Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
2. 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.
3. Claims 1, 9, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
4. Regarding claim 1, the limitations “A computer-implemented method for reconciling moved workloads for a management component in a computing environment, the method comprising:
receiving information for a workload that has been updated within the computing environment;
determining whether the workload has a tracking marker that moves with the workload and requires remediation;
checking to see if the tracking marker of the workload is in an inventory database of the management component; …” as drafted, are functions that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. These limitations can encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation, judgement and/or opinion, with the possible aid of pen and paper. Thus, the limitations fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional limitations: “and when the tracking marker of the workload is found in the inventory database of the management component, reconciling metadata of the workload in the management component.”
The additional elements “… reconciling metadata of the workload …” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of “… tracking marker of the workload is found in the inventory database … reconciling metadata of the workload” have been identified by the courts as mere the retrieving and updating of data. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
The recitation of mere gathering, retrieving, and updating data do not amount to significantly more, thus, it cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
5. Regarding claims 9 and 17, they are similar to claim 1 and are rejected for similar reasons. Claim 9 is directed towards “a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing instructions for reconciling…” but it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception. Claim 17 is directed towards “a system comprising memory and one or more processors,” which amounts to no more than generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. Claim(s) 1, 4-7, 9, 12-15, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Al Reza et al. Pub. No. US 2020/0050475 A1 (hereafter Al Reza).
8. Regarding claim 1, Al Reza teaches “A computer-implemented method for reconciling moved workloads for a management component in a computing environment ([Abs]), the method comprising: receiving information for a workload that has been updated within the computing environment ([0029] teaches a VM being identified by a manager that was just registered; moved into the vCenter);
determining whether the workload has a tracking marker that moves with the workload and requires remediation ([[0040-0041] teaches each VM that is registered is assigned a MOID. VMs are also assigned a UUID in order to track them universally and allows for VMs to be reconciled when updated, such that it always moves with them. As such, both the MOID and UUID make up the tracking marker);
checking to see if the tracking marker of the workload is in an inventory database of the management component; and when the tracking marker of the workload is found in the inventory database of the management component, reconciling metadata of the workload in the management component (Fig. 7 (pseudocode) & [0048-0057] teaches an index of UUIDs called index1 and then checks for any matches. If so, consolidate them into a group and combine their snapshot histories, such that it reconciles the metadata of the VM).”
9. Regarding claim 9, it is similar to claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons. Claim 9 is directed towards “A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium containing program instructions for reconciling moved workloads for a management component in a computing environment, wherein execution of the program instructions by one or more processors causes the one or more processors to perform steps… ([0083])”
10. Regarding claim 17, it is similar to claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons. Claim 17 is directed towards “A system comprising: memory; and one or more processors… (Fig. 9, [0059-0067]).”
11. Regarding claim 4, Al Reza teaches “The method of claim 1, further comprising embedding the tracking marker in the workload when the workload is provisioned by the management component ([0029] teaches assigning a MOID when a VM is registered to the vCenter. [0069-0070] teaches checking for an ID match with newly created VMs such that when a newly created VM is deployed, it is assigned an MOID and is used for reconciliation when requested).”
12. Regarding the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 12, it is similar to that of claim 4, and is rejected for the same reasons.
13. Regarding claim 5, Al Reza teaches “The method of claim 1, further comprising embedding the tracking marker in the workload when the workload is onboarded to be under management of the management component ([0040] teaches when a VM is registered, the MOID changes such that it is given a new one).”
14. Regarding the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 13, it is similar to that of claim 5, and is rejected for the same reasons.
15. Regarding the system of claim 20, it is similar to that of claims 4 and 5, and are rejected for the same reasons.
16. Regarding claim 6, Al Reza teaches “The method of claim 1, further comprising adding the workload in the inventory database of the management component when the workload has neither been provisioned by the management component nor been onboarded to be under management of the management component. (Fig. 7 (Pseudocode) & [0069-0071] teaches of a newly created VM that may have also not been previously registered, and with such cases cause a new Virtual Machine Group (VMG) to be established with a new ID, and the VM being the initial member in the group).”
