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
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant states: In the existing technology, a conventional microservice architecture may utilize cluster management operators that include an undercluster and an overcluster, where the undercluster and the overcluster communicate with each other to orchestrate the use of physical computing resources of a host system by a workload executed within an execution environment. See Applicant's specification at paragraph [0019]. The undercluster may have existing storage clusters that may be used for data storage by host systems of the microservice architecture, but the overcluster is unable to utilize the existing storage clusters doe to contention issues or lack of credentials to access the existing storage clusters. The overcluster is unable to determine which storage clusters are being utilized by the undercluster, and there is a potential for the overcluster and the undercluster to use the same areas of the storage cluster which may lead to data loss or data corruption. In an effort to avoid data loss or data corruption, the overcluster may send a command to create new storage clusters. However, the creation of new storage clusters increases the overhead and decreases the performance of the host system and the microservice architecture. Embodiments of the present invention resolve the technological problem of increased overhead by reducing the number of persistent volumes that are created or deleted for workloads of the microservice architecture. See Applicant's specification at paragraph [0024]… Accordingly, Applicant submits that the advantage of being able to reduce overhead of microservice architecture by reducing the number of persistent volumes that are created or deleted for workloads of the microservice architecture provides an improvement to the functioning of a computer, other technology, and/or technical field. As such, Applicant submits that the recitations of amended independent claim 1 are integrated into a practical application and are, therefore, patent-eligible.
Examiner states: Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “The undercluster may have existing storage clusters that may be used for data storage by host systems”, “The overcluster is unable to determine which storage clusters are being utilized by the undercluster, and there is a potential for the overcluster and the undercluster to use the same areas of the storage cluster which may lead to data loss or data corruption”, “the technological problem of increased overhead by reducing the number of persistent volumes that are created or deleted for workloads of the microservice architecture”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, for these reasons, Examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
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 (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent claims the limitations converting a command to a second command, as drafted, recites functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a function that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitations as cited above as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process.
Thus, these limitation falls 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: a driver, volume, memory, processor, the workload provided storage capacity. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f), and steps of receiving and transmitting, do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. 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. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a driver, volume, memory, processor, the workload provided storage capacity, amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. Furthermore, the limitations directed to receiving and transmitting the courts have identified mere data gathering is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and mere data gathering do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 2, 13, 15 the limitations of converting are functions that can be reasonably performed in the human mind, thus, additional mental process defined in the claims. the limitations of receiving and transmitting are nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity which is not a practical application under prong 2. Under step 2B, the courts of identified the generic function of gathering/storing data, the results of the judicial exception, is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding claim 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12,14, 16, 18, 19, 20 the limitations of updating, providing an indication, executing a driver and workload, what a first and second command comprises, modifying capacity, provide a specification, annotate with a reference are nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity which is not a practical application under prong 2. Under step 2B, the courts of identified the generic function of gathering/storing data, the results of the judicial exception, is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding claim 10, 11 the limitation of volume management component is considered mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception Accordingly, the additional element recited in claim 3 fails to provide a practical application under prong 2, or amount to significantly more under step 2B.
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.
Claim/s 1, 6-11, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yankovskiy (Pub. No. US 2021/0103395) in further view of Keshava (Pub. No. US 2021/0405899).
Claim 1, 8, 16 Yankovskiy teaches “a method comprising: receiving, by a processing device of a host system executing a nested container storage interface (CSI) driver, a first command from a workload to create a persistent volume ([0023] The container engine passes the above create volume request to an encrypted container storage integration service (ECSIS) or driver operating/integrated with the container engine.); converting, by the nested CSI driver, the first command used by the workload to create the persistent volume to a second command used by the host system to increase a capacity of a previously generated persistent volume allocated to the workload (i.e. as provided below [0015] The dynamic encrypted storage mechanism would allow one to specify the amount of encrypted storage that is required for the container/application on-demand. [0061] Alternatively, the operator may specify a “-mount” option for mounting an existing storage volume. These options/flags respectively signal a request to container engine 108 to create a storage volume or to mount an existing volume for the requesting container.); and transmitting the second command to an undercluster CSI driver of the host system, wherein the second command causes the undercluster CSI driver to increase the capacity of the previously generated persistent volume ([0023] The ECSIS in turn passes the request to an encrypted dynamic volume manager (EDVM) of the present technology. The EDVM interfaces with a storage allocation module (SAM) and requests a volume of the required size of the original create volume request [Fig. 2] 150 as undercluster [0100] CSIS 154 passes the request to DVM 156 per step/block 306 which in turn passes it to SAM 158 per step/block 308. [0088] Next, SAM 158 will initialize a candidate list or CL per box 254. Based on the above explanation of flowchart 250, and specifically decision 258, box 260 and decisions 262, 264, SAM 158 will add 3 unallocated slices from slices 164B in CL [0084] Thus, per box 270 SAM 158 modifies/improves upon its initial greedy choice of slice allocation and removes the excess storage. If there are no further smaller slices available at the top of SASL at decision diamond 258, then that could mean one of two scenarios, (i) either now CL contains enough slices that just/optimally exceed the required size of storage,)”.
