DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to application filed 07/19/2023.
Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
None.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-10, 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SKOVRON et al. (hereinafter SKOVRON, US 2018/0302303 A1) in view of Rafey et al. (hereinafter Rafey, US 2022/0114031 A1).
As per claim 1, SKOVRON discloses a method of automatically scheduling resource-aware software-defined data center (SDDC) upgrades [Fig. 4: Deployment Plans], comprising:
receiving, via a user interface (UI), user input indicating one or more constraints related to automatically scheduling a plurality of upgrade phases for upgrading components of a plurality of computing devices across a plurality of SDDCs [fig. 7: User Interface 700 includes fields for Name, Task, Target Release, Target Group, Readiness Rules, Completion Date, Products to upgrade, version release to upgrade, etc. to create the deployment plan to upgrade components in the data center, fig. 8, fig. 9-11: Set Deployment Rules, fig. 1: data center, [0038-0043]: user interface 700 generated by software deployment tool 226 used to create deployment plan to upgrade the components of the data center including setting rules and criteria];
receiving, via the UI, a user selection of a first UI control, wherein the first UI control is configured to, when selected, initiate an automatic recommendation of deployment schedule [fig. 7-11: “Create deployment plan” link initiates an automated recommendation of deployment schedule], [0041], [0038-0039]: “Create a new deployment plan” in the displayed user interface]:
displaying, via the UI, a depiction of a schedule for the plurality of upgrade phases based on the automatic assignment [[0041]: The software deployment tool 226 generates recommendations within a deployment plan, recommend a schedule, [0042]: “after reviewing and configuring a pilot”. Note: recommending a schedule and reviewing the schedule will require displaying the schedule first]; and
displaying, via the UI, and proximate (since proximity is not defined, the term is given its broadest reasonable interpretation, and based on broadest reasonable interpretation, proximity can be measured at any reasonable close length or distance) to the depiction of the schedule for the plurality of upgrade phases [fig. 7-11 and [0038]: illustrates a user interface 700 generated by the tool displaying plurality of user inputs mechanism for receiving user input to configure a new or existing deployment plan, i.e. modifying/revising existing plan to make changes to rules, etc., [0041]: The software deployment tool 226 generates recommendations within a deployment plan, recommend a schedule, [0042]: “after reviewing and configuring a pilot”]:
a second UI control configured to, when selected, cause the automatic assignment to be finalized [fig. 7-11, [0041-0042]: “after reviewing and configuring a pilot”, a user can deploy the upgrade through the software deployment tool 226, fig. 13. Note: In order for the user to review, configure and deploy the recommended schedule, user must submit the reviewed schedule for implementation via the user interface by approving it or deploying it using the user interface of fig. 7-11]; and
a third UI control configured to, when selected, initiate a new automatic assignment of the plurality of upgrade phases to respective time slots [fig. 7-11, [0038]: selecting the deployment plan section may allow a user to view existing deployment plans and create a new deployment plan]
However, SKOVRON does not explicitly teach initiate an automatic assignment of the plurality of upgrade phases to particular time slots based on the one or more constraints.
Rafey, from the same field of endeavor, explicitly teaches the process of initiating an automatic assignment of the plurality of upgrade phases to particular time slots based on the one or more constraints [fig. 2: Determine a deployment schedule based on device dependency chain and the predicted workload for each of the devices in each of the two or more time slots, fig. 8: step #801-811: Schedule the subset of for update in the selected time slot in an order determined based on dependency scores and lowest predicted workload, [0029-0030], [0042-0043], [0046]] and displaying, via the UI, a depiction of a schedule for the plurality of upgrades phases [fig. 3: Device management tool displaying device upgrade recommendation, [0046]: The administrator accesses the DMT which produces an upgrade recommendation which recommends an upgrade order or sequence].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify SKOVRON in view of Rafey in order to initiate an automatic assignment of the plurality of upgrade phases to a particular time slots based on the one or more constraints.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated in order to optimize deployment schedules for upgrades or other actions to be performed on the devices of a data center systematically and intelligently [Rafey: [0044-0045]].
