DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-18 are pending.
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 following arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections (Remarks pp. 7-8) are moot in view of the Examiner’s new ground of rejections based on added references to address applicant’s amendments.
Written Description
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to Claims 1, 7, and 13’s “wherein the first operating system is a first bare-metal operating system,” and “wherein the second operating system is a second bare-metal operating system configured to host one or more virtual machines (VMs),” Applicant states (Remarks pp. 7-8):
PNG
media_image1.png
293
624
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant did not provide support for the amended limitation and no explanation was provided. The quoted portion shows that both of the operating systems are bare-metal operating systems, but the term “bare-metal operating system” is not present in the present application’s specification.
There are three mentions of the phrase “bare metal server” in the specification, The three instances of disclosure is similar/identical to page 5 of the specification:
Accordingly, it can be difficult or impossible to pre-define the stack at the factory given the large number of options and potential use cases. Embodiments of this disclosure allow a system manufacturer to provide a customer with the ability to provision a bare metal server to the desired stack automatically and efficiently. It should be noted that the term “factory” is used herein, and it may refer generally to an environment in which an information handling system is manufactured and/or assembled and/or set up by a manufacturer, retailer, wholesaler, etc.
Further, specification appears to view “servers” as hardware devices, e.g., blade, stating:
FIGURE 1 illustrates a block diagram of an example information handling system 102, in accordance with embodiments of the present disclosure. In some embodiments, information handling system 102 may comprise a server chassis configured to house a plurality of servers or “blades.”
Meanwhile, Claim 1 recites “boot a first operating system, . . . wherein the first operating system is a first bare-metal operating system; . . . wherein the second operating system is a second bare-metal operating system configured to host one or more virtual machines (VMs); . . . and boot the second operating system.”
Claim 1 is not supported because of the following reasons:
The claimed “bare-metal operating system” is not supported by “bare-metal servers”, which appear to be examples of hardware. An operating system, by contrast, is an example of software.
The term “bare-metal operating system” is not disclosed by the specification, let alone the interactions between the first bare-metal operating system and the second bare-metal operating system as claimed in the independent claims.
However, it is unclear if the specification is referring to one server, or more than one server.
The Examiner has decided to apply new matter rejection for the claimed features “wherein the first operating system is a first bare-metal operating system,” and “wherein the second operating system is a second bare-metal operating system configured to host one or more virtual machines (VMs),” because of the lack of support for there being more than one bare-metal server in the specification. The Examiner is treating the first operating system and the second operating system as being the same.
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, 6-7, 12-13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alberti (US 20150363181 A1) in view of Levit-Gurevich (US 20050091022 A1) and Ghosh (US 20200344326 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, Alberti teaches a method, comprising:
an information handling system booting a first operating system (
Alberti discloses, “An install process in a VM environment may also include steps of creating and starting VMs…,” ¶ 0023.
The claimed “information handling system” is mapped to the system managing the disclosed “VM environment”.
The claimed “first operating system” is mapped to an operating system running on the disclosed “VM” that is started in the VM environment.),
wherein the first operating system automatically executes a provision service(
Alberti discloses, “Automated cloning of a first VM to other created VMs may be useful in reducing user time spent on and interaction with (through a user input device) the software deployment process, and may provide error-free VM cloning and software deployment operations. Prior to cloning, the first VM may be populated (by a software installer) with common files useful for subsequently cloned VM's, including a software installer, individual software product components and configuration files specific to each software product component,” ¶ 0027, and “Application installer 142 may be run on the first virtual machine (e.g., VM1 110) in response to a user issuing a command to run installer 142 to hypervisor 106, through user input device 102,” ¶ 0037.
The claimed “provision service” is mapped to the installation service, including the services provided by the “application installer,” run on first virtual machine, mapped to “first operating system” that prepares the first VM for cloning.
Said installation service to provide a cloned virtual machine is a provision service.
