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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs and/or columns and lines in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06.
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.
Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application
Applicant is encouraged to file an Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application form (http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) along with the response to this office action to facilitate and expedite future communication between Applicant and the examiner. If the form is submitted then Applicant is requested to provide a contact email address in the signature block at the conclusion of the official reply.
Abstract Objection
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the first word “provisioning” should be “Provisioning”. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
35 USC § 112(f) – Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a blueprint engine configured to”, “a first instance engine configured to”, and “a second instance engine configured to” in claim 15 (e.g., see [0020]-[0020] of the instant specification).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If Applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), Applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim is a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter:
Claim 1. A method, comprising.
Step 2A Prong One: The claim recites an abstract idea because it includes limitations that can be considered mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind or via pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea:
creating a blueprint, wherein the blueprint includes a definition of a resource (abstract idea mental process).
Step 2A Prong Two: The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is recited but for generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. data storage, processor, memory, computer readable medium, etc.) which do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea amounting to simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer using generic computing hardware and/or software (e.g. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the recited generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea:
using a development platform (generic computing components for performing extra-solution activity of merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea), and wherein provisioning the resource (generic computing components) includes provisioning a first cloud resource (generic computing components) and a second cloud resource (generic computing components) provided by a cloud provider (generic computing components);
provisioning a first instance of the resource of the blueprint by provisioning a first instance of the first cloud resource and a first instance of the second cloud resource (generic computing components for performing extra-solution activity of merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea); and
provisioning a second instance of the resource of the blueprint, wherein provisioning the second instance of the resource includes provisioning a second instance of the first cloud resource and sharing the first instance of the second cloud resource (generic computing components for performing extra-solution activity of merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea).
Step 2B: The claim includes limitations which can be considered extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) insufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional limitations only perform at least one of collecting, gathering, displaying, generating, modifying, updating, storing, retrieving, sending, and receiving data/information data which are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)II. The claim further includes limitations that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they merely recite the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim, and its limitations when considered separately and in combination, is directed to patent ineligible subject matter:
using a development platform, wherein provisioning the resource includes provisioning a first cloud resource and a second cloud resource provided by a cloud provider (extra-solution activity of merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea);
provisioning a first instance of the resource of the blueprint by provisioning a first instance of the first cloud resource and a first instance of the second cloud resource (extra-solution activity of merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea); and
provisioning a second instance of the resource of the blueprint, wherein provisioning the second instance of the resource includes provisioning a second instance of the first cloud resource and sharing the first instance of the second cloud resource (extra-solution activity of merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea).
Claim 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the resource is a load balancer (generic computing components).
Claim 3. The method of claim 2, wherein provisioning the load balancer includes provisioning, by the cloud provider: a health check; a firewall rule; an instance group; a backend service; and a forwarding rule (merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea).
Claim 4. The method of claim 2, wherein the first cloud resource is a forwarding rule of the load balancer and wherein the second cloud resource is an instance group of the load balancer (generic computing components).
Claim 5. The method of claim 1, wherein the method includes specifying, in the blueprint, that the second instance of the resource is to be provisioned by sharing the first instance of the second cloud resource (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 6. The method of claim 1, wherein the resource is cloud agnostic (generic computing components).
Claim 7. The method of claim 1, wherein the method includes: provisioning a third instance of the resource of the blueprint, wherein provisioning the third instance of the resource includes provisioning a third instance of the first cloud resource and sharing the first instance of the second cloud resource (merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea).
As per claim 8, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 9, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 10, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 11, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 12, it has similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 13, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 14, it has similar limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 16, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 17, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 18, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 19, it has similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 20, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
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, 8-9, 13, 15-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boychev et al. (US 2021/0216567) (hereinafter Boychev) in view of Hanumantharaya et al. (US 2016/0364304) (hereinafter Hanumantharaya).
As per claim 1, Boychev primarily teaches the invention as claimed including a method, comprising:
creating a blueprint using a development platform ([0046] cloud manager manages creation of blueprint and [0084] cloud manager includes means for generating a blueprint), wherein the blueprint includes a definition of a resource ([0031] cloud management platforms can provision requested resources defined and/or otherwise specified in a blueprint), and wherein provisioning the resource includes provisioning a first cloud resource and a second cloud resource provided by a cloud provider ([0035] cloud provider can be a cloud computing platform provider that provisions virtual computing resources in different cloud environments and [0039] cloud provider provisions virtual computing resources to provide cloud deployment environments).
Boychev does not explicitly teach:
provisioning a first instance of the resource by provisioning a first instance of the first resource and a first instance of the second resource; and
provisioning a second instance of the resource, wherein provisioning the second instance of the resource includes provisioning a second instance of the first resource and sharing the first instance of the second resource.
However, Hanumantharaya teaches:
provisioning a first instance of the resource by provisioning a first instance of the first resource and a first instance of the second resource ([0021] provision virtual computing instances with resources); and
provisioning a second instance of the resource, wherein provisioning the second instance of the resource includes provisioning a second instance of the first resource ([0021] provision virtual computing instances with resources) and sharing the first instance of the second resource ([0030] parent and linked clone virtual computing instances share resources).
