DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/3/25 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 12/3/25, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Torun (Patent No. US 10,440,145 B1) Col. 3 lines 29-36 which shows that when the state of computing resources changes, viewed as updated, the entry in the cache associated/related to the computer resource is invalidated where as seen in the teachings of Sharam [0046] lines 1-8, [0047] lines 1-3, [0061] lines 1-13 and [0072] lines 13-20 that shows the receiving of updates for the devices in the inventory of things, viewed as devices in the computing inventory of things/devices thus viewed that in response to receiving updates associated with computing devices in a computing inventory, the updates would result in an invalidation of a state of the computing inventory of the cache associated with the device update, Where Sharam [0024] lines 5-13, [0041] lines 1-4, [0046] lines 1-10, [0048] lines 1-8, [0049] lines 1-4, [0055] lines 1-15 and [0063] lines 1-5 discloses that additional network/state awareness data is taken into account with providing/scheduling the metered updates according to campaign/schedule/plan that decreasing the time it takes to perform the update and not affect the performance of the application, viewed as showing the delivery limiting service disruptions as a result of applying the update, where as seen above in the teachings of Torun Col. 3 lines 29-36 shows the effect of applying the update/change to computer resources will trigger the associated cache invalidation and thus together would show how schedule delivery of the updates according to the update plan, the delivery limiting a service disruption as a result of the invalidation/update.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/3/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that (Argument 1; Remarks pg. 8 lines 1-4) that the claims do not recite limitations that can be performed in the mind and thus not directed to an abstract idea, (Argument 2; Remarks pg. 8 lines 4-6) the claims recites a technological improvement and thus not directed to an abstract idea and (Argument 3; Remarks pg. 12 lines 6-8) the claim recites meaningful limits on the features recites herein and thus integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
With respect to applicant’s arguments examiner respectfully disagrees. As to argument 1, a claim be viewed as directed to an abstract idea even if it recites additional elements as long as those additional elements are not ones that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea. It is viewed that the claim recites abstract idea mental process elements of organize the updates in a staggered manner in an update plan, and schedule delivery of the updates according to the update plan limitations, the deliver limiting a service disruption as a result of the invalidation are viewed as the abstract idea mental process elements as a person can mentally organize/arrange/group updates in a staggered manner into an update plan where as part of the plan includes the scheduling the delivery/deployment of the updates to limit service disruption as the claim language is recited at a generic level and does not include further technical details as to how and/or what is taken into account when organizing the updates into a staggered update plan and scheduling the updates for delivery according to the plan. The other remaining elements are viewed as additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea seen fully explained below in the 101 rejection. For the specific additional element of “the updates resulting in an invalidation of a state of the computing inventory in a first cache of a first allocator instance” is viewed as an intended use/result of the received updates/just further detail defined the received update limitation that can be interpreted as receive updates associated with computing devices in a computing inventory from an update source, the updates resulting in an invalidation of a state of the computing inventory in a first cache of a first allocator instance and thus viewed as type of insignificant extra solution activity information associated with sending/receiving data that does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not show significantly more than the abstract idea. It is also noted here there is a difference in interpretation between actively recited claim elements and passive recited claim element. The claim language recites “…the first allocator instance that allocates the computing devices for virtual machines (VMS) based on virtual machine (VM) requests and the state of the computing inventory in the first cache of the first allocator instance” the claim does not actively recite that allocation of the computing devices for VMs is performed just that the allocator is able to allocate according to this information thus viewed as are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions merely applying the abstract idea using the generic computing components and functions that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not recite significantly more. Thus viewed that the claim is directed to an abstract idea mental processes as the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
As to argument 2, while a technical improvement/solution to a technical problem can be used to show that the claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or is significantly more than the abstract idea, elements that are viewed as part of the abstract idea mental process are not ones that can show this technical improvement/solution where it is noted that the organizing and scheduling of updates limitations are viewed as abstract idea mental process elements and not additional elements and thus not able to be viewed as additional elements that can show either individually or when the claim is viewed as a whole something that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea as these limitations are viewed as the abstract idea itself and noted that in the last action was stated that these elements are directed to an improvement but not a technical improvement. Further, for the argued technical improvement by having multiple allocator instances and delivering updates to a first allocator instance while a second allocator instance remains available for fulfilling request, while improvement can be seen from the improved outcome it is not seen as a technical improvement, as the improvement appears to come from “staggering of updates”/the determine update plan and deployment schedule according to the plan so that the second allocator instance is not effected by the update while the update is processed by the first allocator instance viewed as the improvement directed to the determining stagged scheduling of the delivery according to the determined update plan and not a technical improvement/solution and thus not an integration into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As to argument 3, while applying or using the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment is something that can integrate an abstract idea into a practical application there are no further specific arguments of what additional elements are or how the additional elements are ones that go beyond generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and thus as all the elements of the claim have been viewed as either abstract idea mental process elements or additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more, where full mapping of the claimed elements can be seen below in the 101 rejection, it is viewed that the claims do not show/recite applying or using the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and thus viewed as still being directed to an abstract idea mental process.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea as it has not been integrated into a practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea. 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 1-20 are claims that are directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