However, Yankovskiy may not explicitly teach the conversion aspect of sending commands.
Keshava teaches “converting… the first command used by the workload to create the persistent volume to a second command used by the host system to increase a capacity of a previously generated persistent volume allocated to the workload, wherein the workload is provided access to an increased storage capacity of the previously generated persistent volume ([0083] Upon receiving the request/command, the variable performance storage device 220 can determine if the specific controller can be changed to the requested value (block 855). If the controller can be changed to the requested value, the process 800 can change the requested variable (block 870). In response to a request or command not being able to be honored, the process 800 can transmit a signal to the host-computing device indicating the inability to change the requested variable (block 860). In one example, the host-computing device may request that the number of submission queues in a first controller be increased, but the native maximum number of submission queues within the variable performance storage device 220 have already been assigned to various controllers. In a number of embodiments, once the host-computing device receives the incompatibility or inability signal, it may re-configure the request and/or submit a precursor request to reduce one or more associated performance control variables in another controller in order to provide the resources (or headroom) to facilitate the original request. It is also contemplated that a host-computing device, in response to receiving a signal indicating that resources within the variable performance storage device 220 are currently exhausted, may transmit a subsequent signal configured to establish an additional communication connection with an additional storage device or computing system. [0075] Either during operation or the set-up process, at least one of the virtual machines, hypervisor, or host-computing device will send a request for an increased or decreased performance level (block 630). [Fig. 5] resources that may be modified)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Keshava with the teachings of Yankovskiy in order to manage variable storage. The motivation for applying Keshava teaching with Yankovskiy teaching is to provide a system that allows for custom storage modifications for improved resource usage. Yankovskiy, Keshava are analogous art directed towards processing memory-based commands. Together Yankovskiy, Keshava 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 the teachings of Keshava with the teachings of Yankovskiy by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim 6, the combination teaches the claim, wherein Yankovskiy teaches “the method of claim 1, wherein the workload and the nested CSI driver are executed within a container ([Fig. 2] executed within host 102)”.
Claim 7, the combination teaches the claim, wherein Yankovskiy teaches “the method of claim 1, wherein the second command comprises an amount to increase the capacity of the previously generated persistent volume ([0023] The ECSIS in turn passes the request to an encrypted dynamic volume manager (EDVM) of the present technology. The EDVM interfaces with a storage allocation module (SAM) and requests a volume of the required size of the original create volume request [Fig. 2] 150 as undercluster [0100] CSIS 154 passes the request to DVM 156 per step/block 306 which in turn passes it to SAM 158 per step/block 308. [0088] Next, SAM 158 will initialize a candidate list or CL per box 254. Based on the above explanation of flowchart 250, and specifically decision 258, box 260 and decisions 262, 264, SAM 158 will add 3 unallocated slices from slices 164B in CL [0084] Thus, per box 270 SAM 158 modifies/improves upon its initial greedy choice of slice allocation and removes the excess storage. If there are no further smaller slices available at the top of SASL at decision diamond 258, then that could mean one of two scenarios, (i) either now CL contains enough slices that just/optimally exceed the required size of storage,)”.