As per claim 2, SKOVRON-Rafey discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising: after displaying the depiction of the schedule for the plurality of upgrade phases:
receiving, via the UI, additional user input indicating one or more revised constraints [SKOVRON: [0038], fig. 7-11: illustrates a user interface 700 generated by the tool displaying plurality of user inputs mechanism for receiving user input to configure a new or existing deployment plan, i.e. modifying/revising existing plan to make changes to rules, etc., [0041-0042]: recommended schedule by the tool, reviewing and configuring a pilot and then deploying the upgrade];
receiving a selection of the third UI control [fig. 7-13, [0041-0042]]; and
in response to the receiving the selection of the third UI control, initiating the new automatic assignment of the plurality of upgrade phases to the respective time slots based on the one or more revised constraints [SKOVRON: [0041-0042], fig. 7-11: After reviewing and configuring a pilot, a user can deploy the upgrade for the pilot devices or user can deploy the plan to production; Rafey: fig. 2: Determine a deployment schedule based on device dependency chain and the predicted workload for each of the devices in each of the two or more time slots, fig. 8: step #801-811: Schedule the subset of for update in the selected time slot in an order determined based on dependency scores and lowest predicted workload, [0029-0030], [0042-0043], [0046]].
As per claim 3, SKOVRON discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising: after displaying the depiction of the schedule for the plurality of upgrade phases: receiving a selection of the second UI control; and in response to the receiving the selection of the second UI control, automatically scheduling the plurality of upgrade phases according to the automatic assignment constraints [SKOVRON: [0038, 0041-0042], fig. 7-11: “After reviewing and configuring a pilot”, a user can deploy the upgrade for the pilot devices or user can deploy the plan to production].
As per claim 4, SKOVRON-Rafey discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising:
receiving, via the UI, input selecting a given SDDC of the plurality of SDDCs within the depiction of the schedule for the plurality of upgrade phases [Rafey: [0052]: schedule is generated and certain subset of devices are selected and scheduled for update for each respective time slot, [0054]: in some cases, based on threshold, certain devices are scheduled in a particular time slot and remaining devices are schedule for update in their next lowest time slot];
receiving a selection of a fourth UI control that is configured to, when selected, initiate a re-scheduling of a selected SDDC for an alternative time slot [Rafey: [0052]: schedule is generated and certain subset of devices are selected and scheduled for update for each respective time slot, [0054]: in some cases, based on threshold, certain devices are scheduled in a particular time slot and remaining devices are schedule for update in their next lowest time slot]; and
in response to the receiving the selection of the fourth UI control and based on the input selecting the given SDDC, initiating a re-scheduling of the given SDDC [Rafey: [0052]: schedule is generated and certain subset of devices are selected and scheduled for update for each respective time slot, [0054]: in some cases, based on threshold, certain devices are scheduled in a particular time slot and remaining devices are schedule for update in their next lowest time slot]. Same rationale as in claim 1 applies.
As per claim 5, SKOVRON-Rafey discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the automatic assignment of the plurality of upgrade phases to the particular time slots is further based on physical computing resource utilization information for the plurality of computing devices [Rafey: [0049-0051, fig. 2, fig. 8, fig. 6A-6B, [0042]: a deployment schedule is determined based on predicted workload for each of the plurality of devices in each time slot, [0049]: collecting workload data and apply machine learning to predict the workload]. Same rationale as in claim 1 applies.
As per claim 6, SKOVRON-Rafey discloses the method of Claim 5, further comprising predicting future physical computing resource utilization of the plurality of computing devices based on the physical computing resource utilization information [Rafey: [0049]: collecting workload data and apply machine learning to predict the future workload for each of the plurality of devices], wherein the automatic assignment of the plurality of upgrade phases to the particular time slots is based on the predicted future physical computing resource utilization [[0050-0052], fig. fig. 2, fig. 8]. Same rationale as in claim 1 applies.
As per claim 8, SKOVRON-Rafey discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising determining upgrade capacities for the particular time slots based on support resource availability information [Rafey: [0053-0054]: for any particular time slot, there may be a threshold set as to the total number of devices that are capable of being updated in that time slot and only up to that threshold number of devices will be scheduled for update in that time slot, [0049-0051: device is predicted to have lowest workload [i.e. available for upgrade or upgrade capable] corresponding to particular time slot in the day. The workload is predicted based on collected workload data metrics from the devices], wherein the automatic assignment of the plurality of upgrade phases to the particular time slots is further based on the upgrade capacities [Rafey: [0052-0054]: only threshold number of devices are scheduled for update in a particular time slot based on threshold, other devices exceeding threshold are scheduled for next time slot]. Same rationale as in claim 1 applies.
