DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to amendment filed January 16, 2026 for the application # 18/343,629 filed June 28, 2023. Claims 1, 2, 4-21 are pending and are directed toward MANAGEMENT SYSTEM FOR A CLOUD PLATFORM.
Any claim objection/rejection not repeated below is withdrawn due to Applicant's amendment.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with regards to claims 1, 2, 4-21 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
“same physical hardware” argument – Applicant argues that so, to vCenter and NSX are used to create a configuration, it is the same physical hardware, and what is new is a virtual hardware configuration on that same physical hardware (REMARKS, page 12).
Response: Examiner is actually in agreement with Applicant of his interpretation of the cited prior art. The problem is that this is the same as disclosed by Applicant. See Drawings FIG. 5 and FIG.6.
Conclusion: Examiner maintains rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The new limitation “update of physical hardware” has no support in Specification. No hardware update was disclosed. Only order placement 520, order delivery 522, and installation 524 was disclosed. See FIG.5 and Specification [0051]-[0052]. Hardware resource modeling and hardware configuration updates do not change the physical hardware, but only make configuration updates based on CXL protocol. See FIG.5, FIG. 6, and Specification [0054]-[0056], [0062], [0075], and [00136]. For purposes of applying prior art the cited limitation was construed as “update of the remote computers for a change to a physical hardware configuration of the remote computers” based on now canceled Claim 3.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4-7, 8, 16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 4-7 cite “the workload configuration map”. It is not clear which of the first or second workloads are claimed. Claims 8 and 16 – no first workload was claimed. Claim 21- “resources of for” is grammatically unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 6-14, and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CISCO (FlashStack as a Workload Domain for VMware Cloud Foundation, Published: May 2023, 168 pages) in view of (Cisco Collaboration Infrastructure Requirements, available on web.archive.org no later than 08/12/2022, 12 pages), hereinafter referred to as CISCO and CISCO2.
As per claim 1, CISCO teaches a system, comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor, comprising instructions that, in response to execution by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform operations (Policy-based configurations, delivered using Cisco Intersight, to deploy and manage the latest processor, memory, network, CISCO, page 4), comprising:
receiving, from a remote computer of remote computers, inventory data representative of an inventory equipment of the remote computers (Step 12. Select Inventory > Discovery > Virtual Machine Manager. CISCO, page 112), wherein the inventory data indicates that the remote computer is configured to interact with other remote computers of the remote computers according to a compute express link protocol (CXL-ready, CISCO, page 4);
receiving, from the remote computer, a request to onboard the remote computer (All the hosts in the environment need to be configured with following base configuration before a host can be onboarded in the VMware Cloud Foundation setup, CISCO, page 66), wherein the request adheres to a defined security protocol and data model architecture (Step 8. If the new compute node needs to be permanently associated with the server profile, SSH into the ESXi host (might need to enable SSH as explained above) and issue the following command, CISCO, page 103), and wherein the system is configured to remotely manage the remote computers as part of a hybrid cloud platform that comprises the remote computers (VMware Cloud Foundation simplifies the private cloud deployment and provides a streamlined path to the hybrid cloud by delivering a single integrated solution that is easy to deploy, operate and manage. CISCO, page 4);
authenticating the remote computer based on the request and according to the defined security protocol and data model architecture, (Step 17. Click AUTHENTICATE to authorize the VMware account to access updates for VMware Cloud Foundation components. CISCO, page 81).
CISCO teaches “Table 2 lists the required hardware components used to build the validated solution. Customers are encouraged to review their requirements and adjust the size or quantity of various components as needed.” (CISCO, page 12), see also provided links for Interoperability Matrix (CISCO, page 158). However, to exclude any doubt Examiner cites the secondary reference by CISCO2, which explicitly teaches “wherein the authenticating comprises authenticating endpoint devices using security protocol data model specifications to verify hybrid cloud management platform-approved devices that participate in hybrid cloud management platform device configurations” (CISCO2, the whole document, pages 1-12);
CISCO in view of CISCO2 are analogous art to the claimed invention, because they are from a similar field of endeavor of systems, components and methodologies for providing secure communication between computer systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify CISCO in view of CISCO2. This would have been desirable because All requirements must be met in order to receive Cisco technical support on the Cisco Collaboration application when it is running on virtualized hardware (CISCO2, page 1).
remotely monitoring hardware resources of the remote computers based on first workload configuration map data representative of a first workload configuration map of the remote computers, wherein the remotely monitoring comprises remote hardware resource monitoring via a hybrid cloud management platform connectivity module to check against workload configurations, wherein the remotely monitoring comprises remote hardware resource monitoring via a hybrid cloud management platform connectivity module to check against workload configurations (The FlashStack workload domain includes integration of Cisco Intersight with Cisco UCS, Cisco Nexus, and MDS, an Intersight connector for Pure Storage arrays, plus VMware vCenter and Pure Storage vSphere Plugins to deliver monitoring, orchestration, and workload optimization capabilities for different layers (virtualization and storage) of the FlashStack infrastructure. The modular nature of the Cisco Intersight platform also provides an easy upgrade path to additional services, such as Intersight Workload Optimization and Intersight Cloud Orchestrator. CISCO, page 4),and providing a notification to take further action in a case of changes to hardware settings” (Note: If a recovery key is not provided during serve profile migration, following output is observed on the KVM console:, CISCO, pages 103-104); and
based on a new hardware configuration change update of the remote computers for a change to a physical hardware configuration of the remote computers, generating second workload configuration map data representative of a second workload configuration map that corresponds to a workload of the remote computers (see VI Workload Domain Creation using VMware Cloud Foundation API, CISCO, pages 94-97).
