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 – 20 have been examined and are pending.
Drawings
The applicant’s submitted drawings on 04/04/2023 are acceptable for examination purposes.
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 15 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter of software, per se. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is directed to a computer system comprising software-defined elements without any recitation of a non-transitory hardware element. It is not a process occurring as a result of executing the program, a machine programmed to operate in accordance with the program nor a manufacture structurally and functionally interconnected with the program in a manner which enables the program to act as a computer component and realize its functionality. It's also clearly not directed to a composition of matter or limited to hardware-only embodiments. Thus, the claims are non-statutory under 35 USC 101 and are directed to a software product, per se, without any recitation of a non-transitory hardware element. Appropriate correction is required to direct claims 15 - 20 towards a statutory category.
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application US Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0081930 to Cota-Robles et al. (hereinafter Cota) and in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0272420 to Yang et al. (hereinafter Yang).
Claim 1, Cota discloses techniques for maintaining consistency of a storage profile in a cluster having local and shared storage and correctness across a datacenter (¶4), and further it discloses:
generating, by a service executing in the SDDC, a profile that includes a managed configuration exclusive of an unmanaged configuration, a union of the managed configuration and the unmanaged configuration being a configuration of the virtualization management server (Cota discloses ¶23-¶26 and Figs. 1-2, generating a reference profile (managed configuration) from a validated host, distinct from temporary/local host profiles (unmanaged configuration), with the union representing the full configuration of the management server)
validating, by the service, that the unmanaged configuration in the profile does not include dependencies with the unmanaged configuration (Cota ¶38-¶43 discloses validating consistency by checking storage device locality (shared vs. local) and dependencies across hosts, ensuring unmanaged/local profiles do not create inconsistent dependencies)
However, Cota does not explicitly disclose applying, by the service, the profile to the virtualization management. However, in an analogous art, Yang teaches:
applying, by the service, the profile to the virtualization management server (Yang teaches ¶18-¶27 and Figs. 1-2, the virtualization management server (vCenter) applies received configuration profiles by sending them to multiple plug-ins, which then update the server’s configuration.)
It would have been obvious as of the effective filing date to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine generating, by a service executing in the SDDC, a profile that includes a managed configuration exclusive of an unmanaged configuration, a union of the managed configuration and the unmanaged configuration being a configuration of the virtualization management server; validating, by the service, that the unmanaged configuration in the profile does not include dependencies with the unmanaged configuration, as disclosed by Cota, and applying, by the service, the profile to the virtualization management, as taught by Yang, for the purpose of implementing method for a plug-in manager in a virtual machine (VM) system to install or update a plug-in at a web client server in the VM system (Fig. 3 and ¶10).
Claim 2, Cota in view of Yang discloses all the elements of claim 1. Further, they teach:
wherein the service validates that the profile includes no dependencies on the unmanaged configuration (Cota discloses (¶38-¶43) that when generating and applying a reference profile (managed configuration), it validates the configuration to ensure that the reference profile is self-consistent and does not rely on elements in the temporary/unmanaged profiles and local-only settings. Specifically, Cota checks whether devices are consistently designated across hosts (shared vs. local). If a device in a host-specific (unmanaged) profile were required by the cluster-wide reference profile, it would create an invalid dependency – this is explicitly tested and prevented).
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 3, Cota in view of Yang discloses all the elements of claim 1. Further, they teach:
wherein the service validates that the unmanaged configuration includes no dependencies on the profile (Cota discloses ¶38-¶43 the consistency check compares the temporary profile against the reference profile, validating that host-local (unmanaged) configurations are consistent and do not rely on shared configurations in the reference profile or on the cluster-managed profile elements.)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 4, Cota in view of Yang discloses all the elements of claim 1. Further, they teach:
wherein the service validates that the managed configuration in the profile includes all instances of an object therein and that there are no instances of the object in the unmanaged configuration (Cota describes ¶40-¶43 ensuring all storage devices (objects) in the cluster are accounted for in the reference profile, and none remain inconsistently defined in temporary profiles. Cota also discloses that inconsistencies arise if objects are found in unmanaged/local profiles but absent from the reference polls. The validation process ensures this does not occur. By design, objects that belong in the managed profile are validated to prevent duplication or stray definitions in unmanaged profiles.