Claim 9, the combination teaches the claim, wherein Yankovskiy teaches “the system of claim 8, wherein the nested CSI driver updates the capacity of the persistent volume allocated to the execution environment in response to the capacity of the persistent volume being modified ([0023] The ECSIS in turn passes the request to an encrypted dynamic volume manager (EDVM) of the present technology. The EDVM interfaces with a storage allocation module (SAM) and requests a volume of the required size of the original create volume request [Fig. 2] 150 as undercluster [0100] CSIS 154 passes the request to DVM 156 per step/block 306 which in turn passes it to SAM 158 per step/block 308. [0088] Next, SAM 158 will initialize a candidate list or CL per box 254. Based on the above explanation of flowchart 250, and specifically decision 258, box 260 and decisions 262, 264, SAM 158 will add 3 unallocated slices from slices 164B in CL [0084] Thus, per box 270 SAM 158 modifies/improves upon its initial greedy choice of slice allocation and removes the excess storage. If there are no further smaller slices available at the top of SASL at decision diamond 258, then that could mean one of two scenarios, (i) either now CL contains enough slices that just/optimally exceed the required size of storage,)”.
Claim 10, the combination teaches the claim, wherein Yankovskiy teaches “the system of claim 8, wherein the volume management component comprises a logical volume manager ([0065] Let us now refer back to FIG. 3 to continue expanding our understanding of the various aspects of the present design. In addition to SCM 152 in dynamic container storage 150 of FIG. 2-4, there is also a container storage integration service (CSIS) or volume driver 154, a dynamic volume manager (DVM) 156 and a storage allocation module or engine (SAM) 158. Exemplary implementations of CSIS/driver based on instant principles include Docker volume driver, Kubernetes' container storage class or interface (CSI), Red Hat Openshift driver, rkt, etc.)”.
Claim 11, the combination teaches the claim, wherein Yankovskiy teaches “the system of claim 8, wherein the volume management component comprises a network storage driver ([0065] Let us now refer back to FIG. 3 to continue expanding our understanding of the various aspects of the present design. In addition to SCM 152 in dynamic container storage 150 of FIG. 2-4, there is also a container storage integration service (CSIS) or volume driver 154, a dynamic volume manager (DVM) 156 and a storage allocation module or engine (SAM) 158. Exemplary implementations of CSIS/driver based on instant principles include Docker volume driver, Kubernetes' container storage class or interface (CSI), Red Hat Openshift driver, rkt, etc.)”.
Claim/s 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yankovskiy, Keshava, in further view of Wolfin (Pub. No. US 2020/0233961).
Claim 5, the combination may not explicitly teach the limitation.
Wolfin teaches “the method of claim 1, wherein the workload and the nested CSI driver are executed within a virtual machine (Wolfin teaches as evidence a container engine executes within a VM [0039] The container engine 212 and container monitor 550 can be implemented in the VM 310.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Wolfin with the teachings of Yankovskiy, Keshava in order to evidence of the environment of Yankovskiy. The motivation for applying Wolfin teaching with Yankovskiy, Keshava, teaching is to provide a system that allows for design choice. Yankovskiy, Keshava, Wolfin are analogous art directed towards processing memory-based commands. Together Yankovskiy, Keshava, Wolfin 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 the teachings of Wolfin with the teachings of Yankovskiy, Keshava by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim/s 2-4, 12-15, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yankovskiy, Keshava in further view of Stabrawa (Pub. No. US 2020/0371700).
Claim 2, the combination may not explicitly teach the claim.
Stabrawa teaches “the method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving a third command from the workload to delete the persistent volume; converting the third command used by the workload to delete the persistent volume to a fourth command used by the host system to decrease the capacity of the previously generated persistent volume allocated to the workload; and transmitting the fourth command to the undercluster CSI driver of the host system, wherein the fourth command causes the undercluster CSI driver to decrease the capacity of the previously generated persistent volume([0110] Upon receiving a request to destroy the region 214, the region access logic 212 may de-allocate the portion of the memory included in the memory appliance 110 for the region 214. De-allocating may include listing the de-allocated portions on the free list. Alternatively, or in addition, the region access logic 212 may delete any persisted data related to the region 214 included in the backing store 260. The region access logic 212 may respond to the request to destroy the region 214 with a response message. The response message may include the identifier associated with the region 214 and/or a status, indicating whether the operation was successful.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Stabrawa with the teachings of Yankovskiy, Keshava in order to evidence of adjusting resource requirements. The motivation for applying Stabrawa teaching with Yankovskiy, Keshava, teaching is to provide a system that allows for efficient use of resources. Yankovskiy, Wolfin, Keshava, Stabrawa are analogous art directed towards processing memory-based commands. Together Yankovskiy, Keshava, Stabrawa 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 the teachings of Stabrawa with the teachings of Yankovskiy, Keshava by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim 3, the combination may not explicitly teach the claim.