As per claim 2, CISCO in view of CISCO2 teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: pushing a hardware configuration change update to the remote computer (FlashStack ESXi hosts are configured for boot from SAN using Fibre Channel which allows stateless compute setup. The stateless compute allows a server profile to move from one compute node to another seamlessly in case of failure or hardware upgrade. CISCO, page 102).
As per claim 6 CISCO in view of CISCO2 teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the workload configuration map comprises usage of a central processing unit (Customers can also configure a modified ethernet adapter policy for additional hardware receive queues handled by multiple CPUs in scenarios where there is a lot of vMotion traffic and multiple flows. In this deployment, a modified ethernet adapter policy, AA01-EthAdapter-HighTraffic-Policy, is created and attached to the 00-VDS01-A and 01-VDS01-B interfaces on management domain hosts and 02-VDS02-A and 03-VDS02-B interfaces on VI workload domain hosts which handle vMotion. CISCO, page 47).
As per claim 7, CISCO in view of CISCO2 teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the workload configuration map comprises usage of a security engine (The stateless compute allows a server profile to move from one compute node to another seamlessly in case of failure or hardware upgrade. Starting with ESXi 7.0 Update 2, compute nodes containing a Trusted Platform Module (TPM) and configured for UEFI boot save the sensitive information in the TPM and require a recovery key to successfully migrate or recover the ESXi host on a new/different compute node. CISCO, page 102).
Claims 8-10, 12, and 16-21 have limitations similar to those treated in the above rejection, and are met by the references as discussed above, and are rejected for the same reasons of anticipation (obviousness) as used above.
As per claim 11, CISCO in view of CISCO2 teaches the method of claim 8, wherein the receiving the request from the remote computer to onboard the remote computer is performed in response to the remote computer being powered on (Step 17. Right-click the newly deployed DCNM VM and click Open Remote Console. Once the console is up, click the play icon to power, CISCO, page 110, and further pages 110-119).
As per claim 13, CISCO in view of CISCO2 teaches the method of claim 12, further comprising: decoding, by the system, the indication of the workload configuration map to produce a decoded workload configuration map, wherein the remotely monitoring of the hardware resources of for remote computers is performed based on the decoded workload configuration map (SAN Insights works by enabling SAN Analytics and Telemetry Streaming on each switch. The switches then stream the SAN Analytics data to DCNM, which collects, correlates, and displays statistics. All configurations can be done from DCNM. ● Only Cisco MDS switches support SAN Analytics. CISCO, page 115).
As per claim 14, CISCO in view of CISCO2 teaches the method of claim 13, wherein the indication of the workload configuration map comprises a JavaScript object notation format (Appendix A – Workload Domain Description JSON File This appendix contains a complete JSON file for workload domain deployment. CISCO, page 155), and wherein the decoded workload configuration map comprises a second format that differs from the Javascript object notation format (VMware SDDC manager allows customers to create a new workload domain using the SDDC Manager web graphical user interface (GUI) or by creating a description file using JSON and using VMware Cloud Foundation API. The VI workload domain deployment using GUI is simpler however the GUI only supports creation of a single VDS in the ESXi host. CISCO, page 88).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CISCO (FlashStack as a Workload Domain for VMware Cloud Foundation, Published: May 2023, 168 pages) in view of (Cisco Collaboration Infrastructure Requirements, available on web.archive.org no later than 08/12/2022, 12 pages), in view of Sahasranamam et al., (US 2022/0164229, Pub. Date: May 26, 2022), hereinafter referred to as CISCO, CISCO2 and Sahasranamam.
As per claim 4, CISCO in view of CISCO2 teaches the system of claim 1, but does not teach hardware acceleration, Sahasranamam however teaches wherein the workload configuration map comprises usage of hardware acceleration (Additionally , examples of the architectural attributes may include , but are not limited to , fine - grained details such as the presence of software parallelism ( multi - threaded ) , whether the workload is hardware - acceleration capable ( GPUs or FPGAs ) , vector instruction usage , or memory access patterns ( load - heavy or store - heavy ). Sahasranamam, [0051]).