Alberti discloses, “Software components (executables) C1 116, C2 126 and C3 136 may be installed in an automated fashion by software installers 112A, 112B and 112C and configured using configuration files C1 Cfg 114, C2 Cfg 124 and C3 Cfg 134, respectively,” ¶ 0027).);
reading, by the provision service, a file indicating a desired stack for the information handling system, wherein the desired stack specifies components including at least one second operating system, (
Alberti discloses, “Prior to cloning, the first VM may be populated (by a software installer) with common files useful for subsequently cloned VM's, including a software installer, individual software product components and configuration files specific to each software product component,” ¶ 0027,
“…a different number of VMs may be created (cloned) to correspond to a specific number of software components. For example, in an embodiment corresponding to a 2-component software product, 2 VMs may be created, and in a certain embodiment corresponding to a 5-component software product, 5 VMs may be created,” ¶ 0035, and
“Automated cloning of (first) VM1 110 to other VMs may be useful in reducing user time spent on and interaction with (through user input device 102) the software deployment process, and may provide error-free VM cloning and software deployment operations. Cloning may include all files present on the first VM VM1 110 including software installer 112A, configuration files C1 Cfg 114, C2 Cfg 124, and C3 Cfg 134, and software product components C1 116, C2 126 and C3 136,” ¶ 0047. Further, Alberti also discloses, “In certain embodiments all installed software components may be installed on virtual machines having a (first) operating system (e.g., Windows). In some embodiments, certain installed software components may be installed on virtual machines having a different (second) operating system (e.g., Linux). A user may create one (first) VM for each operating system, and install the operating system on it, as described in reference to FIG. 2. The installation process may then continue with the user providing the installation parameters corresponding to each unique type of the (first) VM. Application installer 142 may then copy the provided installation information to the second virtual machine and then signal deployment controller 104 to clone the VMs,” ¶ 0056.
The claimed “a file indicating a desired stack” is mapped to the configuration files specific to the software product components to be installed. The installer indicates a desired stack, or desired software components to be installed. A stack is interpreted as software components, because the present application’s specification states that “When a new HCI system is built for a customer, it is typically provisioned with a set of components referred to herein as a ‘stack.’ A stack may include an operating system, hypervisor, firmware, drivers, software, etc,” Specification Page 4, Lines 20-23.
Alberti discloses multiple configuration files and other files. However, according to MPEP 2144.04 V.B. Making Integral, it would have been obvious to make multiple configuration files into a single integral configuration file.
The file for the “subsequently cloned VM” (¶ 0027), which runs the second operating system, is obtained/read from the first VM.
The claimed “second operating system” is mapped to the operating system that will run on the disclosed “cloned VM”, or the VM that is cloned from the first VM.
The claimed “software application” is mapped to the disclosed “individual software product components”.
Paragraphs 29, 38, and 42 also discuss in further details.);
installing, by the provision service, the components specified by the desired stack (
Alberti discloses, “The software installer on each VM may complete the software install process by installing one or more software components designated (through a VM ID) for a particular VM, and customize the software component's configuration, as specified in a corresponding configuration file.” ¶ 0027, and “Once each virtual machine (e.g., VM1 110, VM2 120 and VM3 130) is started, software installers 112A, 112B and 112C may install a particular software component(s) on each VM, according to a unique virtual machine ID set on each VM partition. A unique virtual machine ID may include a machine hostname, serial number or other type of VM identifier. The software installer local to each VM (e.g., installer 112A, 112B and 112C, which may be similar to each other) may complete the component (e.g., C1 116, C2 126 and C3 136) installation using the installation/configuration information contained in configuration files C1 Cfg 114, C2 Cfg 124, and C3 Cfg 134 to tailor the deployment of a particular software component,” ¶ 0050);
and the information handling system booting the second operating system (
Alberti discloses, “Cloned VMs may be started after the cloning process described in reference to FIG. 4,” ¶ 0049.).
Alberti does not teach wherein the specified components to be installed also include at least one firmware, and at least one driver.
However, Levit-Gurevich teaches wherein the specified components to be installed also include at least one firmware, and at least one driver (
Levit-Gurevich discloses, “The simulated code may be executed on the virtual machines, as a Guest code, in a virtual environment, e.g., a Direct Execution environment. The Guest code may be any software stack code, including Guest OS, firmware, device drivers, and applications,” ¶ 0011.).
Alberti and Levit-Gurevich are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Alberti to incorporate the teachings of Levit-Gurevich and provide wherein the specified components to be installed also include at least one firmware, and at least one driver. Doing so would allow a system to control hardware or devices through the use of firmware and drivers. Doing so would also help allow greater flexibility in running the software on any given system (Levit-Gurevich discloses, “The simulation techniques may be used on a single-CPU system that can run a set of virtual machines, one for each simulated processor. The techniques described herein may simulate any number of processors, using virtual machines,” ¶ 0011.).