Stabrawa teaches “the method of claim 1, further comprising: updating, by the nested CSI driver, the capacity of the previously generated persistent volume that is available for use by the workload ([0101] Alternatively, or in addition, the size of the portion of the memory may be specified by the request to resize the existing region 214. Alternatively, or in addition, the request to resize the existing region 214 may specify an offset within the region 214 where the allocated portion may appear. For example, the request to resize the existing region 214 may be re-allocating a portion of the region 214 that was previously de-allocated by a different request to resize the same region 214. The region access logic 212 may assign the allocated portion to the region 214. The region access logic 212 may update the region metadata 215 to include references to the allocated portion of the memory 210.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Stabrawa with the teachings of Yankovskiy, Keshava in order to evidence of adjusting resource requirements. The motivation for applying Stabrawa teaching with Yankovskiy, Keshava, teaching is to provide a system that allows for efficient use of resources. Yankovskiy, Keshava, Stabrawa are analogous art directed towards processing memory-based commands. Together Yankovskiy, Keshava, Stabrawa 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 the teachings of Stabrawa with the teachings of Yankovskiy, Keshava by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim 4, the combination teaches the claim, wherein Yankovskiy teaches “the method of claim 3, further comprising: providing an indication to the workload that the updated capacity of the previously generated persistent volume is available for use by the workload ([0089] At this point, a logical storage volume 168 has been created by DVM 156 of dynamic container storage 150 that satisfies the size requirement specified in the create volume request. DVM now passes the volume id of the newly created volume to CSIS 154 as shown by box 218 in FIG. 5. Then as shown by box 220, CSIS 154 in turn now passes this volume id to container engine 108 thus satisfying the create volume request of the specified on-demand size. Container engine 108 now in turn can provide this volume to the requesting container/user, although this step in not explicitly shown.)”.
Claim 12, the combination teaches the claim, wherein Stabrawa teaches “the system of claim 8, wherein the first command to modify the capacity is received from the nested CSI driver in response to the workload providing a third command to create a second persistent volume ([0171] Determining how to structure the external memory allocation may include determining whether to resize the existing regions referenced by the external memory allocation, whether to create additional regions, and/or whether to replace existing regions with new regions. The allocation logic 412 may resize the existing regions referenced by the external memory allocation, create additional regions, and/or replace existing regions with new regions using the methods described throughout this disclosure.)”.
Claim 13, the combination teaches the claim, wherein Stabrawa teaches “the system of claim 12, wherein the nested CSI driver converts the third command into the first command to modify the capacity of the persistent volume, and wherein the second command comprises a command to increase the capacity of the persistent volume ([0162] The allocation logic 412 may create additional regions by sending a request to create a region to the region access logic 212 of the memory appliances selected to include the additional regions. Alternatively, or in addition, the allocation logic 412 may resize existing regions by sending a request to resize an existing region to the region access logic 212 of the memory appliances including the existing regions. Alternatively, or in addition, the allocation logic 412 may destroy existing regions by sending a request to destroy a region to the region access logic 212 of the memory appliances including the existing regions.)”.
Claim 14, the combination teaches the claim, wherein Stabrawa teaches “the system of claim 8, wherein the first command to modify the capacity is received from the nested CSI driver in response to the workload providing a third command to delete the persistent volume ([0162] The allocation logic 412 may create additional regions by sending a request to create a region to the region access logic 212 of the memory appliances selected to include the additional regions. Alternatively, or in addition, the allocation logic 412 may resize existing regions by sending a request to resize an existing region to the region access logic 212 of the memory appliances including the existing regions. Alternatively, or in addition, the allocation logic 412 may destroy existing regions by sending a request to destroy a region to the region access logic 212 of the memory appliances including the existing regions.)”.
Claim 15, the combination teaches the claim, wherein Stabrawa teaches “the system of claim 14, wherein the nested CSI driver converts the third command into the first command to modify the capacity of the persistent volume, and wherein the second command comprises a command to increase the capacity of the persistent volume ([0162] The allocation logic 412 may create additional regions by sending a request to create a region to the region access logic 212 of the memory appliances selected to include the additional regions. Alternatively, or in addition, the allocation logic 412 may resize existing regions by sending a request to resize an existing region to the region access logic 212 of the memory appliances including the existing regions. Alternatively, or in addition, the allocation logic 412 may destroy existing regions by sending a request to destroy a region to the region access logic 212 of the memory appliances including the existing regions.)”.
