DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 3, “comprise” should be changed to – comprises – to be grammatically correct. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 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.
As to claim 1, the term “version” (in lines 9, 12, 17, and 21) is ambiguous because it may reasonably be interpreted as either (i) a version of the content itself, or (ii) a version of a separate element associated with the content, such as a snapshot, checkpoint, system state, etc. The claim does not specify which interpretation applies, nor provide objective boundaries defining a “version.” Therefore, the scope of the claim is unclear.
As to claims 2-8, they are also rejected as being dependent on rejected claim 1 and further failing to cure its deficiencies.
As to claim 3 (dependent to claim 1), the phrase “responsive to the second request” (lines 1 and 2 of claim 3) is indefinite because it conflicts with the request chain in claim 1 which states “responsive to the fourth request, store a second entry.” In claim 1, the kernel stores the second entry responsive to the “fourth request”, not the “second request”, which can make it unclear which event actually causes the setting of being immutable. Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 3.
As to claim 6 (dependent on claim 1), the new term “guest memory pages” is introduced which is ambiguous because it is unclear if it is referring to the “guest virtual memory address” (lines 4-6 of claim 1) or “guest physical memory pages” (lines 9, 12-13, 16, and 19 of claim 1) or both or something else. Each of these options would change the scope, and therefore, the scope cannot be ascertained. Claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 6.
As to claim 9, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 1. In addition, claim 9 recites the limitations "the versions" in line 11 and “the plurality of real physical memory addresses” in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
As to claims 10-15, they are also rejected as being dependent on rejected claim 9 and further failing to cure its deficiencies.
As to claim 16, the claim uses both a “compute node” and a “computer node” – it is unclear which entity is performing the recited operations. It is also unclear if these are the same element or different elements. In addition, the specification does not resolve this ambiguity, because it itself uses both terms. For example, the specification defines a “computer node” in [0032] while also separately using the term “compute node” in describing instruction execution/behavior in [0101]. Furthermore, the phrase “first entry corresponding to a first snapshot” (line 6) and “designating the second entry as corresponding to a second snapshot” (lines 8-9) in claim 16 are indefinite because different but reasonable interpretations could include (i) the entry being an identifier/version of a snapshot or (ii) the entry represents the data or content of the snapshot. Although these interpretations are related, they are different in scope, and therefore, the scope of the claim cannot be ascertained. Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 16.
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.
As to claims 1-8, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
As to claim 1, the claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Claim 1 is directed to a distributed system that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), may be implemented entirely in software. The recited distributed system comprises of computer nodes, a guest operating system, and a kernel. Under the BRI, the term computer nodes may encompass virtual computing nodes, such as virtual machines, which are software components. Similarly, a guest operating system and a kernel are well-known software components executed on generic computers. Although the claim references a block address of stable storage, for example, the claim does not recite any physical/hardware storage structure. Instead, the claim merely recites associating addresses or locations of memory and storage via a table. Therefore, claim 1 is not eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As to claims 2-8, they are also rejected as being dependent on rejected claim 1 and also failing to cure its deficiencies.
Claims 9-16 and 18-20 are directed to an abstract without significantly more.
As to claim 9, analysis under the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG) is provided below:
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory category?
YES. Claim 9 is directed to a method which falls under the statutory category of a process.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
YES. Claim 9 recites an abstract idea in the form of a mental process.
Claim 9 recites creating a distributed system, entries in a storage replica table associated with a guest physical memory address; storing data in the entries associating the entries with respective versions of content for the guest physical memory address; storing data in the entries associating the entries with respective stable storage block addresses; storing data in the entries associating the entries with respective real physical memory addresses; and responsive to a read request to read content associated with a first version of the versions: accessing the storage replica table; responsive to accessing the storage replica table, identifying a first entry of the entries associated with the first version, the first entry containing data associating the first entry with a first real physical memory address of the plurality of real physical memory addresses; and reading data from the first real physical memory address.