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, 10 and 17: The limitation of “organize the updates in a staggered manner in an update plan,” and “to schedule delivery of the updates according to the update plan, the delivery limiting a service disruption as a result of the invalidation” as drafted, are process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components and insignificant extra solution activity information, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can mentally perform based on thinking, observation, judging and evaluations to mentally arrange/organize group the updates into a staggered/managed plan. Further, a person can mentally perform based on thinking, observation, judging and evaluations of the updates to mentally organize and schedule/arrange delivery of the updates based on the mentally determined organized updates in the update plan. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea,
The claims have been identified to recite an abstract idea, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1, 10 and 17: The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claims recite the following additional element “a processor,” “a memory device that stores program code structured to cause the processor to:“ “computing devices in a computing inventory,” “an update source” “a first allocator instance that allocates the computing devices for virtual machines (VMs) based on virtual machine (VM) request and a state of the computing inventory in a first cache of the first allocator instance,” “a second allocator instance remains available for fulfilling VM request based on an inventory in a second cache of the second allocator instance during the processing the updates by the first allocator instance” and “a computer-readable storage medium having program instructions recorded thereon that, when executed by a processor, implements a method of managing updates for a virtual machine (VM) allocation system comprising,” which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions merely applying the abstract idea using the generic computing components and functions, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the claims recite the following addition elements of “receive updates associated with computing devices in a computing inventory from an update source…, the updates resulting in an invalidation of a state of the computing inventory in a first cache of a first allocator instance” “deliver the updates according to the schedule to a first allocator instance,” and “the first cache rebuilt after the first allocator instance processes the updates” which are merely the recitations of insignificant extra solution activity information which does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea 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. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims, 1, 10 and 17 not only recite an abstract idea but that the claims are directed to the abstract idea as the abstract idea has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
Claims 1, 10 and 17: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a processor,” “a memory device that stores program code structured to cause the processor to:“ “computing devices in a computing inventory,” “an update source” “the first allocator instance that allocates the computing devices for virtual machines (VMs) based on virtual machine (VM) request and a state of the computing inventory in a first cache of the first allocator instance,” “a second allocator instance remains available for fulfilling VM request based on an inventory in a second cache of the second allocator instance during the processing the updates by the first allocator instance” and “a computer-readable storage medium having program instructions recorded thereon that, when executed by a processor, implements a method of managing updates for a virtual machine (VM) allocation system comprising,” amount to no more than generic computing components merely apply the abstract idea. Further, the additional elements of “receive updates associated with computing devices in a computing inventory from an update source…, the updates resulting in an invalidation of a state of the computing inventory in a first cache of a first allocator instance,” “deliver the updates according to the schedule to a first allocator instance,” and “the first cache rebuilt after the first allocator instance processes the updates” amount to no more than extra-solution activity information. Further, the insignificant extra solution data activity is also WURC, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), where “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 and ii. electronic recordkeeping where the receiving update limitation is akin to receiving data/update information, where the deliver the updates limitation is akin to transmitting data/update information and the rebuild the first cache limitation is akin electronic recordkeeping/updating log/storage.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 10 and 17 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claims 2, 11 and 18 they recite additional elements of “roll back the updates delivered to the first allocator instance” which is merely insignificant extra-solution activity information which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the insignificant extra solution data activity is also WURC, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), where “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 where the rollback the update limitation is akin to transferring the data to replace update information with the old/previous data information. Moreover, claims 2, 11 and 18 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 2, 11 and 18 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 2, 11 and 18 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claims 3, 12 and 19 they recite additional abstract idea element of “edit the update plan based on additional updates received from the update source” as drafted, are process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components and insignificant extra solution activity information, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can mentally perform based on thinking, observation, judging and evaluations to mentally edit the update plan based on the received to data information. Further, the claims recites additional element of “receiving additional updates” which is merely insignificant extra-solution activity