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 .
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
In Fig. 2, reference character “216” is included at the bottom of the page likely by mistake. The reference character is not pointing to anything.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0029] lines 1-2, FIG. 3 is described, but the following reference characters are not mentioned from FIG. 3: 304-1 through 304-64. Examiner recommends the following amendments to cure the issue: “Figure 3 illustrates a DCG with 64 hosts (304-1 to 304-64), 16 shared datastores (316-1 to 316-16), and 1 local datastore per host (320-1 to 320-64) according to one or more embodiments of the present disclosure.”
In paragraph [0029] line 6, local DS-64 is mentioned, but the corresponding reference character is not used: 320-64).
In paragraph [0030], FIG. 4 is described incorrectly. Examiner recommends the following amendments:
Inside 64 hosts (404-1 to 404-64), 32 hosts (e.g., host 404-33 through host 404-64) are fully connected to 8 shared datastores (shared DS-[9-16] 416-2). The other 32 hosts (e.g., host 404-1 through host 404-32) are also fully connected to the other 8 shared datastores (shared shared DS-[1-8] 416-1), and each host also has one local datastore (e.g., local DS-1 420-1 and local DS-32 420-32).
In paragraph [0031] line 5, DCG-33 is missing the corresponding reference character 418-33.
In paragraph [0038] lines 2-4, the sentence “The system 522 can include a database 646 and/or a number of engines, for example interface engine 648 and/or creation engine 650, and can be in communication with the database 646 via a communication link” seems to be copied from another application, and not edited to correspond to the instant application. The sentence should say something like “The system 522 can include a database 524 and engines 526-532.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 lines 8-9, “the respective suitable hosts” lacks antecedent basis. To fix the issue, Examiner recommends changing “the respective suitable hosts” to “a set of respective suitable hosts, the set including the determined respective suitable host,”.
In claim 1 line 9, “the respective suitable datastores” lacks antecedent basis. To fix the issue, Examiner recommends changing “the respective suitable datastores” to “a set of respective suitable datastores, the set including the determined respective suitable datastore”.
In claim 8 lines 10-11, “the respective suitable hosts” lacks antecedent basis. To fix the issue, Examiner recommends changing “the respective suitable hosts” to “a set of respective suitable hosts, the set including the determined respective suitable host,”.
In claim 8 line 11, “the respective suitable datastores” lacks antecedent basis. To fix the issue, Examiner recommends changing “the respective suitable datastores” to “a set of respective suitable datastores, the set including the determined respective suitable datastore”.
In claim 15 lines 10-11, “the respective suitable hosts” lacks antecedent basis. To fix the issue, Examiner recommends changing “the respective suitable hosts” to “a set of respective suitable hosts, the set including the determined respective suitable host,”.
In claim 15 line 11, “the respective suitable datastores” lacks antecedent basis. To fix the issue, Examiner recommends changing “the respective suitable datastores” to “a set of respective suitable datastores, the set including the determined respective suitable datastore”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The term “engine” is used in claim 15 in connection with:
“request engine” in claim 15 line 2,
“DCG engine” in claim 15 line 5,
“host-datastore engine” in claim 15 line 7, and
“placement engine” in claim 15 line 10.
The term is defined in the specification as follows:
As used herein, an "engine" can include program instructions and/or hardware, but at least includes hardware. Hardware is a physical component of a machine that enables it to perform a function. Examples of hardware can include a processing resource, a memory resource, a logic gate, an application specific integrated circuit, a field programmable gate array, etc.
(Specification [0038] lines 7-9]).
Engine is defined as hardware + instructions or just hardware, which avoids “software per se” interpretations that could lead to a rejection under 35 U.S.C 101.
However, the terms “engine” and/or “hardware” are still generic terminology with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(f). MPEP 2181 notes:
Even in the face of this presumption, the examiner should nonetheless consider whether the presumption is overcome. The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) does not apply to a claim limitation that does not use the term "means" is overcome when "the claim term fails to 'recite sufficiently definite structure' or else recites 'function without reciting sufficient structure for performing that function.'" Williamson, 792 F.3d at 1349, 115 USPQ2d at 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (en banc) (quoting Watts v. XL Systems, Inc., 232 F.3d 877, 880, 56 USPQ2d 1836, 1838 (Fed. Cir. 2000); see also Personalized Media Communications, LLC v. International Trade Commission, 161 F. 3d 696, 704, 48 USPQ2d 1880, 1887 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
(see MPEP 2181(I)).