As per claim 9, SKOVRON-Rafey discloses the method of Claim 1, further comprising determining one or more scores for the automatic assignment of the plurality of upgrade phases to the particular time slots based on utilization of support resources associated with the particular time slots [Rafey: [0042], [0049-0051: device is predicted to have lowest workload [i.e. predicted workload score, which is based on collected workload data metrics from devices. The assignment of devices to particular time slot is based on predicted workload score, fig. 8]. Same rationale as in claim 1 applies.
As per claim 10, SKOVRON-Rafey discloses the method of Claim 9, as set forth above, further comprising displaying the depiction of the schedule for the plurality of upgrade phases [SKOVRON: [0041]: The software deployment tool 226 generates recommendations within a deployment plan, recommend a schedule, [0042]: after reviewing and configuring a pilot. Note: recommending a schedule and reviewing the schedule will require displaying the schedule first].
Rafey also teaches displaying the one or more scores via the UI [fig. 6A-6B]. Rafey also teaches displaying the depiction of the schedule for the plurality of upgrade phases [fig. 3: Device upgrade recommendation].
Therefore, 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 SKOVRON in view of Rafey in order to display the one or more scores via the UI in association with the depiction of the schedule for the plurality of upgrade phases.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have informed or alerted an administrator or user regarding usage or utilization of the support resources.
As per claims 14-20, they do not teach or further define over the limitations in claims 1-6, 8-10. Therefore, claims 14-20 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 1-6, 8-10.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SKOVRON et al. (hereinafter SKOVRON, US 2018/0302303 A1) in view of Rafey et al. (hereinafter Rafey, US 2022/0114031 A1) and further in view of A et al. (hereinafter A, US 11,640,291 B2).
As per claim 7, SKOVRON-Rafey discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the one or more constraints indicated in the input comprise:
a target duration [SKOVRON: fig. 7-11: Completion date field, fig. 13: Progress view indicates 120 days left until target completion, i.e. shows the duration of the task].
However, SKOVRON-Rafey does not teach wherein the one or more constraints indicated in the input comprise a target start date.
A, from the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the one or more constraints indicated in the input comprise a target start date and a target duration [col. 10 L27 to col. 11 L67: Upgrade request includes start time, end date, duration, constraints, etc.].
Therefore, 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 SKOVRON-Rafey in view of A in order to receive the scheduling parameters from the user including start date and duration to perform the upgrades.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled the system to schedule the upgrades of the data centers devices and execute the upgrade schedule to upgrade the devices according to user-defined criteria [A: col. 10 L27-50].
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SKOVRON et al. (hereinafter SKOVRON, US 2018/0302303 A1) in view of Rafey et al. (hereinafter Rafey, US 2022/0114031 A1) and further in view of Mandava (US 9,483,247 B2).
As per claim 11, SKOVRON-Rafey discloses the method of Claim 10 as set forth above.
However, SKOVRON-Rafey does not teach wherein the one or more scores comprise:
an overutilization score indicating an extent to which the automatic assignment of the plurality of upgrade phases to the particular time slots overutilizes the support resources associated with the particular time slots; and
an underutilization score indicating an extent to which the automatic assignment of the plurality of upgrade phases to the particular time slots underutilizes the support resources associated with the particular time slots.
Mandava, from the same field of endeavor, explicitly discloses an overutilization score indicating an extent to which the automatic assignment of the plurality of upgrade phases to the particular time slots overutilizes the support resources associated with the particular time slots [col. 8 L2548: projected cpu load, memory usage, disk utilization, etc. used to predict overall system workload, fig. 4: utilization graph showing higher workload lines, col. 4 L44 to col. 5 L11: forecasting capability to forecast schedules and workloads which is used to load balance among resources to balance utilization]; and
an underutilization score indicating an extent to which the automatic assignment of the plurality of upgrade phases to the particular time slots underutilizes the support resources associated with the particular time slots [col. 8 L2548: projected cpu load, memory usage, disk utilization, etc. used to predict overall system workload, fig. 4: utilization graph showing low workload lines, col. 4 L44 to col. 5 L11: forecasting capability to forecast schedules and workloads which is used to load balance among resources to balance utilization].
Therefore, 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 SKOVRON-Rafey in view of Mandava in order to display an overutilization score and underutilization score indicating an extent to which the automatic assignment to particular time slots overutilizes or underutilizes the support resources.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have enabled load balancing among resources to balance utilization or workloads [Mandava: col. 4 L44 to col. 5 L11].