information which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the insignificant extra solution data activity is also WURC, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), where “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 where the receiving additional update limitation is akin to receiving data/update information. Moreover, claims 3, 12 and 19 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 3, 12 and 19 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 3, 12 and 19 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claims 4 and 13 they recite additional abstract idea element of “aggregate updates as a batch of updates in the update plan based on the computing devices affected by the updates as drafted, are process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components and insignificant extra solution activity information, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can mentally perform based on thinking, observation, judging and evaluations to mentally group/aggregate togate the updates in the update plan based on the devices affected by the updates. Moreover, claims 4 and 13 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 4 and 13 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 4 and 13 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claim 5 it recite additional abstract idea element of “stagger updates in the update plan among partitions of the computing device” as drafted, are process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components and insignificant extra solution activity information, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can mentally perform based on thinking, observation, judging and evaluations to mentally manage/determine/decide/stagger the updates in a plan among partitions of the computing device. Further, claim 5 recites additional element of “partitions of computing devices” which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions merely applying the abstract idea using the generic computing components and functions, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, claim 5 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 5 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 5 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claim 6 it recite additional abstract idea element of “stagger updates in the update plan among the logical instances” as drafted, are process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components and insignificant extra solution activity information, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can mentally perform based on thinking, observation, judging and evaluations to mentally manage/determine/decide/stagger the updates in a plan among the plurality of logical instances of the allocator so that at least one allocator remains available to fulfill VM request. Further, claim 6 recites additional element of “wherein the first allocator instance and the second allocator instance comprise a respective logical instance,” which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions merely applying the abstract idea using the generic computing components and functions, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, claim 6 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 6 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 6 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claim 7 it recite additional abstract idea element of “stagger updates in the update plan among the first and second allocation domains” as drafted, are process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components and insignificant extra solution activity information, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can mentally perform based on thinking, observation, judging and evaluations to mentally manage/determine/decide/stagger the updates in a plan among the plurality of allocation domains. Further, claim 7 recites additional element of “wherein the first allocator instance comprises a first logical instance with a first allocation domain and the second allocator instance comprises a second logical instance with a second allocation domain” which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions merely applying the abstract idea using the generic computing components and functions, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, claim 7 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 7 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 7 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claims 8 and 15 they recite additional abstract idea element of “based on an availability of the computing devices for allocation to fulfill VM requests” as drafted, are process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components and insignificant extra solution activity information, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can mentally perform based on thinking, observation, judging and evaluations to mentally determine availability of computing devices to fulfill allocation request. Further, claims 8 and 15 recites additional element of “pause updates in the update plan” which is merely insignificant extra-solution activity information which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, the insignificant extra solution data activity is also WURC, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), where “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 where the pausing update limitation is akin to receiving and/or transmitting data/update information by controlling the transmitting of the update information to pause it. Moreover, claims 8 and 15 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 8 and 15 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 8 and 15 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claim 9 it recite additional element of “receive the updates comprising a first type of update, but not a second type of updates that are delivered to the first allocator instance” which is merely a field of use/technological environment which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, claim 9 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 7 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 9 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claim 14 it recite additional abstract idea element of “wherein organizing the updates in a staggered manner in an update plan comprises at least one of the following: staggering updates in the update plan among partitions of the computing devices; staggering updates in the update plan among a plurality of logical instances that include the first allocator instance and the second allocator instance so that at least one of the plurality of logical instances remains available to fulfill VM requests; or staggering updates in the update plan among a plurality of allocation domains” as drafted, are process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components and insignificant extra solution activity information, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can mentally perform based on thinking, observation, judging and evaluations to mentally manage/determine/decide/stagger the updates in a plan among partitions of the computing device as the claim language consists of a comprising an at least one list the