Claim 17, the combination teaches the claim, wherein Stabrawa teaches “the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 16, wherein the first command comprises a command to create a persistent volume for the workload and the second command comprises a command to increase the capacity of the persistent volume ([0162] The allocation logic 412 may create additional regions by sending a request to create a region to the region access logic 212 of the memory appliances selected to include the additional regions. Alternatively, or in addition, the allocation logic 412 may resize existing regions by sending a request to resize an existing region to the region access logic 212 of the memory appliances including the existing regions. Alternatively, or in addition, the allocation logic 412 may destroy existing regions by sending a request to destroy a region to the region access logic 212 of the memory appliances including the existing regions.)”.
Claim 18, the combination teaches the claim, wherein Stabrawa teaches “the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 16, wherein the first command comprises a command to delete a persistent volume for the workload and the second command comprises a command to decrease the capacity of the persistent volume ([0160] In a third example, the allocation logic 412 may determine to structure the external memory allocation using one or more logical relationships, such as striping with parity, between multiple regions on multiple memory appliances. Determining how to structure the resized external memory allocation may include determining whether to resize the existing regions referenced by the external memory allocation, whether to create additional regions, and/or whether to replace existing regions with new regions.)”.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yankovskiy, Keshava in further view of Nikaido (Pub. No. US 2018/0018129).
Claim 19, the combination may not explicitly teach the claim.
Nikaido teaches “the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 16, wherein to generate the execution environment for the execution of the workload, the processing device to: provide, to the nested CSI driver, one or more specifications associated with modifying the capacity of the persistent volume, wherein the one or more specifications are used by the nested CSI driver to convert the first command to the second command([0045] Since one VM 603 can read/write data in one volume 210, performance information has a unit that is a combination of a storage device 104 and a volume 210. In order to reflect an increase or decrease in the number of volumes 210 into management of objects for which performance information should be acquired, a protocol converter 108 which converts a protocol for a network 107 (or the computer for business purposes 103) to a protocol for storage devices 104 and vice versa may transfer a request to generate or delete a volume to the manager 101. In a system in which the protocol converter is unnecessary or a system in which the protocol converter 108 is incorporated in each storage device 104, each storage device 104 may transfer a request to generate or delete a volume to the manager 101.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Nikaido with the teachings of Yankovskiy, Keshava in order to enable cross communication. The motivation for applying Nikaido teaching with Yankovskiy, Keshava teaching is to provide a system that allows for communication across different systems. Yankovskiy, Keshava, Nikaido are analogous art directed towards virtual environments. Together Yankovskiy, Keshava, Nikaido 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 the teachings of Nikaido with the teachings of Yankovskiy, Keshava by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yankovskiy, Keshava, in further view of Mcclure (Pub. No. US 2019/0370182).
Claim 20, the combination may not explicitly teach the claim.
Mcclure teaches “the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 16, wherein to allocate the persistent volume on the host system to the execution environment, the processing device to: annotate the persistent volume with a reference to the execution environment, wherein the nested CSI driver is to expose the persistent volume to the execution environment in view of the reference([0034] At step 208, controller 134 determines whether mapping module 136 returns a location identifier or VM code 130. If mapping module 136 returns a physical location, then method 200 proceeds to step 210. If mapping module 136 returns VM code 130, then method 200 proceeds to step 214. It should be noted that mapping module may return a logical location identifier rather than a physical location identifier so as to increase security of storage 114 by adding another layer of misdirection as to the organization of data within storage 114. If a logical location identifier is determined to have been returned at step 208, method 200 may proceed back to step 206 to perform another translation on the returned logical location identifier.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Mcclure with the teachings of Yankovskiy, Keshava in order to enable cross communication. The motivation for applying Mcclure teaching with Yankovskiy, Keshava teaching is to provide a system that allows for communication across different systems. Yankovskiy, Keshava, Mcclure are analogous art directed towards virtual environments. Together Yankovskiy, Keshava, Mcclure 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 the teachings of Mcclure with the teachings of Yankovskiy, Keshava by known methods and gained expected results.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WYNUEL S AQUINO whose telephone number is (571)272-7478. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached at 571-272-3759. 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.
/WYNUEL S AQUINO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199