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SKOVRON et al. (hereinafter SKOVRON, US 2018/0302303 A1) in view of Rafey et al. (hereinafter Rafey, US 2022/0114031 A1) and further in view of Hoprich et al. (hereinafter Hoprich, US 2020/0319874 A1).
As per claim 12, SKOVRON-Rafey discloses the method of Claim 1 as set forth above.
However, SKOVRON-Rafey does not teach predicting durations of the plurality of upgrade phases based on historical upgrade duration data, wherein the automatic assignment of the plurality of upgrade phases to the particular time slots is based on the predicted durations of the plurality of upgrade phases.
Hoprich, from the same field of endeavor, teaches predicting durations of the plurality of upgrade phases based on historical upgrade duration data [fig. 2: training a model to predict the outage value based on data from prior upgrades, fig. 11: step #1100, [0011-0014]: During training phase, the ML model can receive training data comprising measured downtime (i.e. outage duration), upgrade config, etc. which model uses to learn. The model can then generate a downtime value (i.e. outage duration) indicating the predicted downtime that will be experienced by the software system when upgrade U is applied in environment E], wherein the automatic assignment of the plurality of upgrade phases to the particular time slots is based on the predicted durations of the plurality of upgrade phases [[0014]: the generated downtime value is then used to make appropriate plans for carrying out upgrade U. Alternatively, or in addition, the generated downtime value can be fed into a downstream engine which an automatically take one or more actions based on the prediction. The actions include, e.g. initiate or scheduling the upgrade if the predicted downtime is less than a predefined lower threshold, etc.].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify SKOVRON-Rafey in view of Hoprich in order to predict duration of the upgrade phases based on historical duration data and assign plurality of upgrade phases to particular time slots based on predicted durations, i.e. schedule the upgrade based on predicted duration of the upgrade.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have allowed the scheduling engine or system to automatically initiate or schedule the upgrade for an accurately predicted or preplanned time and automatically send a notice to end users alerting them about the predicted outage of the software system due to scheduled upgrades [Hoprich: [0072-0073]]. Predicting the upgrade duration based on historical data also achieves high accuracy regardless of the size or complexity of system, thus providing more efficient and reliable prediction [Hoprich: [[0023]].
As per claim 13, SKOVRON-Rafey-Hoprich discloses the method of Claim 12, further comprising displaying, via the UI, a predicted total duration of the plurality of upgrade phases based on the predicted durations of the plurality of upgrade phases [SKOVRON: fig. 13: Progress shows 120 days until target completion, Hoprich: fig. 2: training a model to predict the outage value based on data from prior upgrades, fig. 11: step #1100, [0011-0014], [0072-74]: provide predicted downtime value to request originator or one or more recommendations for reducing downtime].
SKOVRON-Rafey-Hoprich does not teach displaying via the UI the predicted total duration in association with the depiction of the schedule for the plurality of upgrade phases.
But, SKOVRON-Rafey does teach displaying via the UI depiction of the schedule for the plurality of upgrade phases [SKOVRON: [0041-0042]: generate recommendations. A user can modify the recommendation, review and configure the pilot, Rafey: fig. 3: Device upgrade recommendations provided to the users or tenants which includes upgrade schedule].
Therefore, 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 SKOVRON-Rafey in view of Hoprich in order to display the predicted total duration of the upgrades via the UI in association with the depiction of the schedule for the plurality of upgrade phases.
One of ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated because it would have notified end users about the accurately predicted outage of the software system due to scheduled upgrades, and enable the users or administrator to take one or more appropriate actions [Hoprich: [0072-0073]].
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2023/0008692 A1: Scheduling software upgrade of network devices.
US 12,107,726 B2: Network Device Upgrade based group priority
US 2021/0173727 A1: Execution of update campaigns
US 2023/0185615 A1: Automated Scheduling of Software Defined Data Center Upgrades at scale.
US 11,561,782: Upgrade Recommendations
US 2018/0189050: Rolling upgrades in disaggregated systems
US 2010/0241884 A1: Power adjustment based on completion times in parallel computing system [Teaches Claims 12-13 Functions].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAMAL B DIVECHA whose telephone number is 571-272-5863. The examiner can normally be reached IFP Normal Hours M-F: 8am-4.30pm 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, Colleen Fauz can be reached at 5712721667. 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.
KAMAL B. DIVECHA
Primary Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2453
/KAMAL B DIVECHA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2453