CISCO in view of CISCO2 in view of Sahasranamam are analogous art to the claimed invention, because they are from a similar field of endeavor of systems, components and methodologies for providing secure communication between computer systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify CISCO in view of CISCO2 in view of Sahasranamam. This would have been desirable because the processing resource 112 may be a physical device, for example , one or more central processing unit ( CPU ) , one or more semiconductor - based microproces sors , one or more graphics processing unit ( GPU ) , applica tion - specific integrated circuit ( ASIC ) , a field programmable gate array ( FPGA ) , other hardware devices capable of retrieving and executing instructions 116 stored in the machine - readable medium 114 , or combinations thereof (Sahasranamam, [0033]).
As per claim 5, CISCO in view of CISCO2 teaches the system of claim 1, but does not teach GPU, Sahasranamam however teaches wherein the workload configuration map comprises usage of a graphics processing unit (The processing resource 502 may be a physical device , for example , one or more CPU , one or more semiconductor - based microprocessor , one or more GPU , ASIC , FPGA , other hardware devices capable of retrieving and executing the instructions 506-512 stored in the machine readable medium 504 , or combinations thereof . In some examples the processing resource 502 may fetch, decode, and execute the instructions 506-512 stored in the machine readable medium 504 to deploy workloads on one or more of the worker nodes 102-106. Sahasranamam, [0068]).
CISCO in view of CISCO2 in view of Sahasranamam are analogous art to the claimed invention, because they are from a similar field of endeavor of systems, components and methodologies for providing secure communication between computer systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify CISCO in view of CISCO2 in view of Sahasranamam. This would have been desirable because the processing resource 112 may be a physical device, for example , one or more central processing unit ( CPU ) , one or more semiconductor - based microproces sors , one or more graphics processing unit ( GPU ) , applica tion - specific integrated circuit ( ASIC ) , a field programmable gate array ( FPGA ) , other hardware devices capable of retrieving and executing instructions 116 stored in the machine - readable medium 114 , or combinations thereof (Sahasranamam, [0033]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CISCO (FlashStack as a Workload Domain for VMware Cloud Foundation, Published: May 2023, 168 pages) in view of (Cisco Collaboration Infrastructure Requirements, available on web.archive.org no later than 08/12/2022, 12 pages), in view of Surtani et al. (US 8,949,294, Date of Patent: Feb. 3, 2015), hereinafter referred to as CISCO, SISCO2 and Surtani.
As per claim 15, CISCO in view of CISCO2 teaches the method of claim 12, wherein the indication of the workload configuration map comprises an encoded binary indication of the workload configuration map (The REST proxy server enables clients to access data via universal resource locators (URLs). Clients may use HTTP PUT and POST commands to place data into the data grid, with URLs to address a storage data structure name (e.g., a cache name in the data grid) and keys associated with specific data (e.g., with a specific object or objects). Similarly, clients may use the HTTP GET command to retrieve data from the data grid. The data being stored and/or retrieved is the body of the request and/or response. This data can be any type of data, but is frequently base 64 encoded binary data. Surtani, Column 10, lines 50-59).
CISCO in view of CISCO2 in view of Surtani are analogous art to the claimed invention, because they are from a similar field of endeavor of systems, components and methodologies for providing secure communication between computer systems. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify CISCO in view of CISCO2 in view of Surtani. This would have been desirable because data grid side translator 280 may translate a JSON object into a binary array or base 64 encoded binary data. Message forwarder 265 then forwards the translated response 285 and/or object to the client. Therefore, each proxy server 250 is able to encode and decode data so that it is able to communicate with clients in a manner compliant to a first protocol and is able to communicate with data grid nodes in a manner compliant to a second protocol (Surtani, Column 10, lines 21-29).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 2, 4-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US Patent No. 12,373,097 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all elements of claims 1, 2, 4-21 of the instant application correspond to elements of claims 1-20 of the reference application. The above claims of the present application would have been obvious over claims of the reference application because each element of the claims of the present application is anticipated by the claims of the reference application and as such are unpatentable for obviousness-type double patenting (In re Goodman (CAFC) 29 USPQ2D 2010 (12/3/1993)).
Claims 1, 2, 4-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 8-12, 14-19, and 21-24 of US Patent No. 12,468,797 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all elements of claims 1, 2, 4-21 of the instant application correspond to elements of claims 1-5, 8-12, 14-19, and 21-24 of the reference application. The above claims of the present application would have been obvious over claims of the reference application because each element of the claims of the present application is anticipated by the claims of the reference application and as such are unpatentable for obviousness-type double patenting (In re Goodman (CAFC) 29 USPQ2D 2010 (12/3/1993)).
Claims 1, 2, 4-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of US Patent No. 12,407,667 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all elements of claims 1, 2, 4-21 of the instant application correspond to elements of claims 1-20 of the reference application. The above claims of the present application would have been obvious over claims of the reference application because each element of the claims of the present application is anticipated by the claims of the reference application and as such are unpatentable for obviousness-type double patenting (In re Goodman (CAFC) 29 USPQ2D 2010 (12/3/1993)).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLEG KORSAK whose telephone number is (571)270-1938. The examiner can normally be reached on 5:00 AM- 4:00 PM.
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, Rupal Dharia can be reached on (571) 272-3880. 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.
/OLEG KORSAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2492
Prosecution Insights