element focused on is the specifics of “wherein organizing the updates in a staggered manner in an update plan comprises at least one of the following: staggering updates in the update plan among partitions of the computing devices”. Further, claim 14 recites additional element of “partitions of computing devices” which are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions merely applying the abstract idea using the generic computing components and functions, which does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, claim 14 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 14 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 14 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claim 16 it recites additional abstract idea element of “distinguishing between a first type of managed update and a second type of unmanaged update in the received updates”, which is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components and insignificant extra solution activity information, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can mentally perform based on thinking, observation, judging and evaluations of the updates to distinguish between a first type/managed update and another/second type/unmanaged update. Moreover, claim 16 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 16 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 16 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
With regard to claim 20 it recite additional abstract idea element of “wherein organizing the updates in a staggered manner in an update plan comprises at least one of the following: aggregating updates as a batch of updates in the update plan based on the computing devices affected by the updates; staggering updates in the update plan among partitions of the computing devices; staggering updates in the update plan among a plurality of logical instances that include the first allocator instance and the second allocator instance so that at least one of the plurality of logical instances of the allocator remains available to fulfill VM requests; staggering updates in the update plan among a plurality of allocation domains; or pausing updates in the update plan based on an availability of the computing devices for allocation to fulfill VM requests” is process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components and insignificant extra solution activity information, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can mentally perform based on thinking, observation, judging and evaluations to mentally group/aggregate togate the updates in the update plan based on the devices affected by the updates and as the claim consist of at least one of list viewed as tied to the specific element of wherein organizing the updates in a staggered manner in an update plan comprises at least one of the following: aggregating updates as a batch of updates in the update plan based on the computing devices affected by the updates. Moreover, claim 20 do not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to the integration into a practical application and whether the additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 20 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the abstract idea as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 20 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-4, 10, 12-13, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0218825 A1), in view of Torun (Patent No. US 10,440,145 B1), in view of Huang (Pub. No. US 2017/0206110 A1) and further in view of Attavar et al. (Pub. No. US 2022/0237013 A1).
As to claims 1, 10 and 17 , Sharma discloses a system comprising: a processor (Sharma [0093] lines 1-6); and
a memory device that stores program code structured to cause the processor to (Sharma [0093] lines 1-6):
receive updates associated with computing devices in a computing inventory from an update source (Sharma [0046] lines 1-8, [0047] lines 1-3, [0061] lines 1-13 and [0072] lines 13-20; which shows a manager, viewed as a collector, that is able to hold and thus receive the associated update for the device of things, viewed as devices in the computing inventory of things received from a plurality of sources, viewed as an update source);
organize the updates in a staggered manner in an update plan (Sharma [0024] lines 5-13, [0046] lines 5-10, [0048] lines 1-8, [0049] lines 1-4 and [0063] lines 1-5; which shows as part of the management and delivery of the updates to devices a content manager that manages the grouping and scheduling of the updates for the target devices based on determined static and dynamic information associated with the devices and other rules and protocols used to determine which devices to schedule for the update as a type of plan, thus viewed as organizing the updates in a staggered/managed manner);
schedule delivery of the updates according to the update plan, the delivery limiting a service disruption as a result of the invalidation (Sharma [0024] lines 5-13, [0041] lines 1-4, [0046] lines 1-10, [0048] lines 1-8, [0049] lines 1-4, [0055] lines 1-15 and [0063] lines 1-5; which shows as part of the management and delivery of the updates, tied to the manager, viewed as a type of scheduler, being able schedule the delivery of the updates based on the determined/managed device information and associated rules and protocols to determine which devices to receive/schedule for the update, viewed as according to the plan, where additional network/state awareness data associated with the devices/computing resources is taken into account with providing/scheduling the metered updates according to campaign/schedule/plan that decreasing the time it takes to perform the update and not affect the performance of the application, viewed as showing the delivery limiting service disruptions as a result of applying the update, where it is specifically seen in the teachings of Torun below the specifics of the update/change to computer resources will trigger the associated cache to be invalidated and thus together would show how schedule delivery of the updates according to the update plan, the delivery limiting a service disruption as a result of the invalidation/update); and
deliver the updates according to the schedule to the first allocator instance that allocates the computing devices for virtual machines (VMs), the state of the computing inventory in the first cache of the first allocator instance, the first cache rebuilt after the first allocator processes the updates, a virtual machine (VM) allocator (Sharma [0006] lines 1-14, [0046] lines 5-10, [0048] lines 1-8, [0049] lines 1-4, [0051] lines 1-25 and [0063] lines 1-5; which shows the ability to dispatch/deliver/producer to dispatch the updates based on the determined/associated protocols and rules for the schedule to devices as part of the OTA system associated with managing devices, where the platform includes an inventory of devices stored in a database that can be quired as needed and receives and updates in inventory information, viewed as a type of cache that is able to be updated/rebuilt to reflect the updated information, viewed as after the update information is received/processed where the specifics of the managing device being a VM allocator instance type device is seen in the teachings of Huang below).