Under the BRI, these limitations collectively amount to collecting, storing, organizing, and retrieving information and involve maintaining a data table (storage replica table). This resembles data organization/observation and evaluation, which falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. These steps could be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components such as a kernel of a distributed system.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
NO. The claim recites the additional element of a kernel in a distributed system. Using generic components of a kernel in a distributed system to implement the abstract idea on a computer does not integrate into a practical application. The claim merely uses a generic computer with generic components as a tool to create/store/read/identify/associate entries in a data table, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, even in combination, the additional element of a kernel in a distributed system does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
NO. As discussed with respect to Step 2, Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Again, the claim merely uses a generic computer with generic components as a tool to create/store/read/identify/associate entries in a data table, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
Therefore, an inventive concept is not provided and claim 9 is ineligible.
As to claims 10-15, they are rejected as being dependent on claim 9 and also failing to cure its deficiencies.
As to claim 16, analysis under the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG) is provided below:
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory category?
YES. Claim 16 is directed to a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium which falls under the statutory category of an article of manufacture.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
YES. Claim 16 recites an abstract idea in the form of mental process.
Claim 16 recites responsive to a request to write content to a guest physical memory address: access a storage replica table, wherein the storage replica table comprises a first entry corresponding to a first snapshot for the guest physical memory address; create a second entry for the storage replica table; store data in the second entry designating the second entry as corresponding to a second snapshot for the guest physical memory address; store data in the second entry associating the guest physical memory address with a block address of stable storage; store data in the second entry associating the guest physical memory address with a real physical memory address; and write the content to the real physical memory address.
Under the BRI, these limitations collectively amount to collecting, storing, organizing, and retrieving information and involve maintaining a data table (storage replica table). This resembles data organization/observation and evaluation, which falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. These steps of creating and managing a data table could be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components such as a compute node of a distributed system.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
NO. The claim recites the additional element of a compute node of a distributed system. Using generic components of a compute node of a distributed system to implement the abstract idea on a computer does not integrate into a practical application. The claim merely uses a generic computer with generic components as a tool to create/store/write/identify/associate entries in a data table, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Therefore, even in combination, the additional element of a compute node of a distributed system does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
NO. As discussed with respect to Step 2, Prong Two, the additional element in the claim amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Again, the claim merely uses a generic computer with generic components as a tool to create/store/write/identify/associate entries in a data table, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity and is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity.
Therefore, an inventive concept is not provided and claim 16 is ineligible.
As to claims 18-20, they are rejected as being dependent on claim 9 and also failing to cure its deficiencies.
The Examiner notes that dependent claim 17 adds meaningful technological limitations beyond the mere creation and maintenance of table associations, and therefore, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 17 provides significantly more than the abstract idea and is thus eligible.
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, 4, 7-10, 12-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reed et al. (hereinafter REED) (US 2019/0146803 A1) in view of TSIRKIN (US 2021/0096898 A1), and further in view of Gao et al. (hereinafter GAO) (US 2015/0019825 A1).
As to claim 1, REED teaches a distributed system (computer system can be distributed systems) comprising (Abstract; [0037]; [0236]; Fig. 3B):
a plurality of computer nodes (Nodes 102, 108, and/or Physical Machines with Operating Systems 354, 356, 358, etc.) (Figs. 2 and 3B);
wherein a first computer node (Node 102, etc.) of the plurality of computer nodes comprises (Nodes 102, 108, and/or Physical Machines with Operating Systems 354, 356, 358, etc.) (Figs. 2 and 3B):
a program (an application typically references memory in a virtual address space) that provides a first request to write a first content (page contents can be read, written, modified, or copied) to a guest virtual memory address (virtual address or virtual address space) and a second request to write a second content (page contents can be read, written, modified, or copied) to the guest virtual memory address (virtual address or virtual address space) ([0072]; [0245]; [0273]; [0292]; [0367]-[0368]);
a guest operating system (virtual machine with respective guest operating system) ([0006]; [0041]; [0049]; [0367]; Fig. 3A);
responsive to the third request, stores a first entry associating the guest physical memory address (guest physical address) with a first real physical memory address (real physical address), a first block address of stable storage (physical page address within the network-attached memory (NAM), persistent and flash memory, etc.) (Abstract; [0223]; [0231]; [0258]; [0292]; [0367]-[0368]; Fig. 14); and
responsive to the fourth request, stores a second entry associating the guest physical memory address (guest physical addresses) with a second real physical memory address (real physical addresses), a second block address of stable storage (physical page address within the network-attached memory (NAM), persistent and flash memory, etc.) (Abstract; [0223]; [0231]; [0258]; [0292]; [0367]-[0368]; Fig. 14).
