DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
As per claim 1, in step 1 of the 101 analysis, the examiner has determined that the claim is directed to a system. Therefore, the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
In step 2A prong 1 of the 101 analysis, the examiner has determined that the claim recites a judicial exception. Specifically, the limitations “transition one or more of the plurality of workloads from the first host IHS to the second host IHS based, at least in part, on the specifications of the first and second host IHSs, and the at least one network connectivity parameter of the second host IHS” recite mental processes. Transitioning, in the context of the claim, is akin to scheduling items to be executed. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A.
In step 2A prong 2 of the 101 analysis, the examiner has determined that the additional elements, alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application for the following rationale:
The limitation “a processor; and a memory couple to the processor” apply judicial exceptions on a generic computer. "Alappat 's rationale that an otherwise ineligible algorithm or software could be made patent-eligible by merely adding a generic computer to the claim was superseded by the Supreme Court's Bilski and Alice Corp. decisions" so therefore applying judicial exceptions on a management entity which are generic computers does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The limitations “obtain, from a plurality of host IHSs, a respective plurality of specifications of the respective plurality of host IHSs, wherein a first host IHSs of the plurality of host IHSs hosts a plurality of workloads; obtain, from one or more of the plurality of host IHSs including a second host IHS of the plurality of host IHSs, a respective one or more network connectivity parameters of the one or more host IHSs, including at least one network connectivity parameter from the second host IHS” represent insignificant, extra-solution activities. The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as "activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim" (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The examiner has determined that the limitations “obtain, from a plurality of host IHSs, a respective plurality of specifications of the respective plurality of host IHSs, wherein a first host IHSs of the plurality of host IHSs hosts a plurality of workloads; obtain, from one or more of the plurality of host IHSs including a second host IHS of the plurality of host IHSs, a respective one or more network connectivity parameters of the one or more host IHSs, including at least one network connectivity parameter from the second host IHS” are directed to mere data gathering activities which is a category of insignificant extra-solution activities (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
In step 2B of the 101 analysis, the examiner has determined that the additional elements, alone or in combination do not recite significantly more than the abstract ideas identified above for the following rationale:
The limitation “a processor; and a memory couple to the processor” apply judicial exceptions on a generic computer and therefore do not provide significantly more.
The limitations “obtain, from a plurality of host IHSs, a respective plurality of specifications of the respective plurality of host IHSs, wherein a first host IHSs of the plurality of host IHSs hosts a plurality of workloads; obtain, from one or more of the plurality of host IHSs including a second host IHS of the plurality of host IHSs, a respective one or more network connectivity parameters of the one or more host IHSs, including at least one network connectivity parameter from the second host IHS” represent insignificant, extra-solution activities and are well-understood, routine, or conventional because they are directed to "receiving or transmitting data" (MPEP 2106.05(d)). These are additional elements that the courts have recognized as well understood, routine, or conventional (MPEP 2106.05(d)). The citation of court cases in the MPEP meets the Berkheimer evidentiary burden since citation of a court case in the MPEP is one of the 4 types of evidentiary support that can be used to prove that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, or conventional (see 125 USPQ2d 1649 Berkheimer v. HP, Inc.). Thus, the limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
As per claim 10, it is a method claim of claim 1, so it is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
As per claim 16, it is a device claim of claim 1, so it is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
As per claim 2, it recites “wherein the network connectivity parameters comprise at least one of: network connection status, network connection type, network connection speed, network latency in receiving responses, or a frequency of network connection drops” which further describes the abstract idea.
As per claim 3, it recites “wherein the specifications comprise at least one of: hardware characteristics, application provenance, IHS operating system, form factors, supported peripherals, hardware resources, UEFI Secure Boot capabilities, monitor privacy filter characteristics, protected private regions of memory, security sandbox information, role-based access control information, or data regarding workloads hosted by the IHS ” which further describes the abstract idea.
As per claim 4, it recites “wherein the plurality of workloads hosted by the first host IHS comprise a workspace of the first host IHS, and wherein the workspace of the first host IHS is planned and deployed by an Information Technology Decision Maker (ITDM)” which further describes the abstract idea.
As per claim 5 (and similarly for claim 17), it recites “wherein to obtain, from the one or more host IHSs the respective one or more network connectivity parameters of the one or more host IHSs, the program instructions further cause the processor to: obtain, from the first host IHS, at least one network connectivity parameter of the first host IHS; and wherein to transition the one or more of the plurality of workloads from the first host IHS to the second host IHS, the program instructions further cause the processor to: determine that the one or more of the plurality of workloads should transition from the first host IHS to the second host IHS based, at least in part, on the specifications of the first and second host IHSs, the at least one network connectivity parameter of the first host IHSs, and the at least one network connectivity parameter of the second host IHSs; and transition, based at least in part on the determination, the one or more of the plurality of workloads from the first host IHS to the second host IHS", which encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper.