Here, “hardware” is structure, but it does not meet the requirement of “sufficiently definite structure to perform the claimed function”. Therefore a 35 U.S.C 112(f) analysis is further required.
Claim Interpretation 35 U.S.C. 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claim 15 line 2, the phrase “a request engine configured to receive...” requires a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation. Under (A), “engine” is a generic term when considered with the definition provided by the specification (Specification [0038]) because hardware is not “sufficiently definite structure”; under (B), the language “configured to receive” is functional language, and under (C) the limitation is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Therefore, this claim will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to include: “Examples of hardware can include a processing resource, a memory resource, a logic gate, an application specific integrated circuit, a field programmable gate array, etc.”, (Specification [0038] line 9-11). For the functional limitation “to receive” an additional algorithm is not necessary, (see MPEP 2181(II)(B): “Examples of such coextensive functions are ‘receiving’ data, ‘storing’ data, and ‘processing’ data—the only three functions on which the Katz court vacated the district court’s decision and remanded for the district court to determine whether disclosure of a microprocessor was sufficient." 785 F.3d at 622, 114 USPQ2d at 1714.”).
In claim 15 line 5, the phrase “a DCH engine configured to define...” requires a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation. Under (A), “engine” is a generic term when considered with the definition provided by the specification (Specification [0038]) because hardware is not “sufficiently definite structure”; under (B), the language “configured to define” is functional language, and under (C) the limitation is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Therefore, this claim will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to include: “Examples of hardware can include a processing resource, a memory resource, a logic gate, an application specific integrated circuit, a field programmable gate array, etc.”, (Specification [0038] line 9-11). For the functional limitation “to define” an additional algorithm is necessary, but not provided by the specification (see MPEP 2181(II)(B)). Therefore, this limitation is indefinite. See below for the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection.
In claim 15 line 7, the phrase “a host-datastore engine configured to ... determine a respective suitable host, and determine a respective suitable datastore...” requires a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation. Under (A), “engine” is a generic term when considered with the definition provided by the specification (Specification [0038]) because hardware is not “sufficiently definite structure”; under (B), the language “configured to determine... and determine...” is functional language, and under (C) the limitation is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Therefore, this claim will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to include: “Examples of hardware can include a processing resource, a memory resource, a logic gate, an application specific integrated circuit, a field programmable gate array, etc.”, (Specification [0038] line 9-11). For the functional limitation “to determine...” an additional algorithm is necessary, but not provided by the specification (see MPEP 2181(II)(B)). Therefore, this limitation is indefinite. See below for the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection.
In claim 15 line 10 , the phrase “a placement engine configured to determine a placement host and placement datastore...” requires a 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation. Under (A), “engine” is a generic term when considered with the definition provided by the specification (Specification [0038]) because hardware is not “sufficiently definite structure”; under (B), the language “configured to determine” is functional language, and under (C) the limitation is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Therefore, this claim will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to include: “Examples of hardware can include a processing resource, a memory resource, a logic gate, an application specific integrated circuit, a field programmable gate array, etc.”, (Specification [0038] line 9-11). For the functional limitation “to determine” an additional algorithm is necessary, and provided by the specification. Therefore, this limitation will be interpreted as further including the elements of the specification: (see Specification [0032]: “The xDRS placement algorithm can perform two steps based on the new DCG construction. First, in each DCG, run DRS to get the best host and run Storage DRS to get the best datastore. Due to fully connected property of DCG, the best host and best datastore is guaranteed to be connected. Second, xDRS returns the best pair of <host, datastore>among all DCGs. To place a VCI in single DCG, the algorithm complexity is O(m + n), mis the number of hosts and n is the number of datastores in the cluster. To cover all DCG groups, the overall algorithm complexity is O(M + N).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 15, the claim limitations “a DCH engine” and “a host-datastore engine” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Here, the structure described in the specification does not perform the entire function in the claim because there are no algorithms connected to the generic computer parts that show how to perform the claimed functions. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
With respect to claims 16-20, these claims are dependent on claim 15, and are rejected for incorporating by reference the indefinite language of claim 15.