Sharma does not specifically disclose the specifics of the updates resulting in an invalidation of a state of the computing inventory in a first cache of a first allocator instance.
However, Torun discloses the specifics of the updates resulting in an invalidation of a state of the computing inventory in a first cache of a first allocator instance (Torun Col. 3 lines 29-36; which shows that when the state of computing resources changes, viewed as updated, the entry in the cache associated/related to the computer resource is invalidated, thus in light of the teachings of Sharma above showing the received update/change that can include updates to device/computer resource inventory and a cache/storage database associated with a manager device, and the teachings of Huang below showing the specifics of the manager being a VM manager/allocator with a plurality of instances a can together be viewed as showing the specifics of the received updates where the updates result in an invalidation of a state of the computing inventory in a first cache of a first allocator instance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Torun showing the specifics of the receiving an update associated with computing devices in a computing inventory where the updates cause an invalidation of a state of the computing resources in the cache associate with the update/change into the receiving, scheduling and deploying an update dealing with computing devices/resources of an inventory of computer devices of Sharma for the purpose of maintaining data consistency between updates for devices and cache information related to the updated/change device, as taught by Torun Col.3 lines 29-36.
Sharma as modified by Torun does not specifically disclose the specifics of deliver updates to a first allocator instance that allocates the computing devices to virtual machines (VMs) based on virtual machine (VM) requests and a state of the computing inventory.
However, Huang discloses the specifics of deliver updates to a first allocator instance that allocates the computing devices to virtual machines (VMs) based on virtual machine (VM) requests and a state of the computing inventory (Huang [0032] lines 1-6, [0039] lines 8-22 and [0042] lines 1-8; which shows a baseboard management controller, viewed as a type of VM manager/allocator where there can be a plurality of managers/allocators used thus having specific instances, that is able to reallocate computer devices to virtual machine based on their defined relations, where the resources are reallocated in response to a determined change in the state, determination that it is active or not, of the physical device so that the virtual devices can process the associated request, viewed as types of VM request/update, where the specifics of sending/delivering the associated updates/changes according to the schedule is seen in the teachings of Sharma).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Huang showing the specifics VM resource management and allocation into the resource allocation of Sharma as modified by Torun for the purpose of increasing consistency of operation by being able to update resource allocation between VM in response to change of conditions and helping to prevent failure with efficient use of resource, as taught by Huang [0004] lines 7-14, [0006] lines 1-4 and [0039] lines 8-22.
Sharma as modified by Torun and Huang do not specifically disclose wherein a second allocator instance remains available for fulfilling VM request based on an inventory in a second cache of the second allocator instance during the processing the updates by the first allocator instance.
However, Attavar discloses wherein a second allocator instance remains available for fulfilling VM request based on an inventory in a second cache of the second allocator instance during the processing the updates by the first allocator instance (Attavar [0012] lines 1-3, [0020] lines 1-7 and [0023] lines 1-7 and Fig. 3; which shows associated with the update of resources/devices with associated plurality of instances of managers associated with processing/handling the update tied to resources/devices, where it is seen timing diagram it is seen that only one manager is updated at a time thus would have other instances of the managers available to process/handle request, which in light of the teachings of Huang above showing the specifics of plurality of instances of VM managers/allocators operating to manage and allocate resources and the teachings of Sharma above showing the specifics of an inventory manager that include a cache storage of the associated inventory can together be viewed as showing wherein a second allocator instance remains available for fulfilling VM request based on an inventory in a second cache of the second allocator instance during the processing the updates by the first allocator instance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Attavar showing the specifics of when updating resources associated with managers of a plurality of manager/allocators the managers process the update one at a time, into the processing of resource/device updates of Sharma as modified by Torun and Huang for the purpose of reducing issues and errors when managers are unavailable to process request, as taught by Attavar [0002] line 8-13 and [0023] lines 1-7.
As to claim 3, Sharma discloses wherein the program code is further structured to cause the processer to: to edit the update plan based on additional updates received from the update source (Sharma [0049] lines 1-4, [0061] lines 1-13; which shows responsive to the campaign manager having a new/addition update, viewed as received updates from update source, being able to trigger the update deliver through the dispatcher, which takes into account various protocols a rules over witch updates are dispatched to the device, viewed as a form of editing the update plane based on the new update information received ).
