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 .
This office action is in response to amendment filed on 12/17/2025.
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, 4-8, 11-15, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goswami et al. (US PGPUB 2012/0096461), in view of Mueller (US PGPUB 2020/0201616), in view of Fan et al. (US PGPUB 2023/0009160), in view of Colbert et al. (US PGPUB 2016/0364174).
As for claim 1, Goswami teaches a computer implemented method comprising:
creating a clone of the template [template] for the volumes [base image file], the clone stored locally on a second host (paragraph 59, “….if the base image is stored only on a single server 200….an additional base image should be added to at least one server 200 in the system…” and paragraph 63, “…transfer the base image …” Examiner note, clone in the context of creating a copy of the template is functionally copying the template to the destination. Examiner note, “template for the virtual volumes” as understood in view of the specification is understood as a template VM/base image. (See, specification, paragraph 61-62, “a virtual machine template is an image of a VM that may include VM disks, devices, and settings. It will be appreciated that the term ‘disks’ may include other types of storage devices…” and “vVol-based VM templates maybe stored as a set of vVols the same way as normal VMs…” Thus, “template ‘for’ the virtual volumes” is really a template set of volumes, not a separate template “for” the volumes.), wherein creating the clone includes:
selecting one of the first host and the second host to initially store a volume using a resource balancer [virtual workplace software] (paragraph 43, “…virtual workplace software…of …server to determine which virtual machine base images should be stored on which servers 200…implement the distribution by transferring base images between servers as needed…replicating virtual machine base images from memory 210 of one server 200 to the memory of one or more other servers…” teaching the deciding location to store the volume by a resource balancer, the base image was initially stored in a first host before being transferred to a second host.); and
initiating an automated migration of the virtual volume between the first host and the second host based upon, at least in part, a location of a virtual volume clone (paragraph 43, “…determine which virtual machine base images should be stored on which servers…server…”, paragraph 56, “…load balancing function…performed in order to transfer the base image for the template to …additional server…needed to allocate the new virtual machine…”, paragraph 74, “…allocate a new virtual machine 240 …using the base image of the template stored in its local memory 210…”); and
provisioning a new virtual machine on the second host by using the clone of the template for the virtual volumes locally stored on the second host (paragraph 74, “…allocate a new virtual machine 240 …using the base image of the template stored in its local memory 210…”).
While Goswami clearly teaches that the template/base VM do not change, thus, can be constructively understood as a form of read-only. Nevertheless, in the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner note Goswami does not explicitly state identifying, by a computing device, that virtual volumes clustered on a first host are part of a template and marking the virtual volumes as read-only based upon, at least in part, identifying that the virtual volumes are part of the template.
However, Mueller teaches a known method of VM deployment using base VM images including identifying, by a computing device, that virtual volumes [snapshot of base VM/virtual disks] clustered on a first host are part of a template [template] (paragraph 20, “…base VM maybe converted into a …VM image (called a template)….which is derived from a snapshot of the base VM…” See, also, paragraph 43, “maintained in virtual disks that are stored in a database…”, paragraph 44, “virtual disks of the base template…” and paragraph 45, “template…includes an operating system virtual disk…a software application virtual disk…”), wherein identifying the virtual volumes clustered on a first host are part of a template include checking whether the virtual volumes are marked with a special flag (paragraph 20, “derived from a snapshot of the base VM at a particular time…all files available on the base VM at the moment of the snapshot (e.g., the operating system, the environment, the signing certificates, provisioning profiles, etc.)…” and paragraph 51, “…the base VM is converted into a template…include one or more virtual disks (corresponding to the base disk described previously)-an operating system virtual disk…and a software virtual disk…can also include configuration information for a third virtual disk…once the vVol is identified to be a template….” Examiner note, only place in current specification reciting the flag states “…the code maybe extended to check if VMs are templates and mark template vVols with a Special flag (or other marking techniques)…” (Specification, paragraph 71). Thus, the identification of anything related to the template VM occurs prior to the marking of the vVols, not checking the markings to decide whether they are vVols of the VM that is a template. In another word, identifying a VM as a template before mark the vVols of the VM identified with a special flag, and the marking of vVol as read-only occurs subsequent to identify the template/vVols. Moreover, there is no information on the purpose of the special flag, nor any usage associated with the special flag. As such, the BRI of the claimed limitation is understood to includes any indication the vVols are part of an identified template VM/snapshot, Here, the prior art explicitly teaches determining and identifying a base VM/snapshot of base VM at a specific point in time for conversion to become a template, and the conversion includes converting any vVol of the template into a read-only volume, which includes all virtual volumes belonging to the base VM/snapshot. Thus, it is obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to recognize that to convert the vVols belonging to the base VM require indication of the vVols belonging to the base VM to be converted because doing so allows for identification of vVols that are converted to template by the prior art.).