As per claim 6 (and similarly for claims 12 and 18), it recites “wherein to transition the one or more of the plurality of workloads from the first host IHS to the second host IHS, the program instructions further cause the processor to: obtain, from an agent of the first host IHS, information regarding a need to transfer at least one workload of the plurality of workloads of the first host IHS to a different IHS; and transition, based at least in part on the obtained information, the specifications of the first and second host IHSs, and the network connectivity parameters of the second host IHSs, the one or more workloads from the first host IHS to the second host IHS", which encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper.
As per claim 7 (and similarly for claims 13 and 19), it recites “wherein the specifications of the first host IHS comprise data regarding the plurality of workloads hosted by the first host IHS, and wherein to transition the one or more of the plurality of workloads from the first host IHS to the second host IHS, the program instructions further cause the processor to: determine workload compatibility of the plurality of workloads with the second host IHS based, at least in part, on the data regarding the plurality of workloads hosted by the first host IHS and the specifications of the second host IHSs; and transition, based, at least in part, on the determination and the network connectivity parameters of the second host IHSs, the one or more workloads from the first host IHS to the second host IHS", which encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper.
As per claim 8 (and similarly for claims 14 and 20), it recites “wherein the specifications of the first host IHS comprise data regarding the plurality of workloads hosted by the first host IHS, and wherein to transition the one or more of the plurality of workloads from the first host IHS to the second host IHS, the program instructions further cause the processor to: determine that at least one of the plurality of workloads hosted by the first host IHS is not compatible with the second host IHS based, at least in part, on the data regarding the plurality of workloads hosted by the first host IHS and the specifications of the second host IHSs; and fail to transition, based at least in part on the determination, the at least one workload from the first host IHS to the second host IHS", which encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper.
As per claim 9 (and similarly for claims 15), it recites “wherein the plurality of workloads hosted by the first host IHS comprise a workspace of the first host IHS, and wherein to transition the one or more of the plurality of workloads from the first host IHS to the second host IHS, the program instructions further cause the processor to: transition the entire workspace of the first host IHS to the second host IHS” which further describes the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-11, 13-17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Mittal et al. (US PG Pub No. 2016/0087910 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mittal teaches an Information Handling System (IHS) of a workspace orchestration service (Fig 1) comprising:
a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, the memory having program instructions stored thereon that, upon execution, cause the processor to (Fig 2):
obtain, from a plurality of host IHSs, a respective plurality of specifications of the respective plurality of host IHSs, wherein a first host IHSs of the plurality of host IHSs hosts a plurality of workloads ([0010], wherein a “compute resources” includes any hardware computing device (e.g. server), including processors capable of executing workloads; [0012], “service profile” encompasses a logical service definition, including server hardware identifiers, firmware, state, configuration, connectivity);
obtain, from one or more of the plurality of host IHSs including a second host IHS of the plurality of host IHSs, a respective one or more network connectivity parameters of the one or more host IHSs, including at least one network connectivity parameter from the second host IHS ([0032]); and
transition one or more of the plurality of workloads from the first host IHS to the second host IHS based, at least in part, on the specifications of the first and second host IHSs, and the at least one network connectivity parameter of the second host IHS (Fig 1; [0014], wherein “compute resources 16 may be grouped into migration spheres 30 according to service profile 24 and other network requirements, such that associated workload 29 may be deployable on any one of compute resources 16 in associated migration sphere 30” and “migration sphere 30 includes a list of substantially all compute resources 16 can be used to migrate a specific workload 29 associated with particular hardware specifications, including compute specifications (e.g., processor speed, type, power, etc.), storage specifications (e.g., connectivity, type, size, etc.), and network connectivity”’; [0025])
Regarding claim 2, Mittal teaches the network connectivity parameters comprise at least one of: network connection status, network connection type, network connection speed, network latency in receiving responses, or a frequency of network connection drops ([0032], wherein “The network information can also include platform specific constraints, power budgeting requirements, network policies, network features, network load, and other network requirements”)
Regarding claim 3, Mittal teaches wherein the specifications comprise at least one of: hardware characteristics, application provenance, IHS operating system, form factors, supported peripherals, hardware resources, UEFI Secure Boot capabilities, monitor privacy filter characteristics, protected private regions of memory, security sandbox information, role-based access control information, or data regarding workloads hosted by the IHS ([0012]; [0014]).