17. Regarding the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 14, it is similar to that of claim 6, and is rejected for the same reasons.
18. Regarding claim 7, Al Reza teaches “The method of claim 1, wherein the workload is a virtual machine ([Abs, 0004-0012] teaches of virtual machines and their functions, such that the workload represented in consolidating snapshots are of virtual machines).”
19. Regarding the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 15, it is similar to that of claim 7, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
20. 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.
21. Claims 2, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al Reza as used above in claims 1, 9, and 17, and in further view of Kalandyk et al. Pub. No. US 2021/0263758 (hereafter Kalandyk).
22. Regarding claim 2, Al Reza states in [0071-0072] that if a first VM does not belong to any VM group, it gets assigned as the initial member of a new VM group such that its ID was not matched in the index.
Al Reza does not teach that if the VM does not belong to any group, it would generate an error.
Kalandyk teaches an error request when a UUID is empty when trying to verify a VM such that it teaches the limitation “The method of claim 1, further comprising, when the tracking marker of the workload is not found in the inventory database of the management component, generating an error for the workload (Fig. 5, [0028, 0037-0042] teach verifying if UUID exists in a plurality of virtual center servers such that if it is not found, then it is an error and a request to fix it is put out).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date to combine the teachings of Kalandyk with the invention of Al Reza to implement an error system when an ID of a VM is not found in the database. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to reduce data processing overhead and avoid vulnerabilities (Kalandyk [0042]) creating a more secure, streamlined virtualized environment. Together, Kalandyk in combination with Al Reza teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied said teachings to achieve expected results.
23. Regarding the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 10, it is similar to claim 2, and is rejected for the same reasons.
24. Regarding the system of claim 18, it is similar to claim 2, and is rejected for the same reasons.
25. Claims 3, 11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al Reza as used above in claims 1, 9, and 17, and in further view of Park et al. Pub. No. US 2020/0228486 A1 (hereafter Park).
26. Regarding claim 3, Al Reza teaches of making a decision when a new VM needs to be added as a newly created, independent VM or needs to be linked, such that the when adding as a newly created VM, it does not have a matching ID [0050].
Al Reza does not explicitly teach that the VM will be added as an unmanaged workload into the database.
Park teaches of a server that stores both managed and unmanaged workloads such that it teaches the limitation “The method of claim 1, further comprising, when the workload does not have any tracking marker, adding the workload as an unmanaged workload in the inventory database of the management component ([0020] teaches both managed and unmanaged workloads under the management of the segmentation server).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date to combine the teachings of Park with the invention of Al Reza to allow the database to store unmanaged VMs as well. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to restrict certain workloads as well as allowing them to provide services when needed (Park [0020]), allowing for flexible access of workloads. Together, Park in combination with Al Reza teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied said teachings to achieve expected results.
27. Regarding the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 11, it is similar to claim 3, and is rejected for the same reasons.
28. Regarding the system of claim 19, it is similar to claim 3, and is rejected for the same reasons.
29. Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al Reza as used above in claims 1, 9, and 17, and in further view of Karp et al. Pub. No. US 2025/0045083 A1 (hereafter Karp).
30. Regarding claim 8, Al Reza teaches of a MOID and a UUID used to track VMs to consolidate their data ([0040-0041]).
However, Al Reza does not explicitly teach that the IDs are written in a configuration file of a virtual machine.
Karp teaches that a VM configuration file may include the virtual machine’s ID such that it teaches the limitation “The method of claim 7, wherein the tracking marker is written in a configuration file of the virtual machine ([0130] teaches configuration file extended to include virtual machine’s ID).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date to combine the teachings of Karp with the invention of Al Reza to have written the identifiers of the virtual machine in its configuration file. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to allow for easy access of a virtual machine’s ID when performing ID checks from the VM to the database. Together, Karp in combination with Al Reza teach every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied said teachings to achieve expected results.
31. Regarding the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 16, it is similar to claim 8, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
32. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON A NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6074. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (10am-6pm).
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, Aimee Li can be reached at (571) 272-4169. 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.
/BRANDON NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2195
/Aimee Li/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2195
Prosecution Insights