Alberti in view of Levit-Gurevich does not teach wherein the first operating system is a first bare-metal operating system, and wherein the second operating system is a second bare-metal operating system configured to host one or more virtual machines (VMs).
However, Ghosh teaches wherein the first operating system is a first bare-metal operating system, and wherein the second operating system is a second bare-metal operating system configured to host one or more virtual machines (VMs) (
Ghosh discloses, “In certain implementations, when a request fora specific guest is received, then based on the guest OS's CPU architecture a cloud controller can install an OS on bare metal first and then create a guest VM on top of the host,” ¶ 0024, and “In some implementations, instructions 122 stored on memory resource 114 are, when executed by processing resource 112, to install the first OS on the first bare metal server. In some implementations, instructions 122 stored on memory resource 114 are, when executed by processing resource 112, to install the second OS on the second bare metal server,” ¶ 0048.
After the combination of Alberti in view of Levit-Gurevich with Ghosh, the operating systems from Alberti in view of Levi-Gurevich are now bare metal operating systems that are able to host virtual machines, according to Ghosh.).
Alberti in view of Levit-Gurevich, and Ghosh are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Alberti in view of Levit-Gurevich to incorporate the teachings of Ghosh and provide wherein the first operating system is a first bare-metal operating system, and wherein the second operating system is a second bare-metal operating system configured to host one or more virtual machines (VMs). Doing so would help reduce the overhead for the virtual machines due to running on a bare-metal operating system.
Claim 1 and Claim 13 are an information handling system claim and an article of manufacture claim, respectively, corresponding to the method Claim 7. Therefore, Claim 1 and Claim 13 are rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 12, Alberti in view of Levit-Gurevich and Ghosh teaches the method of claim 7, wherein the provision service further retrieves the components specified by the desired stack from a repository (
Alberti discloses, “Product repository 140 may include a master VM image having a complete set of installer information, including software product components C1 116, C2 126 and C3 136 to be copied to and installed on created virtual machines by application installer 142 and associated configuration file 144. … In embodiments, product repository 140 may be located on a computer hosting the VMs, which may be useful in speeding with the installation process. In certain embodiments, product repository 140 may on a shared file system and/or disk, on an ISO file, or on another type of system that can be accessed from each virtual machine,” ¶ 0034).
Claim 6 and Claim 18 are an information handling system claim and an article of manufacture claim, respectively, corresponding to the method Claim 12. Therefore, Claim 6 and Claim 18 are rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 12.
Claims 4-5, 10-11, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alberti (US 20150363181 A1) in view of Levit-Gurevich (US 20050091022 A1), Ghosh (US 20200344326 A1), and Castillo (US 20110231638 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Alberti in view of Levit-Gurevich and Ghosh teaches the method of claim 7. Alberti in view of Levit-Gurevich and Ghosh does not teach wherein the first operating system resides on a first physical storage resource, and wherein the second operating system resides on a second physical storage resource.
However, Castillo teaches wherein the first operating system resides on a first physical storage resource, and wherein the second operating system resides on a second physical storage resource (
Castillo discloses, “A computing device of an embodiment of the invention includes one or more removable storage devices to store different preinstalled operating system instances,” ¶ 0003.).
Alberti in view of Levit-Gurevich and Ghosh, and Castillo are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Alberti in view of Levit-Gurevich and Ghosh to incorporate the teachings of Castillo and provide wherein the first operating system resides on a first physical storage resource, and wherein the second operating system resides on a second physical storage resource. Doing so would help increase reliability of the overall system. Doing so would also allow the installation of different types of operating systems on each storage resource (Castillo discloses, “Each preinstalled operating system instance 110 may be of a different operating system as compared to an operating system of each other operating system instance 110,” ¶ 0018.).
Claim 4 and Claim 16 are an information handling system claim and an article of manufacture claim, respectively, corresponding to the method Claim 10. Therefore, Claim 4 and Claim 16 are rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 10.