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, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
(See MPEP 2106).
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, (see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)). Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes, (see MEPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
During examination, examiners should apply the same eligibility analysis to all claims regardless of the number of exceptions recited therein. Unless it is clear that a claim recites distinct exceptions, such as a law of nature and an abstract idea, care should be taken not to parse the claim into multiple exceptions, particularly in claims involving abstract ideas. Accordingly, if possible examiners should treat the claim for Prong Two and Step 2B purposes as containing a single judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.04(II)(B).
With respect to claim 1, applying step 1, the preamble of claim 1 claims a method so this claim falls within the statutory category of a process. In order to apply step 2A, a recitation of claim 1 is copied below. The limitations of the claim that describe an abstract idea are bolded.
A method, comprising:
receiving a request to place a virtual computing instance (VCI) in a cluster that includes a plurality of hosts and a plurality of datastores;
defining a plurality of datastore connectivity groups (DCGs) within the cluster, wherein, in each DCG, each host is fully connected and each datastore is fully connected;
determining a respective suitable host within each of the plurality of DCGs;
determining a respective suitable datastore within each of the plurality of DCGs; and
determining a placement host and a placement datastore from among the respective suitable hosts and the respective suitable datastores.
Under step 2A prong one, the limitations “defining a plurality of datastore connectivity groups (DCGs) within the cluster, wherein, in each DCG, each host is fully connected and each datastore is fully connected; determining a respective suitable host within each of the plurality of DCGs; determining a respective suitable datastore within each of the plurality of DCGs; and determining a placement host and a placement datastore from among the respective suitable hosts and the respective suitable datastores” have been determined by the courts to be mental processes because such language (i.e., defining, determining, processing, and analyzing) can practically be performed in the human mind. For example:
a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
An application program interface for extracting and processing information from a diversity of types of hard copy documents – Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1345, 113 USPQ2d at 1356.
(see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Under step 2A prong two, the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. Here, the claim recites one additional limitation: (1) receiving a request to place a virtual computing instance (VCI) in a cluster that includes a plurality of hosts and a plurality of datastores.
The only additional limitation falls within the category of insignificant extra-solution activity because this is mere data gathering. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing MPEP 2106.05(g), example (iv) - Obtaining information about transactions. As noted above, the limitations of defining… and determining... are mental processes. Similar to obtaining information about transactions in order to perform an abstract idea, merely receiving information as input in order to perform an abstract idea does not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea.
If the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application, then it would be patent eligible. Here, the claim is generally linked to virtualization technology and placing a workload on host and corresponding datastore in a physical computer cluster, (see Specification [0012]-[0014]), but the claim does not provide any specific details connecting the mental process to the virtualization process. See MPEP 2106.04(d) referencing 2106.05(h).
Moving on to step 2B of the analysis, Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that is beyond the judicial exceptions. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same. The limitations that were determined to be extra-solution activity will require further analysis.
The only additional limitation “receiving a request to place a virtual computing instance (VCI) in a cluster that includes a plurality of hosts and a plurality of datastores” is not significantly more because the courts have found similar limitations to not be significantly more, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) example (i) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network.