As to claims 4 and 13, Sharma discloses wherein the program code is further structured to cause the processer to aggregate updates as a batch of updates in the update plan based on the computing devices affected by the updates (Sharma [0024] lines 5-11; which shows how the campaign manager/organizer is able to group devices together based on attributes and them send the updates out in a batch to the selected group, thus viewed that the updates are aggregated together to form a batch of updates and deployed according to a determined plan).
As to claims 12 and 19, Sharma discloses receiving additional update; and dynamically adapting the update plan based on the additional updates (Sharma [0049] lines 1-4, [0061] lines 1-13; which shows responsive to the campaign managed having a new/addition update being able to trigger the update deliver through the dispatcher, which takes into account various protocols a rules over witch updates are dispatched to the device, viewed as a form of dynamically adapting/editing the update plane based on the new update information received ).
As to claim 20, Sharma discloses wherein organizing the updates in a staggered manner in an update plan comprises at least one of the following: aggregating updates as a batch of updates in the update plan based on the computing devices affected by the updates; staggering updates in the update plan among partitions of the computing devices; staggering updates in the update plan among a plurality of logical instances that include the first allocator instance and the second allocator instance so that at least one of the plurality of logical instances remains available to fulfill VM requests; staggering updates in the update plan among a plurality of allocation domains; or pausing updates in the update plan based on an availability of the computing devices for allocation to fulfill VM requests (Sharma [0024] lines 5-11; as the claim recites a list of at least one of a list of options, the teachings of Sharma teaching the specifics of one option of that list focused on wherein organizing the updates in a staggered manner in an update plan comprises at least one of the following: aggregating updates as a batch of updates in the update plan based on the computing devices affected by the updates limitation element, which is seen in how the campaign manager/organizer is able to group devices together based on attributes and them send the updates out in a batch to the selected group, thus viewed that the updates are aggregated together to form a batch of updates and deployed according to a determined plan).
Claims 2, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma, Torun, Huang and Attavar as applied to claims 1, 10 and 17 above, and further in view of Harwani et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0191778 A1).
As to claims 2, 11 and 18, Sharma as modified by Torun, Huang and Attavar do not specifically disclose wherein the program code is further structured to cause the processor to: roll back the updates delivered to the first allocator instance.
However, Harwani discloses wherein the program code is further structured to cause the processor to: roll back the updates delivered to the first allocator instance (Harwani [0011] lines 20-24; which shows being able to monitor the modified/update resource allocation to determine if to undo/rollback the modification to the resource allocator, thus viewed as able to roll back/undo the updates associated with computer inventory delivered to the first allocator instance that is seen specifically disclosed in the teachings of Sharma above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Harwani showing the specifics of undoing an update associated with resource allocation/inventory into the update associated with resource allocation of Sharma as modified by Torun, Huang and Attavar for the purpose of helping to ensure performance constancy by being able to undo/retract updates of resource/inventory allocation that are not meeting desired performance activity information, as taught by Harwani [0011] lines 20-24.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma, Torun, Huang and Attavar as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Lindholm et al. (Pub. No. US 2018/0081676 A1)
As to claim 5, Sharma as modified by Torun, Huang and Attavar do not specifically disclose wherein the program code is further structured to cause the processor to stagger updates in the update plan among partitions of the computing devices.
However, Lindholm discloses wherein the program code is further structured to cause the processor to stagger updates in the update plan among partitions of the computing devices (Lindholm [0060] lines 1-9 and [0061] lines 1-10; which shows the ability for an update to be deployed to specific/targeted partitions of the computer device, thus in viewed of the teachings Sharma above showing being able to manage/stagger and deploy updates to specific computer devices based on attributes can be viewed together as the organizer is configured to stagger updates in the update plan among partitions of the computing devices).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Lindholm showing the specifics of targeting updates to deploy on specific partitions of computer devices into the update management and planning system of Sharma as modified by Torun, Huang and Attavar for the purpose of providing addition elements/attributes of resources that can be used to deploy updates so that the updates can be more accurately deployed to desired locations limiting effects from global update rollouts, as taught Lindholm [0006] lines 1-8 and [0069] lines 1-9.