Regarding Claim 11, Alberti in view of Levit-Gurevich, Ghosh, and Castillo teaches the method of claim 10, wherein the provision service is further configured to cause the information handling system to boot from the second physical storage resource (
Alberti discloses, “For example, a particular VM may be started with a certain amount of (virtual) disk space (e.g., 1 GB), while another VM may be started with a different amount of (virtual) disk space (e.g., 20 GB).” ¶ 0052, and “Deployment controller 104 and software installers (e.g., installer 112A) may sequence, delay, or coordinate the timing of VM and application installation and starting based on synchronization parameters,” ¶ 0054.
After Alberti in view of Levit-Gurevich and Ghosh is combined with Castillo, which teaches operating systems being stored on separate physical storage devices, the second VM is located on, and booted from, a different physical storage resource to the first one.).
Claim 5 and Claim 17 are an information handling system claim and an article of manufacture claim, respectively, corresponding to the method Claim 11. Therefore, Claim 5 and Claim 17 are rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 11.
Claims 2, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alberti (US 20150363181 A1) in view of Levit-Gurevich (US 20050091022 A1), Ghosh (US 20200344326 A1), and Gopalan (US 20200104189 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Alberti in view of Levit-Gurevich and Ghosh teaches the method of claim 7. Alberti in view of Levit-Gurevich and Ghosh does not teach wherein the information handling system is a hyper-converged infrastructure (HCI) system.
However, Gopalan teaches wherein the information handling system is a hyper-converged infrastructure (HCI) system (
Gopalan discloses, “For example, in the case of virtual machines that are deployed within a hyper-converged infrastructure, workload placement across the physical resources of the infrastructure improves the scalability and efficiency of the data center in which the workloads are deployed,” ¶ 0009).
Alberti in view of Levit-Gurevich and Ghosh, and Gopalan are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Alberti in view of Levit-Gurevich and Ghosh to incorporate the teachings of Gopalan and provide wherein the information handling system is a hyper-converged infrastructure (HCI) system. Doing so would allow for improved efficiency and scalability of deployment (Gopalan discloses, “For example, in the case of virtual machines that are deployed within a hyper-converged infrastructure, workload placement across the physical resources of the infrastructure improves the scalability and efficiency of the data center in which the workloads are deployed,” ¶ 0009.).
Claim 2 and Claim 14 are an information handling system claim and an article of manufacture claim, respectively, corresponding to the method Claim 8. Therefore, Claim 2 and Claim 14 are rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 8.
Claims 3, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alberti (US 20150363181 A1) in view of Levit-Gurevich (US 20050091022 A1), Ghosh (US 20200344326 A1), and Lewis (US 20150363713 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Alberti in view of Levit-Gurevich and Ghosh teaches the method of claim 7. Alberti in view of Levit-Gurevich and Ghosh does not teach wherein the first operating system and the provision service were installed during a manufacturing process of the information handling system.
However, Lewis teaches wherein the first operating system and the provision service were installed during a manufacturing process of the information handling system (
Lewis discloses, “To ensure positive customer experience, factory manufacturing of an information handling system usually includes extensive testing and configuration of the information handling system, to ensure operability of the information handling system, its various components, and the operating system and application programs installed thereon during the manufacturing process,” ¶ 0003).
Alberti in view of Levit-Gurevich and Ghosh, and Lewis are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of computer systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Alberti in view of Levit-Gurevich and Ghosh to incorporate the teachings of Lewis and provide wherein the first operating system and the provision service were installed during a manufacturing process of the information handling system. Doing so would allow for a more positive customer experience regarding the operating system and provision service, and also allow the operating system and the provision service to be tested before manufacturing is complete. (Lewis discloses, “To ensure positive customer experience, factory manufacturing of an information handling system usually includes extensive testing and configuration of the information handling system, to ensure operability of the information handling system, its various components, and the operating system and application programs installed thereon during the manufacturing process,” ¶ 0003.).
Claim 3 and Claim 15 are an information handling system claim and an article of manufacture claim, respectively, corresponding to the method Claim 9. Therefore, Claim 3 and Claim 15 are rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Falkco (US 20160062783 A1): Managing Virtual Machines
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 ANDREW SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-6735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Aimee Li can be reached at (571) 272-4169. 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.
/ANDREW NMN SUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2195
/Aimee Li/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2195
Prosecution Insights