a guest operating system that (virtual machine with respective guest operating system) ([0006]; [0041]; [0049]; [0367]; Fig. 3A):
responsive to the first request, provides a third request to write the first content to a guest physical memory address (requests to write values into a guest physical address) (Abstract; [0071]-[0072]; [0368]; [0401]; [0411]); and
responsive to the second request, provides a fourth request to write the second content to the guest physical memory address (requests to write values into a guest physical address) (Abstract; [0071]-[0072]; [0368]; [0401]; [0411]).
responsive to the third request, stores a first entry associating the guest physical memory address (guest physical addresses) with a first real physical memory address (real physical addresses), a first block address of stable storage (physical page address within the network-attached memory (NAM), persistent and flash memory, etc.) (Abstract; [0223]; [0231]; [0258]; [0292]; [0367]-[0368]; Fig. 14); and
responsive to the fourth request, stores a second entry associating the guest physical memory address (guest physical addresses) with a second real physical memory address (real physical addresses), a second block address of stable storage (physical page address within the network-attached memory (NAM), persistent and flash memory, etc.) (Abstract; [0223]; [0231]; [0258]; [0292]; [0367]-[0368]; Fig. 14).
REED does not explicitly teach utilizing a storage replica table that contain the addresses of the stable storage block, real physical memory, and guest physical memory. In addition, REED does not explicitly teach that its first and second content have first and second versions, respectively, which are also included in the storage replica table.
However, TSIRKIN teaches a hypervisor-maintained (or Duplicate removal module 224, etc.) storage data structure 244 that stories entries (page table entries, etc.) associating guest physical memory addresses with underlying physical storage blocks (storage allocation module 232) ([0025]; [0062]; [0077]; [0081]), and is updated during copy-on-write operations (modification by copy-on-write) to associate the same guest physical memory with a physical storage block ([0092]; [0086]; [0081]). And for a subsequent request, a second physical storage block allocated on stable storage ([0081]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the application to incorporate TSIRKIN’s data structure/table/mapping mechanisms into REED’s distributed virtualization computing environment. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide the predicted result of having the data structure needed to preserve prior content while supporting updates or changes.
REED in view of TSIRKIN does not teach having a first and second versions of its content that is in the storage replica table (storage data structure 244).
However, GAO teaches utilizing a “duff list” to track a first (current version number (CuVerNo)) and second (new version number (CuVerNo+1) versions of content (multi-version data) to shared virtual memory pages ([0019]-[0020]). Shared multi-version data comprises previous version pages, current version pages, and updated version memory pages, thereby associating different content states with different versions via a “duff operation” ([[0015]; [0019]-[0023]; [0029]-[0030]; Figs 1 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the application to further incorporate GAO’s handling of memory with multi-version data, as described above, to REED in view of TSIRKIN’s system so that it would allow for previous versions of data to be accessed and restored in the situation of a crash, error, or other failure event (REED: [0230]-[0231]).
As to claim 2, REED ([0367]-[0368]) in view of TSIRKIN ([0025]; [0062]; [0077]; [0081]) teaches the distributed system of claim 1, wherein the kernel, responsive to the third request, writes the first content to the first real physical memory address and the first block address of stable storage.
As to claim 4, REED ([0367]-[0368]) in view of TSIRKIN ([0025]; [0062]; [0077]; [0081])teaches the distributed system of claim 1, wherein the kernel, responsive to the fourth request, writes the second content to the second real physical memory address and the second block address of stable storage.
As to claim 7, REED teaches the distributed system of claim 1, further comprising: a plurality of hyper-kernels distributed over the plurality of computer nodes and forming the kernel (an assembly or collection or cluster of hardware modules (e.g., computing nodes or individual computers) that run a distributed virtual machine manager referred to herein as a “hyper-kernel.”) ([0034]); and a virtual machine (virtual machine 302) distributed over the plurality of computer nodes (nodes 102, 108, etc.) and containing the guest operating system (virtual machine with respective guest operating system) ([0006]; [0035]; Figs. 1, 3).