Regarding claim 4, Mittal teaches wherein the plurality of workloads hosted by the first host IHS comprise a workspace of the first host IHS ([0033-34]), and wherein the workspace of the first host IHS is planned and deployed by an Information Technology Decision Maker (ITDM) ([0027]).
Regarding claim 5, Mittal teaches wherein to obtain, from the one or more host IHSs the respective one or more network connectivity parameters of the one or more host IHSs, the program instructions further cause the processor to: obtain, from the first host IHS, at least one network connectivity parameter of the first host IHS; and wherein to transition the one or more of the plurality of workloads from the first host IHS to the second host IHS, the program instructions further cause the processor to: determine that the one or more of the plurality of workloads should transition from the first host IHS to the second host IHS based, at least in part, on the specifications of the first and second host IHSs, the at least one network connectivity parameter of the first host IHSs, and the at least one network connectivity parameter of the second host IHSs; and transition, based at least in part on the determination, the one or more of the plurality of workloads from the first host IHS to the second host IHS ([0021], workloads are migrated to compute resources identified in the migration sphere for the workload; claim 6, “wherein the workload is deployed in the first compute resource and migrated from the first compute resource to the second compute resource”).
Regarding claim 7, Mittal teaches wherein the specifications of the first host IHS comprise data regarding the plurality of workloads hosted by the first host IHS, and wherein to transition the one or more of the plurality of workloads from the first host IHS to the second host IHS, the program instructions further cause the processor to: determine workload compatibility of the plurality of workloads with the second host IHS based, at least in part, on the data regarding the plurality of workloads hosted by the first host IHS and the specifications of the second host IHSs; and transition, based, at least in part, on the determination and the network connectivity parameters of the second host IHSs, the one or more workloads from the first host IHS to the second host IHS ([0025]; [0035]; claim 6, “wherein the workload is deployed in the first compute resource and migrated from the first compute resource to the second compute resource”).
Regarding claim 8, Mittal teaches wherein the specifications of the first host IHS comprise data regarding the plurality of workloads hosted by the first host IHS, and wherein to transition the one or more of the plurality of workloads from the first host IHS to the second host IHS, the program instructions further cause the processor to: determine that at least one of the plurality of workloads hosted by the first host IHS is not compatible with the second host IHS based, at least in part, on the data regarding the plurality of workloads hosted by the first host IHS and the specifications of the second host IHSs; and fail to transition, based at least in part on the determination, the at least one workload from the first host IHS to the second host IHS ([0025], wherein it is inherent that migration to a red zone (e.g. incompatible for workload deployment) would fail).
Regarding claim 9, Mittal teaches wherein the plurality of workloads hosted by the first host IHS comprise a workspace of the first host IHS, and wherein to transition the one or more of the plurality of workloads from the first host IHS to the second host IHS, the program instructions further cause the processor to: transition the entire workspace of the first host IHS to the second host IHS ([0009], wherein workloads can include a collection of software code or an entire application; claim 6, “wherein the workload is deployed in the first compute resource and migrated from the first compute resource to the second compute resource”).
Regarding claims 10-11, 13-17, and 19-20, they are the method and device claims of claims 1, and 5-9 above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1, and 5-9 above.
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.
Claim(s) 6, 12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mittal et al. (US PG Pub No. 2016/0087910 A1) in view of Vasipalli et al. (US Pat No. 11,803,227).
Regarding claim 6, Mittal does not teach wherein to transition the one or more of the plurality of workloads from the first host IHS to the second host IHS, the program instructions further cause the processor to: obtain, from an agent of the first host IHS, information regarding a need to transfer at least one workload of the plurality of workloads of the first host IHS to a different IHS; and transition, based at least in part on the obtained information, the specifications of the first and second host IHSs, and the network connectivity parameters of the second host IHSs, the one or more workloads from the first host IHS to the second host IHS.
Vasipalli teaches collecting energy consumption information using agents running on each of the hosts for determining whether to initiate workload migration (col 2 lines 39-56; col 4 lines 19-31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to obtain, from an agent of the first host IHS, information regarding a need to transfer at least one workload of the plurality of workloads of the first host IHS to a different IHS; and transition, based at least in part on the obtained information, the specifications of the first and second host IHSs, and the network connectivity parameters of the second host IHSs, the one or more workloads from the first host IHS to the second host IHS. One would be motivated by the desire to utilize local host agents in order to reduce computational burdens on the central orchestration service.
Regarding claims 12 and 18, they are the method and device claims of claim 6 above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons as claim 6 above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC C WAI whose telephone number is (571)270-1012. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-5.
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.
/Eric C Wai/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195