marking the volumes as read-only based upon, at least in part, identifying that the virtual volumes are part of the template (paragraph 20, “….the base VM maybe converted into a read-only VM image (called a template) which is derived from a snapshot of the base VM) in view of paragraph 65, “the base VM is then converted in to a template (read only) ….to avoid accidental modifications…” templates are made only for benefits identified.). This known technique is applicable to the system of Goswami as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to VM base image/template management and VM deployment.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application would have recognized that applying the known technique of Mueller would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Mueller to the teachings of Goswami would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such VM base image/template management features into similar systems. Further, applying identifying, by a computing device, that volumes clustered on a first host are part of a template and marking the volumes as read-only based upon, at least in part, identifying that the volumes are part of the template to Goswami with deployment of template/base VM images in VMs at a second server including the template/base VM image that are not modified and cloned to second server accordingly, would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow reduced chance of accidental modification and conserve resources for storage of VM images. (Mueller, paragraph 65).
Goswami and Mueller teaches storage of the read-only VM image stored in one or more volumes of storage device (see, e.g., Mueller, paragraph 16, “…’virtual machine image’ refers to an image of the virtual machine’s disk including all its data…” and paragraph 44, “…virtual disks of the base template that store software code for the guest operating system…and the software application…” teaching the base virtual machine image/template comprises of virtual disks (plural) that are understood as virtual volumes. See, e.g., Mueller @ paragraph 89-90.). While there is no specific definition for what comprises a storge appliance and the present application does not define any inherent features for a storage appliance, in the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner note Goswami and Mueller do not explicitly teach the virtual volumes are stored in a storage appliance where it is a node within a storage cluster where the configuration virtual volume is stored on one of the first storage appliance or the second storage appliance or initiating an automated migration of the configuration vVol between the first storage appliance and the second storage appliance.
However, Fan teaches a known method of migration of VM images including virtual volumes clustered on a first storage appliance [first storage nodes] and storing a copy of the virtual volumes on a second storage appliance [second storage nodes] (Abstract, “…a subset of the virtual machines associated with a subset of the virtual volumes hosted on the first storage node and to move at least one of the subset of the virtual volumes to a second one of the storage nodes…” and paragraph 13, “….storage arrays …may represent respective storage nodes of a storage cluster that hosts virtual volumes for the VMs…” in view of “vVols are an object type ….that corresponds to a VM disk…” teaching VM image files (i.e., VM disks) can exist in a first storage appliance node before copied to a second storage appliance node. See, also, paragraph 47.), selecting one of the first storage appliance and the second storage appliance to store a configuration virtual volume using a resource balancer (paragraph 47 teaching copying of one or more virtual volumes corresponding to a VM image/disk from a first storage appliance to a second storage appliance. In view of paragraph 60 teaching the vVols includes a configuration vVols); and initiating an automated migration of the configuration virtual volume between the first storage appliance and the second storage appliance (Fig. 2 – steps 204 and 206, and paragraphs 46-47, “responsive to determining….at least the threshold likelihood of experiencing the designated VM boot condition….” “one of the subset….is moved from the first storage node to a second one of the plurality of storage nodes…in some embodiments….includes moving all of the virtual volumes associated with a given one ….of VMs from the first storage node to the second storage node.” In view of paragraph 60, “…configuration…vVol…” teaching an automatic trigger to migrate.).
This known technique is applicable to the system of Goswami and Mueller as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to VM image management and migration and VM instantiation using the VM images.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application would have recognized that applying the known technique of Fan would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Fan to the teachings of Goswami and Mueller would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such VM base image/template management features into similar systems. Further, applying initially storing configuration vVol at a storage appliance, then migrating the stored vVols from the first storage appliance copied to the second storage appliance including migrating the configuration vVol to Goswami and Mueller with copying of VM virtual disk volumes from a first location to a second location accordingly, would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow increased efficiency and flexibility and cost-effectiveness by using reconfigurable virtual resources. (Fan, paragraph 3).
Goswami, Mueller, and Fan do not explicitly teach the copy of configuration is based upon, at least in part, a location of a data virtual volume clone.
