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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6-15, and 17-20 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alessio (US 2016/0154670) and further in view of Mani (US 2021/0406053).
Regarding claim 1, Alessio teaches: A virtual desktop system (claim 1, “A method comprising: associating, by a virtualization host of a virtual desktop system”) comprising:
a performance analysis service executed on a processor (¶ 26, “VDI manager 126 also operates to receive information related to the actual resource usage (RU) over time”) operable to:
periodically collect operational data as a time series of utilization data points of the computing resources from use of the virtual desktop by the user over a period of time (¶ 26, “For example, RU.sub.short can relate to the resource utilization for a particular resource over a one hour time period with a 20 second sampling interval, and RU.sub.long can relate to the resource utilization for the particular resource over a one month time period with a five minute sampling interval”);
analyze use of the computing resources of the virtual desktop according to an aggregated utilization metric for the period of time relative to a utilization threshold value of at least one of the computing resources (¶ 27, “TRU.sub.short can define a level of resource utilization over a one hour duration that triggers an over-usage alert, and ATRU.sub.short can define a number of alerts over a one hour duration”); and
update the specification for the virtual desktop based on a comparison of the aggregated utilization metric and the utilization threshold value (¶ 27, “ATRU.sub.short can define a number of alerts over a one hour duration, above which a reallocation of resources to increase capacity is indicated”).
Alessio does not teach as clearly as Mani teaches: a cloud region (¶ 29, “The cloud computing system 102 may include any number of devices”) that can provide a virtual desktop executed on at least one processor to a client device of a user (¶ 32, “one or more virtual machines or other cloud computing resources and services may be implemented on the compute cores 114a-n of the server nodes 112a-n”), wherein the virtual desktop has a specification of computing resources provided by the cloud region (¶ 25, “a customer subscription may include a set of virtual machines (or multiple sets of different types of virtual machines) and associated specifications in accordance with terms or policies selected by a customer”); and
a control plane executed by the processor and coupled to the cloud region to adjust the computing resources of the cloud region for providing the virtual desktop based on the updated specification (¶ 52, “The allocation manager 218 may receive the deployment request and determine when and where virtual machines having rightsized specifications should be deployed in accordance with the action plan”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to have applied the known technique of a cloud region that can provide a virtual desktop executed on at least one processor to a client device of a user, wherein the virtual desktop has a specification of computing resources provided by the cloud region; and a control plane executed by the processor and coupled to the cloud region to adjust the computing resources of the cloud region for providing the virtual desktop based on the updated specification, as taught by Mani, in the same way to the virtual desktop system, as taught by Alessio. Both inventions are in the field of implementing virtual computing systems, and combining them would have predictably resulted in “more efficient utilization of cloud computing resources and decrease costs associated with over-allocation of cloud computing resources,” as indicated by Mani (abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Mani teaches: The system of claim 1 wherein the specification includes a set of dimensions including at least one of number of CPU cores; RAM memory, disk size, disk class, and presence of a Graphical Processing Unit (GPU) (¶ 25, “a customer subscription includes a deployment template that identifies specifications of virtual machines including, by way of example, a number of compute cores, a number of virtual machine instances, bandwidth resources, computing resources, storage resources, service availability guarantees, etc.”).
Regarding claim 3, Mani teaches: The system of claim 2, wherein the performance analysis service compares each dimension of the specification with associated data from the collected operational data over the period time (¶ 22, “the deployment data may include utilization data (e.g., historical utilization, utilization trends) associated with a number of server nodes and/or compute cores utilized over time in connection with the customer subscription”).
Regarding claim 4, Mani teaches: The system of claim 3, wherein the performance analysis service produces a utilization scorecard including an indication of over-utilization or under-utilization of at least one dimension (¶ 44, “the goal state generator 206 may query virtual machine data (e.g., from the data storage 208) to determine alternative virtual machine types having policies, settings, or resource limits that more closely align with current utilization patterns and/or a predicted utilization of computing resources by customers associated with a customer subscription”).
Regarding claim 6, Mani teaches: The system of claim 3, wherein the threshold value is determined for at least one of over-utilization and under-utilization (¶ 64, “the prediction engine 204 determines whether the predicted underutilization (or overutilization) exceeds some threshold difference between an allocated quantity of resources and the predicted utilization of resources”).
Regarding claim 7, Mani teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein the performance analysis service updates the specification to reduce computing resources for a dimension that is under-utilized (¶ 68, “the prediction engine may provide an indication or flag of virtual machines and/or virtual machine types that are being under or over-utilized by customer(s) associated with a customer subscription” and ¶ 69, “the goal state generator 206 can generate a goal state including an identified set of virtual machines having rightsized specifications based on the predicted utilization data”).
Regarding claim 8, Mani teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein the performance analysis service updates the specification to increase computing resources for a dimension that is over-utilized (¶ 68, “the prediction engine may provide an indication or flag of virtual machines and/or virtual machine types that are being under or over-utilized by customer(s) associated with a customer subscription” and ¶ 69, “the goal state generator 206 can generate a goal state including an identified set of virtual machines having rightsized specifications based on the predicted utilization data”).
Regarding claim 9, Mani teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein the control plane is operable to change computing resources while the user is using the virtual desktop (¶ 82, “for an instance-level rightsizing action, the deployment action engine 212 may determine that live-migration to a different virtual machine family should be performed”).
Regarding claim 10, Mani teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein the adjustment of the computing resources is based on a pre-determined rule (¶ 90, “the allocation manager 218 may re-allocate a predetermined percentage of resources at once”).
Regarding claim 11, Mani teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein the control plane provides a desktop according to the updated specification from another cloud region providing the computing resources to meet the updated specification (¶ 31, “One or more of the node clusters 108a-n may be grouped by geographic location (e.g., a region of node clusters). In one or more embodiments, the node clusters 108a-n are implemented across multiple geographic locations (e.g., at different datacenters or on different racks including one or multiple node clusters)”).
Regarding claim 12, Mani teaches: The system of claim 1, wherein the cloud region includes a desktop agent monitoring the use of the virtual desktop (¶ 29, “the cloud computing system 102 may include one or more server device(s) 104 having a central resource management system 106 implemented thereon”), and wherein the collected operational data is provided by the desktop agent (¶ 29, “the central resource management system 106 may collect deployment data”).
Claims 13-15 and 17-20 recite commensurate subject matter as claims 1-4 and 6-12. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
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 JACOB D DASCOMB whose telephone number is (571)272-9993. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, Pierre Vital can be reached at (571) 272-4215. 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.
/JACOB D DASCOMB/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198