After reviewing the specification and looking at the claim as a whole, there is no indication that this claim is directed to a combination of known elements arranged or organized in an unconventional manner. As drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, generic computer components may be arranged in the conventional manner to perform the claimed limitations. Therefore, looking at the claim as an ordered combination, the limitations do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
For the foregoing reasons, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
With respect to claim 3, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) further recite(s): wherein the method includes executing a distributed resource scheduler (DRS) to determine the respective suitable host within each of the plurality of DCGs. The limitation is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), see examples of claims that recite mental processes, third bullet - a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind. As drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation is comparing known information to determine a “suitable host”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional limitations outside of the abstract idea other than what has already been considered in claim 1. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason. For the foregoing reasons, claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
With respect to claim 4, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) further recite(s): wherein the method includes executing a storage DRS to determine the respective suitable datastore within each of the plurality of DCGs. The limitation is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), see examples of claims that recite mental processes, third bullet - a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind. As drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation is comparing known information to determine a “suitable datastore”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional limitations outside of the abstract idea other than what has already been considered in claim 1. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason. For the foregoing reasons, claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
With respect to claim 5, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) further recite(s): wherein the method includes executing a set of workload placement instructions to determine the placement host and the placement datastore from among the respective suitable hosts and the respective suitable datastores. The limitation is an abstract idea because it is directed to a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), see examples of claims that recite mental processes, third bullet - a claim to collecting and comparing known information (claim 1), which are steps that can be practically performed in the human mind. As drafted and under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation is comparing known information to determine a “placement host and the placement datastore”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional limitations outside of the abstract idea other than what has already been considered in claim 1. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason. For the foregoing reasons, claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
With respect to claim 6, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) further recite(s): wherein, for any of the plurality of DCGs, each host of the DCG is connected to a same set of datastores in the DCG as any other host in the DCG. The limitation is further modifying the “defining a plurality of DCGs” limitation of claim 1. In that context, placing further limitations on how a DCG is defined, does not change the mental process nature of the limitation. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional limitations outside of the abstract idea other than what has already been considered in claim 1. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason. For the foregoing reasons, claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
With respect to claim 7, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) further recite(s): wherein defining the plurality of DCGs includes defining a DCG including a host that is not connected to any datastore. The limitation is further modifying the “defining a plurality of DCGs” limitation of claim 1. In that context, placing further limitations on how a DCG is defined, does not change the mental process nature of the limitation. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no additional limitations outside of the abstract idea other than what has already been considered in claim 1. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason. For the foregoing reasons, claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, as being directed to patent ineligible subject matter.
With respect to claim 8, applying step 1, the preamble of claim 8 claims a CRM so this claim falls within the statutory category of a manufacture.
Regarding the regarding the rest of the analysis, incorporating the rejection of claim 1, claim 8 is rejected for substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 10, incorporating the rejection of claim 8 and claim 3, claim 10 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 11, incorporating the rejection of claim 8 and claim 4, claim 11 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 12, incorporating the rejection of claim 8 and claim 5, claim 12 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 13, incorporating the rejection of claim 8 and claim 6, claim 13 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 14, incorporating the rejection of claim 8 and claim 7, claim 14 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 15, applying step 1, the preamble of claim 15 claims a system so this claim falls within the statutory category of a machine.
Regarding the regarding the rest of the analysis, incorporating the rejection of claim 1, claim 15 is rejected for substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 17, incorporating the rejection of claim 15 and claim 3, claim 17 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 18, incorporating the rejection of claim 15 and claim 4, claim 18 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 19, incorporating the rejection of claim 15 and claim 5, claim 19 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 20, incorporating the rejection of claim 15 and claim 7, claim 20 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by “Improving Application Performance in the Emerging Hyper-converged Infrastructure” (2019-Wen)