As to claim 14, Sharma as modified by Torun, Huang and Attavar do not specifically disclose, however, Lindholm discloses wherein organizing the updates in a staggered manner in an update plan comprises at least one of the following: staggering updates in the update plan among partitions of the computing devices; staggering updates in the update plan among a plurality of logical instances that include the first allocator instance and the second allocator instance so that at least one of the plurality of logical instances of the VM allocator remains available to fulfill VM requests; or staggering updates in the update plan among a plurality of allocation domains (Lindholm [0060] lines 1-9 and [0061] lines 1-10; where it is seen that the claim includes an at least one list where the specific element limitation of that list wherein organizing the updates in a staggered manner in an update plan comprises at least one of the following: staggering updates in the update plan among partitions of the computing devices is seen in the ability for an update to be deployed to specific/targeted partitions of the computer device, thus in viewed of the teachings Sharma above showing being able to manage/stagger and deploy updates to specific computer devices based on attributes can be viewed together as the organizer is configured to stagger updates in the update plan among partitions of the computing devices).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Lindholm showing the specifics of targeting updates to deploy on specific partitions of computer devices into the update management and planning system of Sharma as modified by Torun, Huang and Attavar for the purpose of providing addition elements/attributes of resources that can be used to deploy updates so that the updates can be more accurately deployed to desired locations limiting effects from global update rollouts, as taught Lindholm [0006] lines 1-8 and [0069] lines 1-9.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma, Torun, Huang and Attavar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Anand et al. (Patent No. US 8,832,847 B2) and Lindholm et al. (Pub. No. US 2018/0081676 A1).
As to claim 6, Sharma as modified by Torun, Huang and Attavar do not specifically disclose wherein the first allocator instance and the second allocator instance comprise a respective logical instance.
However, Anand discloses wherein the first allocator instance and the second allocator instance comprise a respective logical instance (Anand Col. 4 lines 18-21 and claim 1; which shows being able to provide a plurality of logical instances of a shared data management application, viewed as a type of manager/allocator, where the specifics of having a plurality including a first and second instance of a VM manager/allocator is seen specifically disclosed above in the teachings of Huang).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Anand showing the specifics of having a plurality of logical instances for a resource manager application, into the resource management system of Sharma as modified by Torun, Huang and Attavar for the purpose of increasing usability of the application by being able to provide a plurality of logical instances for use in different domains/partitions of data and share data for use between the plurality of sources, as taught by Anand Col. 4 lines 18-21 and 51-60.
Sharma as modified by Torun, Huang, Attavar and Anand do not specifically disclose stagger updates in the update plan among the plurality of logical instances.
However, Lindholm discloses stagger updates in the update plan among the plurality of logical instances (Lindholm [0060] lines 1-9 and [0061] lines 1-10; which shows the ability for an update to be deployed to specific/targeted partitions/area/region of the computer device, thus in viewed of the teachings Anand above showing the specifics of having a plurality of logical instances associated with the allocators and the teachings of Sharma above showing being able to manage/stagger and deploy updates to specific computer devices based on attributes can be viewed together as the organizer is configured to stagger updates in the update plan among the plurality of logical instances).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Lindholm showing the specifics of targeting updates to deploy on specific partitions of computer devices into the update management and planning system of Sharma as modified by Torun, Huang, Attavar and Anand for the purpose of providing addition elements/attributes of resources that can be used to deploy updates so that the updates can be more accurately deployed to desired locations limiting effects from global update rollouts, as taught Lindholm [0006] lines 1-8 and [0069] lines 1-9.
As to claim 7, Sharma as modified by Torun, Huang and Attavar do not specifically disclose, however, Anand discloses wherein the first allocator instance comprises a first logical instance with a first allocation domain and the second allocator instance comprises a second logical instance with a second allocation domain (Anand Col. 4 lines 18-31 and claim 1; which shows being able to provide a plurality of logical instances of a shared data management application/manager that can each have is own/allocated domain, where it is seen specifically disclose above in the teachings of Huang the plurality of allocator/manager instances that can include at least a first and second and thus together would show wherein the first allocator instance comprises a first logical instance with a first allocation domain and the second allocator instance comprises a second logical instance with a second allocation domain).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Anand showing the specifics of having a plurality of logical instances for a resource manager application, into the resource management system of Sharma as modified by Torun, Huang and Attavar for the purpose of increasing usability of the application by being able to provide a plurality of logical instances for use in different domains/partitions of data and share data for use between the plurality of sources, as taught by Anand Col. 4 lines 18-21 and 51-60.