Hanumantharaya and Boychev are both concerned with resource management in computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boychev in view of Hanumantharaya because it would provide agent virtual computing instances (AVCI) and thus its services to its dependent virtual computing instances in the event of a storage failure, and can do so without user input. Providing that availability may entail the creation of a linked clone (e.g., a full clone) of an AVCI and/or the redeployment of an AVCI to support a dependent VCI that is deployed on a different storage location. Availability can be provided across clusters and/or datacenters.
As per claim 2, Boychev further teaches wherein the resource is a load balancer ([0065] load balancers).
As per claim 6, Boychev further teaches wherein the resource is cloud agnostic ([0030] cloud-agnostic blueprint and [0032] cloud-agnostic policies and rules).
As per claim 8, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 9, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 13, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 16, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 20, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 3-4, 10-11, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boychev in view of Hanumantharaya in view of Berenberg et al. (US 10,812,366) (hereinafter Berenberg).
As per claim 3, Boychev further teaches wherein provisioning the load balancer includes provisioning, by the cloud provider: a health check ([0101] provisioning status information); an instance group ([0046] multi-machine blueprint defines attributes of multiple virtual machines as a single group that can be provisioned, deployed, managed, etc., as a single unit).
Boychev in view of Hanumantharaya do not explicitly teach: a firewall rule; a backend service; and a forwarding rule.
However, Berenberg teaches: a firewall rule (col. 11, ll. 26-44 different policies/contracts/protocols for communication between endpoints for network endpoint groups and col. 17, ll. 29-30 network endpoint groups may be implemented for routing and firewall); a backend service (abstract network endpoint group provides a logical grouping for providers of backend services that may be arranged on the network endpoints); and a forwarding rule (col. 11, ll. 1-11 forwarding rules).
Berenberg and Boychev are both concerned with resource management in computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boychev in view of Hanumantharaya in view of Berenberg because it would provide for cloud-based load balancing techniques are that utilize network endpoint groups of virtualized and/or non-virtualized computing instances to enable greater scalability and performance for backend service provision. Users may benefit from greater performance in a cloud computing environment when load balancing capabilities are extended to network endpoint groups within the cloud environment. For example, backend services deployed as network endpoint groups with load balancing functionality are capable of distributing backend service traffic more evenly than earlier cloud environments that did not leverage network endpoint groups. Service providers may load balance service traffic to the backend services that are associated with a particular network endpoint group as a way of optimizing computing resources and managing data quality and user experience for the backend service. Having one network endpoint group per backend service simplifies the design and reduces error conditions.
As per claim 4, Berenberg teaches wherein the first cloud resource is a forwarding rule of the load balancer (col. 9, ll. 58-64 forwarding rules in the application load balancer) and wherein the second cloud resource is an instance group of the load balancer (col. 5, ll. 56-63 network endpoint groups provide backend services to be grouped which allows a load balancer to distribute traffic to backend services).
As per claim 10, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 11, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 17, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 18, it has similar limitations as claim 4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 5, 7, 12, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boychev in view of Hanumantharaya in view of Gupte et al. (US 2016/0212020) (hereinafter Gupte).
As per claim 5, Boychev in view of Hanumantharaya do not explicitly teach wherein the method includes specifying, in the blueprint, that the second instance of the resource is to be provisioned by sharing the first instance of the second cloud resource.
However, Gupte teaches wherein the method includes specifying, in the blueprint, that the second instance of the resource is to be provisioned by sharing the first instance of the second cloud resource ([0032] cloud service management system orchestrates deployment of resources described by a blueprint including shared resources and selection of resource providers for multi-tenancy provision of building blocks).
Gupte and Boychev are both concerned with resource management in computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boychev in view of Hanumantharaya in view of Gupte because it would enable selection of a specific resource provider associated with a generic provider to be performed at run-time (e.g., when the design is executed, managed, monitored, and/or updated). Selecting a specific resource provider to perform a task at run-time instead of design time can provide a number of advantages, because it allows a better separation of concerns between the various roles and functions. Once the design has been established, the underlying provider infrastructure can be changed without affecting a given service as the service can be established in the design.
As per claim 7. The method of claim 1, wherein the method includes: provisioning a third instance of the resource of the blueprint, wherein provisioning the third instance of the resource includes provisioning a third instance of the first cloud resource and sharing the first instance of the second cloud resource ([0032] cloud service management system orchestrates deployment of resources described by a blueprint including shared resources and selection of resource providers for multi-tenancy provision of building blocks).
Gupte and Boychev are both concerned with resource management in computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Boychev in view of Hanumantharaya in view of Gupte because it would enable selection of a specific resource provider associated with a generic provider to be performed at run-time (e.g., when the design is executed, managed, monitored, and/or updated). Selecting a specific resource provider to perform a task at run-time instead of design time can provide a number of advantages, because it allows a better separation of concerns between the various roles and functions. Once the design has been established, the underlying provider infrastructure can be changed without affecting a given service as the service can be established in the design.
As per claim 12, it has similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 14, it has similar limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 19, it has similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Padmanabh et al. (US 2018/0324251) disclose cloud resource provisioning using blueprint chaining.
Martinez et al. (US 2014/0280961) disclose cloud computing abstraction with multi-tier deployment policies.
Kavadimatti et al. (US 2021/0028993) disclose detecting drift in a hybrid cloud environment.
Asthana et al. (US 2019/0268277) disclose an orchestration engine using a blockchain for a cloud resource digital ledger.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam Lee whose telephone number is (571) 270-3369. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 8AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the above noted Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Vital, can be reached at the following telephone number: (571) 272-4215. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/Adam Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198 February 23, 2026