With respect to claim 1, Wen teaches A method, comprising (see method, [page 49 paragraph 2]-[page 50 paragraph 1]; the sentence "We only check the storage that can be accessed by the filtered nodes", [page 49 paragraph 2 lines 12-13] is in reference to the Discovery module which maintains a map of said information, introduced first at [page 48 paragraph 2]; described further in section 3.3.3, [page 51 paragraph 3]-[page 52 paragraph 1]; and when the structure and method are fully introduced, more fully described in connection with the method in section "3.4 Implementation", [page 55 paragraph 6]-[page 56 paragraph 2]; see Table 3.2 for example worker-storage couplings, [page 57]): receiving a request to place a virtual computing instance (VCI) in a cluster that includes a plurality of hosts and a plurality of datastores (after receiving a scheduling request, the K8sES-scheduler, [page 47 paragraph 3 line 1]; the request is in reference to a VCI called a "pod" in Kubernetes, see [page 40 paragraph 1 lines 11-13]; the scheduling request is to assign resources from the cluster in the right panel of FIG. 3.1, which shows a plurality of hosts (labeled as hosts) and a plurality of data stores labeled with (cylinders), [page 47]); defining a plurality of datastore connectivity groups (DCGs) within the cluster (the DCGs are the records/rows in the map: “The k8sES-scheduler receives the storage configuration map from the Discovery and Monitor modules. It maintains the map by recording the currently available resources of each storage device”, [page 56 paragraph 2 lines 1-3]; when a node joins the cluster, it must register with the Discovery module to report its available storage resources, [page 52 paragraph 1 lines 2-4]; this information is maintained within a data structure, and shared with the scheduler, [page 56 paragraph 1 lines 11-12]; see Table 3.2 for example worker-storage couplings, [page 57]; note that in the later steps, this map is necessary for the predicate step and the priority step, where these metrics are used), wherein, in each DCG, each host is fully connected and each datastore is fully connected (each DCG is each record in the map of the node coupled with its available storage resources, as noted above, see [page 52 paragraph 1 lines 2-4], [page 56 paragraph 1 lines 11-12], and [page 56 paragraph 2 lines 1-3]; "fully connected" is in the context of "hyper-convergence infrastructure" see [Abstract] and "introduction" generally, but specifically, [page 3 paragraph 3 lines 19-22], "Figure 1.1 highlights these three topics in the emerging hyper-converged infrastructure. Users run their applications in VMs or containers. Applications may reside on a single host or across multiple hosts. Applications access data through data center network or Internet"; where FIG. 1.1 shows the physical hardware, where some hosts are connected to data center storage servers, and some hosts are connected to internet storage servers, [page 4]; on the right side of FIG. 3.1, the "managed cluster" has local storages attached to each host shown as little cylinders, and a big shared storage at the bottom shown as a big cylinder, [page 47]); determining a respective suitable host within each of the plurality of DCGs (In the predicate step, the scheduler will first filter a list of node candidates which can meet all node related requirements, [page 49 paragraph 2 lines 9-10], “suitable” means filtered); determining a respective suitable datastore within each of the plurality of DCGs (Then, we check the storage predicates. We only check the storage that can be accessed by the filtered nodes, [page 49 paragraph 2 lines 11-13], “suitable” means filtered); and determining a placement host and a placement datastore from among the respective suitable hosts and the respective suitable datastores (In the priority step, we calculate scores for each filtered node and storage device based on the node priority rules and storage priority rules... [page 49 paragraph 2 lines 13-17]; After calculating the score of a node and the scores of its accessible storage, we pick the storage with the highest score and add its score to the score of the node. The final decision selects the node that has the highest combined score and then selects the storage with the highest score on that node, [page 50 paragraph 1 lines 1-4]).
With respect to claim 2, Wen teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as noted above. Wen further teaches wherein the method includes placing the VCI with the placement host and the placement datastore (The decision tuple <Node; Storage> is then sent to the kubelet on the selected node where it will launch the pod on Node and create the volume on Storage).
With respect to claim 3, Wen teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as noted above. Wen further teaches wherein the method includes executing a distributed resource scheduler (DRS) to determine the respective suitable host within each of the plurality of DCGs (In k8sES-scheduler..., [page 49 paragraph 2 line 1], where executing refers to the scheduler performing the predicate step with respect to the available hosts/nodes, to get a filtered list of suitable hosts: “In the predicate step, the scheduler will first filter a list of node candidates which can meet all node related requirements”, [page 49 paragraph 2 lines 9-10]; each record of a host is its own DCG group because the host defines what storage is attached in the map: see Table 3.2 for example worker-storage couplings, [page 57]; The k8sES-scheduler receives the storage configuration map from the Discovery and Monitor modules. It maintains the map by recording the currently available resources of each storage device, [page 56 paragraph 2 lines 1-3]).
With respect to claim 4, Wen teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as noted above. Wen further teaches wherein the method includes executing a storage DRS to determine the respective suitable datastore within each of the plurality of DCGs (In k8sES-scheduler..., [page 49 paragraph 2 line 1], where executing refers to the scheduler performing the predicate step with respect to the available storage volumes/datastores, to get a filtered list of suitable datastores, “In the predicate step, ... Then, we check the storage predicates. We only check the storage that can be accessed by the filtered nodes”, [page 49 paragraph 2 lines 9-11]; each record of a host is its own DCG group because the host defines what storage is attached in the map: see Table 3.2 for example worker-storage couplings, [page 57]; The k8sES-scheduler receives the storage configuration map from the Discovery and Monitor modules. It maintains the map by recording the currently available resources of each storage device, [page 56 paragraph 2 lines 1-3]).
With respect to claim 5, Wen teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as noted above. Wen further teaches wherein the method includes executing a set of workload placement instructions to determine the placement host and the placement datastore from among the respective suitable hosts and the respective suitable datastores (In k8sES-scheduler..., [page 49 paragraph 2 line 1], where executing refers to the scheduler performing two instructions on the filtered lists that represent the suitable hosts and the suitable data stores: the priority step and the select step, “In the priority step, we calculate scores for each filtered node and storage device based on the node priority rules and storage priority rules. In the final select step...”, [page 49 paragraph 2 lines 13-17]; After calculating the score of a node and the scores of its accessible storage, we pick the storage with the highest score and add its score to the score of the node. The final decision selects the node that has the highest combined score and then selects the storage with the highest score on that node, [page 50 paragraph 1 lines 1-4]).
With respect to claim 6, Wen teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as noted above. Wen further teaches wherein, for any of the plurality of DCGs, each host of the DCG is connected to a same set of datastores in the DCG as any other host in the DCG (when a node joins the cluster, it must register with the Discovery module to report its available storage resources, [page 52 paragraph 1 lines 2-4]; this information is maintained within a data structure, and shared with the scheduler, [page 56 paragraph 1 lines 11-12]; see Table 3.2 for example worker-storage couplings, [page 57]; The k8sES-scheduler receives the storage configuration map from the Discovery and Monitor modules. It maintains the map by recording the currently available resources of each storage device, [page 56 paragraph 2 lines 1-3]; note that in the later steps, this map is necessary for the predicate step and the priority step, where these metrics are used; in the example, each node is allocated with different capabilities/resources, [page 57 paragraph 2 lines 7-9], so each node paired with its storage resources is its own DCG, which is the focus of this reference; if storage resources are not heterogeneous, the storage resources can be classified into storage classes, [page 41 paragraph 1 lines 8-10]; in the older way, each Persistent volume (PV) is provisioned, [page 44 paragraph 2 line 9]; PV objects represent the PVs, and a storage class can be assigned to each PV, see explanation [page 44 paragraph 2 lines 5-15]; with this specific method, [page 45 paragraph 2]; the disclosed invention works with StorageClass system, [page 47 paragraph 2 lines 5-9], so user can request scheduling based on StorageClass or storage requirements).
With respect to claim 7, Wen teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, as noted above. Wen further teaches wherein defining the plurality of DCGs includes defining a DCG including a host that is not connected to any datastore (the default configuration for Kubernetes is “stateless”, meaning no storage class, [page 40 paragraph 2 line 1], “If users want to specify storage requirements, they can refer to a StorageClass(SC) which they think can meet their storage requirements”, [page 41 paragraph 1 lines 6-7], the contrapositive, not referring to a storage class if no storage requirements is also true; such a request can be made by setting x to 0 in the manifest, see FIG. 3.2, [page 48]; or by not including StorageClass or requirements at all, (i.e. only including computation, memory, and non-resource requirements, [page 47 paragraph 3 line 3]).
With respect to claim 8, Wen teaches A non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to (two physical servers... having 64 GB of memory, used to evaluate the method described, [page 56 paragraph 2 lines 1-5]; see method, [page 49 paragraph 2]-[page 50 paragraph 1]; the sentence "We only check the storage that can be accessed by the filtered nodes", [page 49 paragraph 2 lines 12-13] is in reference to the Discovery module which maintains a map of said information, introduced first at [page 48 paragraph 2]; described further in section 3.3.3, [page 51 paragraph 3]-[page 52 paragraph 1]; and when the structure and method are fully introduced, more fully described in connection with the method in section "3.4 Implementation", [page 55 paragraph 6]-[page 56 paragraph 2]; see Table 3.2 for example worker-storage couplings, [page 57]).