Sharma as modified by Torun, Huang, Attavar and Anand do not specifically disclose wherein the organizer is configured to stagger updates in the update plan among the plurality of allocation domains.
However, Lindholm discloses stagger updates in the update plan among the first and second allocation domain (Lindholm [0060] lines 1-9 and [0061] lines 1-10; which shows the ability for an update to be deployed to specific/targeted partitions/area/region of the computer device, thus in viewed of the teachings Anand above showing the specifics of having a plurality of logical instances associated with the allocators/managers that each have their own domain and the teachings of Sharma above showing the specifics of being able to manage/stagger and deploy updates to specific computer devices based on attributes can be viewed together configured to stagger updates in the update plan among the first and second allocation domain).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Lindholm showing the specifics of targeting updates to deploy on specific partitions of computer devices into the update management and planning system of Sharma as modified by Torun, Huang, Attavar and Anand for the purpose of providing addition elements/attributes of resources that can be used to deploy updates so that the updates can be more accurately deployed to desired locations limiting effects from global update rollouts, as taught Lindholm [0006] lines 1-8 and [0069] lines 1-9.
Claims 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma, Torun, Huang and Attavar as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Herath et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0279103 A1).
As to claims 8 and 15, Sharma as modified by Torun, Huang and Attavar do not specifically disclose wherein the program code is further structured to cause the processor to: pause updates in the update plan based on an availability of the computing devices for allocation to fulfill VM requests.
However, Herath discloses wherein the program code is further structured to cause the processor to: pause updates in the update plan based on an availability of the computing devices for allocation to fulfill VM requests (Herath [0048] lines 1-13; which shows being able to pause task/action, viewed as updates in the update plan, based on the determine available of resources to fulfill the task/action, viewed as including availability of the computing devise for allocation by the allocator/manager to fulfill VM request where the specifics of the update request and associate allocator/manager are seen specifically disclosed above in the teachings of Sharma and Huang above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Herath showing the specifics of being able to pause specific request based on resource availability, into the resource management system of Sharma as modified by Torun, Huang and Attavar for the purpose of improving processing of request by determining resource are available for performing request and avoid possible failure by processing request without the required resources needed to process, as taught by Herath [0048] lines 1-13.
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sharma, Torun, Huang and Attavar as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Lin (Pub. No. US 2014/0237465 A1)
As to claim 9, Sharma as modified by Torun, Huang and Attavar do not specifically disclose wherein the program code is further configured to cause the processor to: receive updates comprising a first type of update, but not a second type of updates that are delivered to the first allocator instance.
However, Lin disclose wherein the program code is further configured to cause the processor to: receive updates comprising a first type of update, but not a second type of updates that are delivered to the first allocator instance (Lin [0048] lines 1-5, [0049]-[0061]; which shows being able to determine the type of update that comprises a plurality of types includes mandatory, recommended and non-essential updates where depending on the update type they are each handled differently with the mandatory being delivered and started automatically, viewed as delivered directly to the allocator the specifics of which include first allocator instance is seen specifically disclosed above in the teachings of Sharma and Huang, where the non-essential and recommend types are sent/held for later action).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Lin showing the ability to distinguish between different types of updates and perform different actions for those updates based on the determined types into the update actions of Sharma as modified by Torun, Huang and Attavar for the purpose of improving the efficiency of installing updates so that the ones that can affect the use are installed immediately to prevent issues, as taught by Lin [0005] lines 1-6 and [0028] lines 1-14.
As to claim 16, Sharma as modified by Torun, Huang and Attavar do not specifically disclose, however, Lin discloses distinguishing between a first type of managed update and a second type of unmanaged update in the received updates (Lin [0048] lines 1-5, [0049]-[0061]; which shows being able to determine the type of update that comprises a plurality of types includes mandatory, recommended and non-essential updates viewed as types of managed/non-essential and unmanaged/mandatory update types).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Lin showing the ability to distinguish between different types of updates and perform different actions for those updates based on the determined types into the update actions of Sharma as modified by Torun, Huang and Attavar for the purpose of improving the efficiency of installing updates so that the ones that can affect the use are installed immediately to prevent issues, as taught by Lin [0005] lines 1-6 and [0028] lines 1-14.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADFORD F WHEATON whose telephone number is (571)270-1779. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chat Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRADFORD F WHEATON/Examiner, Art Unit 2193