However, Colbert teaches a known method of VM disk volume cloning/migration including migration of the configuration between first node and second node based upon, at least, a location of a data virtual volume clone (paragraph 50, “VM disks can be migrated to a new location …Next, the VM’s metadata files are copied to a new location…same as the new location for the VM disks…Thus, the destination VM can use the metadata files in the new location…” in view of paragraph 53, “…application for online VM disk migration is in the field of template deployment….template for that type of VM can be deployed, along with information that individualizes the template for the client…” teaching the duplication/copying of disk can be copied/duplicated/cloned from template’s VM disk.). This known technique is applicable to the system of Goswami, Mueller, and Fan as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to VM template deployment to different networked nodes.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application would have recognized that applying the known technique of Colbert would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Colbert to the teachings of Goswami, Mueller, and Fan would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such VM base image/template management features into similar systems. Further, applying migration of the configuration between first node and second node based upon, at least, a location of a data virtual volume clone to Goswami, Mueller, and Fan with copying of VM virtual disk volumes from a first storage appliance node to a second storage appliance node including copying the configuration vVol accordingly, would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow increased speed at which templates are deployed. (Colbert, paragraph 54).
As for claim 4, Goswami also teaches creating the clone includes identifying an existing shadow template (paragraph 59, “…determine whether the base image is stored on a single server or on multiple servers in the system…” and paragraph 61, “determine…whether or not the base image should be added to one or more additional servers in the system…” Examiner note, in view of specification, shadow template is the term applicant give to local copy of the template/VM image volume. See, e.g., Specification at paragraphs 5, 7. An identification of existing shadow template is understood as identifying if the template already exists at a local second location.).
In addition, Fan teaches the shadow template includes a data virtual volume. (paragraph 60).
As for claim 5, Goswami also teaches creating the clone includes creating a shadow template for a template/base VM when the shadow template does not exist (paragraphs 59, 61, 63“…determine whether the base image is stored on a single server or on multiple servers in the system…” “determines ….the base image should be added to one or more additional servers in the system…” “….determine if it’s on the list. If so….transfer the base image to its local memory 210…” as noted above, shadow template is the term applicant give to local copy of the template/VM image volume. See, e.g., Specification at paragraphs 5, 7.).
In addition, Fan teaches the shadow template/baseVM includes a data virtual volume. (paragraph 60).
As for claim 6, Goswami teaches creating a volume clone using a shadow template (paragraphs 63“…determine if it’s on the list. If so….transfer the base image to its local memory 210…” as noted above, shadow template is the term applicant give to local copy of the template/VM image volume. See, e.g., Specification at paragraphs 5, 7.).
In addition, Fan teaches creating a data volume clone using the shadow template (paragraph 60, and 47).
As for claim 7, Mueller also teaches changes made to the template (paragraph 58).
In addition, Goswami also teaches the template are applied to all further clones of the template (paragraph 50, “….if …recently created a new virtual machine template….send …to the other servers including a new definition of the new virtual machine template…”).
As for claims 8, 11-14, they contain similar limitations as claims 1, 4-7 above. Thus, they are rejected under the same rationales.
In addition, Goswami also teaches a computer program product residing on a computer readable storage medium having a plurality of instructions stored thereon which, when executed across one or more processors, causes at least a portion of the one or more processors to perform operations (paragraph 21)
As for claims 15 and 19-20, they contain similar limitations as claims 1 and 6-7 above. Thus, they are rejected under the same rationales.
In addition, Goswami also teaches a computing system including one or more processors and one or more memories configured to perform operations (paragraph 22).
As for claim 18, Goswami also teaches creating the clone includes identifying an existing shadow template (paragraph 59, “…determine whether the base image is stored on a single server or on multiple servers in the system…” and paragraph 61, “determine…whether or not the base image should be added to one or more additional servers in the system…” Examiner note, in view of specification, shadow template is the term applicant give to local copy of the template/VM image volume. See, e.g., Specification at paragraphs 5, 7. An identification of existing shadow template is understood as identifying if the template already exists at a local second location.), and creating a shadow template for a template/base VM when the shadow template does not exist (paragraphs 59, 61, 63“…determine whether the base image is stored on a single server or on multiple servers in the system…” “determines ….the base image should be added to one or more additional servers in the system…” “….determine if it’s on the list. If so….transfer the base image to its local memory 210…” as noted above, shadow template is the term applicant give to local copy of the template/VM image volume. See, e.g., Specification at paragraphs 5, 7.).
In addition, Fan teaches the shadow template/baseVM includes a data virtual volume. (paragraph 60).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8, and 15 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
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 KEVIN X LU whose telephone number is (571)270-1233. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached on 5712723759. 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.
/KEVIN X LU/Examiner, Art Unit 2199
/LEWIS A BULLOCK JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights