CTNF 18/291,727 CTNF 86105 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-8 are currently pending and have been examined. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/24/2024 has been considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Form PTO-1449 is signed and attached hereto. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 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. 07-30-05 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) 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): (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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), 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), 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: “ an information and communication technology (ICT) instrument monitoring device configured to …” in claim 5. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AlA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim 5 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AlA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above in 112(f) interpretation for the limitation “an information and communication technology (ICT) instrument monitoring device”, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2181(II)(B) “When a claim containing a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, it will also lack written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)’. 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. 07-34-01 Claim 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claim limitation “ an information and communication technology (ICT) instrument monitoring device ” in claim 5 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. A review of the specification [par. 0043-0045] finds no support for the structure of the limitation that performs the functions. Examiner further notes that for computer-implemented technologies, structural support may be derived from a “computer” + “algorithm”, see MPEP § 2181, however, Examiner finds no support in the specification for a specific definite structure nor a general-purpose processor/computer programmed to carry out an algorithm corresponding the functions performed by the limitation which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112 (f), 07-34-23 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below. Step 1: Claims 1-4 are directed to a migration destination determination apparatus comprising memory and processor and fall within the statutory category of machines; clam 5 is directed to a migration destination determination system and falls within the statutory category of machines; claim 6 is directed to a physical server and falls within the statutory category of machines; claim 7 is directed to method and fall within the statutory category of processes; Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes. In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Step 2A Prong 1: Claims 1 and 7 : The limitations of “determine, based on a similarity between a variation pattern in resource usage of the virtual machine in an area of a migration source and a variation pattern in resource usage of a physical server in another area, the physical server as a migration destination of the virtual machine” and “calculate, using a resource value associated with information identifying at least one of the virtual machine and the physical server in a predetermined time interval, a degree of association indicating a degree to which the information and the variation pattern in the resource usage of the at least one of the virtual machine and the physical server are associated with each other, wherein the processor is configured to determine the similarity using the degree of association”, and similar limitations of claim 7, which as drafted is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think, observe and evaluate and mentally determine a physical servers as migration destination based on a similarity between a variation patterns in resource usage information of a virtual machine and the physical server. Further, a person can think, observe and evaluate and mentally calculate a degree of association indicating a degree to which an information and variation patterns in resource usage of a virtual machine and a physical server are associated. Additionally, the “calculating a degree of association” maybe interpreted as a mathematical calculation which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. Further, a person can think, observe and evaluate and mentally determine a similarity based on the degree of association. Therefore, Yes, claims 1 and 7 recite judicial exceptions. The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception. Step 2A Prong 2: Claims 1 and 7 : The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. I n particular, the claim recites the following additional elements – “ a memory ”, “ a processor ” (Claim 1), which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. The claims do not recite additional elements that integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 1 and 7 are directed to an abstract idea. After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that the claims 1 and 7 not only recite a judicial exception but that the claims are directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application. Step 2B: Claims 1 and 7 : The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea. Therefore, “ Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With regard to claim 2, recites additional abstract idea “generate, from the resource amount logs, a three-dimensional array having a time interval axis, a resource position axis, and a resource item axis, with resource values as elements” and “calculate a degree of association indicating a degree to which items of respective axes and each of the variation patterns are associated with each other from the three-dimensional array”, which as drafted is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate resource amount logs and mentally generate a three-dimensional array having a time interval axis, a resource position axis, and a resource item axis with resource value as elements. Further, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate and mentally calculate a degree of association indicating a degree of to which items of respective axes and variations patterns are associated with each other. The claim recites the additional elements “to extract one or more variation patterns in resource usage from resource amount logs acquired from a plurality of physical servers”, which is merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity is Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC), see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. With regard to claim 3, recites additional abstract idea “wherein, in a case where a similarity of variation patterns between the virtual machine and a physical server is determined to be low based on the degree of association between the virtual machine and each of the variation patterns and the degree of association between the physical server and each of the variation patterns, the processor is configured to determine the physical server as one of migration destination candidates”, which as drafted is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate and mentally determine a physical server as one of migration determination candidates based on a similarity of variation patterns between the virtual machine and a physical server determined to be low based on the degree of association between the virtual machine and each of the variation patterns and the degree of association between the physical server and each of the variation patterns. The claim does not have additional elements that integrated into practical application or amount to significantly more. With regard to claim 4, recites the additional abstract idea “determine a physical server as the migration destination from one or more physical servers of the migration destination candidates based on a remaining resource amount in the physical servers of the migration destination candidates and the resource usage of the virtual machine”, which as drafted is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate a remaining resource amount in physical servers of a migration destination candidates and a resource usage of the virtual machine, and mentally determine a physical server as a migration destination from the one or more physical servers. The claim does not have additional elements that integrated into practical application or amount to significantly more. With regards to claim 5 recites subject matter similar to that of claims 1 directed to a migration destination determination system and is rejected under the same rationale. Claim 5 further recites additional elements “to collect information on the resource usage from the physical server”, which is merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity is Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC), see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. With regards to claim 6, recites subject matter similar to that of claims 1 directed to a migration destination determination physical server and is rejected under the same rationale. Claim 6, further recites the additional elements “a memory” and “a processor coupled to the memory” which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions merely being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Claim 6, recites additional elements “receive information on the migration destination of the virtual machine determined by the migration destination determination apparatus and migrate the virtual machine to the migration destination” which is merely a recitation of insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Further, the insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity is Well-Understood, Routine, and Conventional (WURC), see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) “The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. With regards to claim 8, recites subject matter similar to that of claims 7 directed to a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium and is rejected under the same rationale. The claim recites the additional element “a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium” which is merely recitations of generic computing components and functions merely being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application nor amount to significantly more. Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, Claims 1-8 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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 of this title, 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20210182117 A1) in view of Fu et al. “Virtual machine selection and placement for dynamic consolidation in Cloud computing environment” . As per claim 1, Chen teaches the invention substantially as claimed including a migration destination determination apparatus configured to determine a physical server as a migration destination of a virtual machine (par. 101 To determine which host device to which to migrate), the migration destination determination apparatus comprising: a memory (Fig. 2, Memory 122, 128); and a processor (Fig. Processor 103 coupled to Memory 122, 128) coupled to the memory and configured to: determine, based on a similarity between a variation pattern in resource usage of the virtual machine in an area of a migration source and a variation pattern in resource usage of a physical server in another area, the physical server as a migration destination of the virtual machine (par. 0101 To determine which host device to which to migrate the removed service(s), RA process 10 may identify all the host devices that currently have enough room for this service … Similarly as discussed above, RA process 10 may determine the cosine correlation of the service to be removed to the services on the potential host device to receive that service, where the host device with the services having the smallest correlation (similarity) to the service to be migrated to that host device may be selected to receive the migrated service; par. 0086 RA process 10 may generate a service usage correlation matrix (e.g., the cosine correlation for each service) according to the historical data to better decide the placement … on the host devices. As an example, highly correlated (similar) services are better not to be put together on the same host device; par. 0048 services may include, but are not limited to … applications, virtual machines, databases, software). Chen does not expressly disclose: calculate, using a resource value associated with information identifying at least one of the virtual machine and the physical server in a predetermined time interval, a degree of association indicating a degree to which the information and the variation pattern in the resource usage of the at least one of the virtual machine and the physical server are associated with each other, wherein the processor is configured to determine the similarity using the degree of association . However, Fu teaches: calculate, using a resource value associated with information identifying at least one of the virtual machine and the physical server in a predetermined time interval, a degree of association indicating a degree to which the information and the variation pattern in the resource usage of the at least one of the virtual machine and the physical server are associated with each other, wherein the processor is configured to determine the similarity using the degree of association (page 326, left column, lines 32-44 The VMs that need to be migrated are acquired by the implementation of the VM selection policy in Section 4, and then we need a policy to select in which host to place the VMs. One method used in [11] is the power aware best fit decreasing (PABFD). It allocates each VM to a host that provides the least increase of power consumption due to this allocation … we propose a new policy called the minimum correlation coefficient (MCC). The correlation coefficient is used to represent the degree of association between a chosen VM and the target host … A VM will be migrated to a host with the minimum correlation coefficient to avoid performance degradation on other VMs. It is noted that similarity is determined based on the correlation coefficient ; pg. 326, right column, lines 20-30 Step 4 Calculate the correlation coefficient [degree of association] between the VM and each host in set H according to Eq. (1): […] The sign u and U refer to the current CPU utilization [resource value] of the chosen VM j and the host Hi, respectively 1/p sum Uk and 1/p sum Util[k] refer to the respective average CPU utilization of the VM j and the host H i during the past p time slices [time intervals]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the technique of calculating a degree of association between a virtual machine and a host based on current CPU utilization for time intervals of Fu with the system and method of Chen resulting in a system and method which provides for calculating between a virtual machine and a host based on current CPU utilization for time intervals as in Fu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the purpose of improved virtual machine selection policy called MP to reduce the SLA violation rate that maintains a low power consumption (pg. 323, left column, lines 31-33). Further, it would provide for selecting the most optimal host to migrate/place a virtual machine. As per claim 7, it is a migration destination determination method having similar limitations as claim 1. Thus, claim 7 ais rejected for the same rationale as claim 1. As per claim 8, it is a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having similar limitations as claim 7. Thus, claim 8 ais rejected for the same rationale as claim 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Fu, further inv view of Kantamneni et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20220413935 A1), and further in view of Komai et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20220247716 A1) . As per claim 2, Fu further teaches: calculate a degree of association indicating a degree to which items … and each of the variation patterns are associated with each other (pg. 326, right column, lines 13-30 The CPU utilization of the m VMs are collected during p time slices and values are stored in the matrix […] where ujk refers to the CPU utilization of VM j on host Hi during time slice k. Step 3 Let the array Utili[k] denote the CPU utilization of host H i at time slice k […] Step 4 Calculate the correlation coefficient [degree of association] between the VM and each host in set H according to Eq. (1): […] The sign u and U refer to the current CPU utilization [resource value] of the chosen VM j and the host Hi, respectively 1/p sum Uk and 1/p sum Util[k] refer to the respective average CPU utilization of the VM j and the host Hi during the past p time slices [time intervals]). Chen and Fu do not expressly teach: the processor is configured to extract one or more variation patterns in resource usage from resource amount logs acquired from a plurality of physical servers . However, Kantamneni teaches: the processor is configured to extract one or more variation patterns in resource usage from resource amount logs acquired from a plurality of physical servers (par. 0052 For example, the scaling recommendation engine 120 may access the usage metrics stored on usage metrics database 130 [resource amount log] and may use one or more of a rule-based platform … and/or a trained machine learning model … to extract patterns of hardware resource usage as a function of time). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the technique of extracting patterns of hardware resource usage from a database of Kantamneni with the system and method of Chen and Fu resulting in a system and method which provides for extracting patterns of resource usage acquired from servers as in Kantamneni. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the purpose of proactively scale available resources and avoid demand outstripping available resources (0064). Chen, Fu and Kantamneni do not expressly disclose: the processor is configured to generate, from the resource amount logs, a three-dimensional array having a time interval axis, a resource position axis, and a resource item axis, with resource values as elements . However, Komai teaches: he processor is configured to generate, from the resource amount logs, a three-dimensional array having a time interval axis, a resource position axis, and a resource item axis, with resource values as elements (par. 0045 generates (calculates) a three-dimensional array X (a statistic for each combination of a user ID, a service name, and a time period) that represents a relationship between a user ID, a service name, and a timestamp; par. 0046 As illustrated in FIG. 6, the three-dimensional array X is data having items of each user ID, each service name, and each time period as axes. The data for each combination of items includes a statistic corresponding to the combination obtained from the set of traffic logs as elements). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the technique of providing/generating a 3-dimensional array having items of each user ID, each service name, and each time period as axes of Komai with the system and method of Chen, Fu and Kantamneni resulting in a system and method which provides for generating a 3-dimensional array having a time interval, resource position, resource item as axes as in Komai. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the purpose of enable reduction of registration information required for controlling (0010). Further, it would have provided efficiently evaluating the degree of association between a virtual machine and host simultaneously. As per claim 3, Chen further teaches: wherein, in a case where a similarity of variation patterns between the virtual machine and a physical server is determined to be low based on the degree of association between the virtual machine and each of the variation patterns and the degree of association between the physical server and each of the variation patterns, the processor is configured to determine the physical server as one of migration destination candidates (par. 0101 … where the host device with the services having the smallest correlation (similarity) to the service to be migrated to that host device may be selected to receive the migrated service). As per claim 4, Chen further teaches: wherein the processor is configured to determine a physical server as the migration destination from one or more physical servers of the migration destination candidates based on a remaining resource amount in the physical servers of the migration destination candidates and the resource usage of the virtual machine (par. 0101 RA process 10 may identify all the host devices that currently have enough room [sufficient resource remaining] for this service (such that after migration the resources of the host devices would not exceed the 70% threshold); par. 0004 The correlation of resource consumption for the plurality of services may be based upon, at least in part, historical resource consumption data [resource usage] for the plurality of services [VMs]. The host instance count may be determined based upon, at least in part, a usage threshold of at least one host device) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Fu, and further inv view of Li et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20210165681 A1) . As per claim 5, it is a migration destination determination system comprising the migration destination determination apparatus of claim 1. Thus, claim 5 is rejected for the same rationale as applied to claim 1. Chen, Kawanaka do not expressly disclose: an information and communication technology (ICT) instrument monitoring device configured to collect information on the resource usage from the physical server . However, Li teaches: information and communication technology (ICT) instrument monitoring device configured to collect information on the resource usage from the physical server (par. 0072 execution entity monitors the server in the public cloud system in real time; par. 0063 execution entity …acquires information such as the resource usage rate of the server, the system load condition, and the software and hardware operation parameters. It is noted that the execution entity performing that function of collecting may be considered as an information and communication (ICT) instrument monitoring device). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the technique of acquiring resource usage rate information of a server of Li with the system and method of Chen and Kawanaka resulting in a system and method which provides for extracting/acquiring resource usage information of a server as in Li. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the purpose of improving the service migration efficiency and the customer experience (0060) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Kawanaka, and further in view of Hirose et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20160234304 A1) . As per claim 6, Chen and Kawanaka teach the migration destination determination apparatus of claim 1. Chen further teaches a physical server (Fig. 1 and par. 0026 a computer 12) …, the physical server comprising: a memory ( Fig. 2, Non-volatile Memory 128); and a processor coupled to the memory (par. 0038 describes a computing device 100 which includes processors 103 coupled to volatile memory 122 and non-volatile Memory 128) and configured to : migrate the virtual machine to the migration destination (par. 0004 At least one service of the plurality of services may be migrated from a first host device of the plurality of host devices to a second host device of the plurality of host devices; par. 0048 services may include, but are not limited to … applications, virtual machines, databases, software). Chen and Kawanaka do not expressly disclose: receive information on the migration destination of the virtual machine determined by the migration destination determination apparatus . However, Hirose teaches: receive information on the migration destination of the virtual machine determined by the migration destination determination apparatus (par. 0183 The server #a1, when receiving the scale-out instruction, receives also information about the migration destination server and the migration target data. The server #a1, when a plurality of migration destination servers is prepared, receives information indicating which server is in an active system; par. 132 An IP address or a machine name or other equivalent information of the server apparatus 2a … e.g., IP address “101.23.11.501” is entered in the “server name” field). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the technique of receives information about the migration destination server of Hirose with the system and method of Chen and Kawanaka resulting in a system and method which provides for receiving information about the migration destination server for migrating a virtual machine as in Hirose. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination for the propose of enabling scale-out and doubling a throughput of the server side (par. 0054). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Willy W. Huaracha whose telephone number is (571)270-5510. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bradley Teets can be reached on (571) 272-3338. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /WH/ Examiner, Art Unit 2195 /Aimee Li/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2195 Application/Control Number: 18/291,727 Page 2 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/291,727 Page 3 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/291,727 Page 4 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/291,727 Page 5 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/291,727 Page 6 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/291,727 Page 7 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/291,727 Page 8 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/291,727 Page 9 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/291,727 Page 10 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/291,727 Page 11 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/291,727 Page 12 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/291,727 Page 13 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/291,727 Page 14 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/291,727 Page 15 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/291,727 Page 16 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/291,727 Page 17 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/291,727 Page 18 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/291,727 Page 19 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/291,727 Page 20 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/291,727 Page 21 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/291,727 Page 22 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/291,727 Page 23 Art Unit: 2197 Application/Control Number: 18/291,727 Page 24 Art Unit: 2197
Prosecution Insights