
Regarding claim 10, Jorgensen, Aleksandrov, and Natu teach the method of claim 5.
Jorgensen, Aleksandrov, and Natu do not explicitly teach querying, by the primary node, a first host and a second host in the vSAN cluster to obtain a first time point that the first host performs the latest sampling to a first I/O to a first object or a first component owned by the first host and a second time point that the second host performs the latest sampling to a second I/O to a second object or a second component owned by the second host; calculating, by the primary node, a first time difference between a present time point and the first time point and a second time difference between the present time point and the second time point; comparing, by the primary node, the first time difference and the second time difference to determine whether the first time difference is greater than the second time difference; and in response to determining the first time difference greater than the second time difference, selecting, by the primary node, the second host to persist the aggregated trace data in the vSAN cluster.
However, Korupolu teaches querying, by the primary node, a first host and a second host in the vSAN cluster to obtain a first time point that the first host performs the latest sampling to a first I/O to a first object or a first component owned by the first host and a second time point that the second host performs the latest sampling to a second I/O to a second object or a second component owned by the second host; calculating, by the primary node, a first time difference between a present time point and the first time point and a second time difference between the present time point and the second time point; comparing, by the primary node, the first time difference and the second time difference to determine whether the first time difference is greater than the second time difference; and in response to determining the first time difference greater than the second time difference, selecting, by the primary node, the second host to persist the aggregated trace data in the vSAN cluster ([0009] Preferentially selecting among the candidate physical machines to host the VM may also include selecting a migration target having certain threshold proximity and certain threshold access latency to said storage volumes accessed by the VM. Such preferential selection may also include determining a single rank value for each candidate physical machine based on one or more of: spare path capacity and lower latency to the storage volumes accessed by the VM; wherein preferentially selecting among the candidate physical machines to host the VM further includes favoring machines with higher ranking value representing higher spare path capacity and lower latency to the storage volumes accessed by the VM).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined Korupolu’s selection of physical host according to latency with the system of Jorgensen, Aleksandrov, and Natu. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to provide Jorgensen, Aleksandrov, and Natu’s system with the advantage of improving selection of VM hosts via consideration of connectivity (see Korupolu [0007] a method and system of storage-aware selection of virtual machine migration targets. In one embodiment, a method and system selecting a target physical machine for a virtual machine (VM) migration, involves determining storage volume connectivity and spare path capacity of one or more candidate physical machines, and preferentially selecting among the candidate physical machines a migration target with storage volume connectivity and spare path capacity to satisfy storage volume access requirements of the VM).
Regarding claim 11, Jorgensen, Aleksandrov, Natu, and Korupolu teach the method of claim 10.
Korupolu further teaches wherein the selecting the second host to persist the trace data in the vSAN cluster further includes transmitting, by the primary node, the aggregated trace data to the second host ([0033] The resulting migrations found can either be executed automatically using a VM migration orchestrator such as VMotion, or the migration suggestions can be provided as a recommendation to an administrator who can then choose to accept them or not. If accepted by the administrator, then the suggested migrations may be fed to a VM migration orchestrator 21 for execution).
Regarding claims 21 and 22, they are the second host performing the method of claims 10 and 11 respectively. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons as claims 10 and 11 respectively.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to HARRISON LI whose telephone number is (703) 756-1469. The
examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:30pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing
using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is
encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at
http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s
supervisor, Aimee Li can be reached on (571) 272-4169. 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.
/H.L./
Examiner, Art Unit 2195
/Aimee Li/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2195