As to claim 8, REED teaches the distributed system of claim 1, further comprising: a hypervisor (virtual machine manager referred herein as a “hyper-kernel”) hosted by the first computer node (one of a plurality of computing nodes in a cluster) and forming the kernel (hyper-kernel) ([0034]); and a virtual machine hosted by the first computer node (node 102 or 302, etc.) and containing the guest operating system (virtual machine with respective guest operating system) ([0041]; [0298]; Figs. 1, 3).
As to claim 9, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 10, REED ([0367]-[0368]) in view of TSIRKIN ([0025]; [0062]; [0077]; [0081]) teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising creating, by the kernel, additional entries in the storage replica table associated with additional guest physical memory addresses.
As to claim 12, REED (restore) ([0230]; [0265]; [0304]) in view of TSIRKIN ([0025]; [0062]; [0077]; [0081]) and in view of GAO (multi-version data) ([[0015]; [0019]-[0023]; [0029]-[0030]; Figs 1 and 3) teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising: providing, by a program instance, the read request; and restoring, by the program instance, content for a guest virtual memory corresponding to the first version.
As to claim 13, REED (Abstract; Figs 1-3) in view of TSIRKIN ([0025]; [0062]; [0077]; [0081]), and in view of GAO ([[0015]; [0019]-[0023]; [0029]-[0030]; Figs 1 and 3) teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising: providing, by a program instance, the read request; and comparing, by the program instance, first content for a guest virtual memory corresponding to the first version to second content for the guest virtual memory corresponding to a second version of the versions.
As to claim 14, REED (crash, error, or other failure such as a security attack) ([0230]-[0231]) in view of TSIRKIN ([0025]; [0062]; [0077]; [0081]), and in view of GAO ([[0015]; [0019]-[0023]; [0029]-[0030]; Figs 1 and 3) teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising: providing, by a program instance, the read request; determining, by the program instance, changes between first content for a guest virtual memory address corresponding to the first version and second content for the guest virtual memory address corresponding to a second version of the versions; correlating, by the program instance, the changes with a system event; and detecting, by the program instance, a security attack based on the correlation.
As to claim 15, REED (replicating or copying, etc.) ([0438]; [0231]; [0356]) in view of TSIRKIN (copy-on-write for producing snapshots) ([0018]; [0025]; [0062]; [0077]; [0081]), and in view of GAO ([[0015]; [0019]-[0023]; [0029]-[0030]; Figs 1 and 3) teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising: creating a snapshot of the guest physical memory address associated with the first version, wherein the creating comprise mirroring the data read from the first real physical memory address to a second real physical memory address.
As to claim 16, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 18, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 2.
As to claim 20, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 15.
Claims 3 and 11, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over REED in view of TSIRKIN, in view of GAO, and further in view of Rozas et al. (hereinafter ROZAS) (US 2008/0040565 A1).
As to claim 3, REED in view of TSIRKIN, in view of GAO, and further in view of ROZAS does not explicitly teach the distributed system of claim 2, wherein the kernel, responsive to the second request, modifies the second entry to designate the second entry as being immutable. However, ROZAS teaches a request is received to make a page immutable ([0034]; Figs. 3-6), and the mapping associated with the page is locked such that mapping may prevent mapping of the virtual page to another physical page ([0039]). ROZAS further teaches that a bit on an entry of a page table or an extended page table is set to indicate that the mapping of virtual page to physical page, and the associated permissions, are immutable ([0039]). Once marked, the immutable status unit ensures that the entry is not modified or removed from the table via the immutable status unit 320 ([0023]; Fig. 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the application to modify REED in view of TSIRKIN, in view of GAO such that it would include the teachings of ROZAS that entries could be designated and modified as immutable. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide the predicted result of improving security and integrity by preventing modification or remapping of the entry from malicious attacks (ROZAS: [0002]-[0003]).
As to claim 11, it is rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection of claim 3.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-6, 17, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112(b) are overcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH TANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3772. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-3PM.
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, Bradley Teets can be reached at 571-272-3338. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/KENNETH TANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2197