With regards to the rest of claim 8, incorporating the rejection of claim 1, claim 8 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 9, incorporating the rejection of claim 8 and claim 2, claim 9 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 10, incorporating the rejection of claim 8 and claim 3, claim 10 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 11, incorporating the rejection of claim 8 and claim 4, claim 11 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 12, incorporating the rejection of claim 8 and claim 5, claim 12 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 13, incorporating the rejection of claim 8 and claim 6, claim 13 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 14, incorporating the rejection of claim 8 and claim 7, claim 14 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 15, Wen teaches A system, comprising (two physical servers... used to evaluate the method described, [page 56 paragraph 2 lines 1-5]; see method, [page 49 paragraph 2]-[page 50 paragraph 1]; the sentence "We only check the storage that can be accessed by the filtered nodes", [page 49 paragraph 2 lines 12-13] is in reference to the Discovery module which maintains a map of said information, introduced first at [page 48 paragraph 2]; described further in section 3.3.3, [page 51 paragraph 3]-[page 52 paragraph 1]; and when the structure and method are fully introduced, more fully described in connection with the method in section "3.4 Implementation", [page 55 paragraph 6]-[page 56 paragraph 2]; see Table 3.2 for example worker-storage couplings, [page 57]): a request engine configured to (Intel Xeon CPU used to execute the method described, [page 56 paragraph 2 lines 1-5]) ...; a DCG engine configured to... (Intel Xeon CPU used to execute the method described, [page 56 paragraph 2 lines 1-5]); a host-datastore engine configured to... (Intel Xeon CPU used to execute the method described, [page 56 paragraph 2 lines 1-5]); and a placement engine configured to ... (Intel Xeon CPU used to execute the method described, [page 56 paragraph 2 lines 1-5]).
With regards to the rest of claim 15, incorporating the rejection of claim 1, claim 8 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 16, incorporating the rejection of claim 15 and claim 2, claim 16 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 17, incorporating the rejection of claim 15 and claim 3, claim 17 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 18, incorporating the rejection of claim 15 and claim 4, claim 18 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 19, incorporating the rejection of claim 15 and claim 5, claim 19 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
With respect to claim 20, incorporating the rejection of claim 15 and claim 7, claim 20 is rejected for a substantially similar rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 8,843,935 B2 (Hegdal) - The present invention is a system and method that performs disk migration in a virtual machine environment. The present invention quickly and easily migrates a virtual machine from one host to another thus improving flexibility and efficiency in a virtual machine environment for "load balancing" systems, performing hardware or software upgrades, handling disaster recovery, and so on. Certain of the embodiments are specifically directed to providing a mechanism for migrating the disk state along with the device and memory states, where the disk data resides in a remotely located storage device that is common to multiple host computer systems in a virtual machine environment. The virtual machine migration process, which includes disk data migration, occurs without the user's awareness and, therefore, without the user's experiencing any noticeable interruption, [Abstract].
US 20160342441 A1 (Beveridge) - Methods, computer-readable storage medium, and systems described herein facilitate provisioning a virtual desktop infrastructure having virtual shared storage. A provisioning manager receives a desktop pool type and provisions virtual shared storage among a cluster of hosts. The provisioning manager configures the virtual shared storage based on the desktop pool type and provisions at least one virtual machine to each host in the cluster of hosts. The provisioning manager optimizes the virtual shared storage by receiving a storage performance benchmark from each host and performing an optimization on the cluster of hosts if the storage performance benchmark results do not meet a threshold within a pre-defined tolerance, Abstract].
“Cluster Aware Storage Resource Provision In A Data Center” (2010-Agarwala) - Once the clusters and cluster-resource-groups are set up, Casper configures the data path from the storage LUN to the cluster nodes. This is done by applying a series of policies that ensures that there is no single point of failure in the data path. Diagrams above show fiber channel fabric configuration policies under different scenarios, [page 654 paragraph 1].
“IOFlow: A Software-Defined Storage Architecture” (2013-Thereska) - This paper proposes IOFlow, an architecture that enables e2e policies in data centers. The policies specify the treatment of IO flows from virtual machines to shared storage. Flows are named using a four-tuple comprising human-friendly high-level identifiers {VMs, operations, files, shares}. For example, if a tenant with 100 VMs that perform data mining on files in “dataset A” is to be given high priority, the policy can be written as {VM 1-100, *, *, “dataset A”} -> High Priority, [page 182 col 2 paragraph 3]; see also FIG. 6 showing shares refer to storage:
PNG
media_image1.png
238
358
media_image1.png
Greyscale
,
[page 188].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL MILLER whose telephone number is (408) 918-7548. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 11am to 5pm (PT).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Young, can be reached at telephone number (571) 270-3180. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/D.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2187
/KEVIN L YOUNG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2194