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 5, Cota in view of Yang discloses all the elements of claim 1. Further, they teach:
wherein the step of applying comprises: sending, by the service, the profile to a plurality of plug-ins executing in the virtualization management server (Yang in (¶18-¶27 and Fig. 1-2) teaches a plug-in manager within the virtualization management server (vCenter) which managed multiple plug-ins, and these plug-ins receive their configuration/profile information from the service (the management server itself). The plug-in manager transmits configuration and state information to the installed plug-ins. This is direct teaching of sending the profile to a plurality of plug-ins executing in the virtualization management server)
updating, by the plurality of plug-ins, the configuration of the virtualization management server in response to the profile (Yang further discloses (¶23-¶30 and Fig. 1-2) that plug-ins update the system state/configuration after receiving instructions or profiles from the plug-in manager. Upon receipt of profile data, the plug-in executes update operations that change the state or configuration of the virtualization management server. Thus, the plurality of plug-ins performs the updating step in direct response to the profile.)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 6, Cota in view of Yang discloses all the elements of claim 5. Further, they teach:
wherein a first plug-in of the plurality of plug-ins has an interface that expects a portion of the managed configuration in the profile and a portion of the unmanaged configuration, and wherein the interface indicates the portion of the unmanaged configuration as optional (Yang discloses plug-ins with interfaces defined in extension points (¶23-¶30). Interfaces can specify required fields (e.g., IDs, credentials, and optional fields e.g., SSL thumbprint, URL, certificates. Some parameters are essential (analogous to managed configuration), and some are optional (analogous to unmanaged configuration).
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 7, Cota in view of Yang discloses all the elements of claim 1. Further, they teach:
wherein the managed configuration includes an object (Cota discloses (¶23-¶26) that the reference profile (managed configuration) includes storage devices (objects) that are part of the cluster’s configuration. The reference profile is generated from a validated host and includes the configuration of all storage devices used by the host), and wherein the service validates that the profile includes all instances of the object (Cota further discloses that the validation process ensures that all storage devices (objects) in the cluster are represented in the reference profile. Cota consistently verifying and check that all device configurations are represented in the reference profile, and inconsistencies are flagged if any device instance is missing (¶40-¶43). This directly maps to validating that the managed profile includes all instances of the object.)
The motivation to combine the references is similar to the reasons in Claim 1.
Claim 8, do not teach or further define over the limitations in Claim 1. Therefore, claim 8 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in Claim 1.
Claim 9, do not teach or further define over the limitations in Claim 2. Therefore, claim 9 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in Claim 2.
Claim 10, do not teach or further define over the limitations in Claim 3. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in Claim 3.
Claim 11, do not teach or further define over the limitations in Claim 4. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in Claim 4.
Claim 12, do not teach or further define over the limitations in Claim 5. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in Claim 5.
Claim 13, do not teach or further define over the limitations in Claim 6. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in Claim 6.
Claim 14, do not teach or further define over the limitations in Claim 7. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in Claim 7.
Claim 15, do not teach or further define over the limitations in Claim 1. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in Claim 1.
Claim 16, do not teach or further define over the limitations in Claim 2. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in Claim 2.
Claim 17, do not teach or further define over the limitations in Claim 3. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in Claim 3.
Claim 18, do not teach or further define over the limitations in Claim 4. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in Claim 4.
Claim 19, do not teach or further define over the limitations in Claim 5. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in Claim 5.
Claim 20, do not teach or further define over the limitations in Claim 6. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for the same rationale of rejection as set forth in Claim 6.
Conclusion
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0188418 to Raj et al. (Desired state management of software-defined data center)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASSAN KHAN whose telephone number is (313) 446-6574 and fax number is (571) 483-7559. The examiner can normally be reached on MONDAY - THURSDAY.
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:/Awww.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Christopher L. Parry can be reached on (571) 272-8328. 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:/Awww.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. A. K./
Examiner, Art Unit 2451
/Chris Parry/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2451