DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is in response to applicant’s communication filed 7/21/26 in response to PTO Office Action mailed 4/21/26. The applicant’s remarks and amendments to the claims and/or specification were considered with the results that follow.
In response to last Office Action, claims 1, 10 and 18 have been amended. No claims have been canceled. No claims have been added. As a result, claims 1-20 remain pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that neither Krits nor Leibovici disclose distributed storage management system that performs the steps of the claim as recited. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the fact. The Applicant argues that the VI management server 102 of Krits is a separate system and the distributed storage management referenced in par. [0064] of Leibovici merely says that the local storage may be managed as a combined SOCS. The Examiner would like to note that the claims require storage management system and not the location where it is located. Thus, the Applicant’s argument that VI management is a separate system is not persuasive. It is also noted that distributed storage management systems are very well known and foundational in modern computing, cloud services and big data infrastructure. The SOCS functions as a distributed storage management system by pooling resources across the entire cluster. Since Krits and Leibovici both directed to creating virtual machines, the combination of Krits and Leibovici teach claimed distributed management system creating virtual machines from the disk image.
The Applicant’s remaining arguments are moot in view of new grounds of the rejection introduced due to the amendments made the claims.
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, 3-4, 10, 12-13, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krits et al. (US 2023/0221977) and further in view of Leibovici et al. (US 2020/0036602) and Alireza Kolahouzan (Network Automation, Orchestration, Cloud: Tools and Technologies; Dec. 2019, pages 1-67).
As per claims 1, 10 and 18, Krits teaches a method (Krits: claim 1)/a system comprising: one or more memories storing computer-executable instructions; and one or more processors to execute the computer-executable instructions to perform a process/a non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing computer instructions that, when executed, direct one or more processors of one or more computing devices to perform a process (Krits: par. [0043]; claim 15) comprising:
detecting, by a [[distributed]] storage management system, that a volume includes a [[containerized data importer (CDI) object]] disk image for providing virtual machines in a container system; copying, by the [[distributed]] storage management system and based on the detecting that the volume includes the [[CDI object]] disk image, the volume to a plurality of nodes in the container system (Krits: par. [0032]: “VI management server 102 can receive a clone request (from, e.g., a user of environment 200) for creating multiple (i.e., k) VM clones from VM template 112”; par. [0033]: “At block 404, VI management server 102 can query disk pool manager 202 for information regarding the pre-copied disks of VM template 112 in order to fulfill the clone request received at 402”; taught as the management server queries that pre-copy of the disk image exists or not, where it is readily apparent that if the pre-copy does not exist, copying the plurality of copies to plurality of hosts/nodes (par. [0026]); par. [0040] teaches container system); and
producing, by the [[distributed]] storage management system and based on the copying, a clone of the volume on a particular node of the plurality of nodes to start a virtual machine on the particular node (it is inherent that once the k clones are copied/cloned to disks of datastores, the virtual machine can be produced and initiated/started).
Krits fails to teach distributed storage management system. Leibovici teaches distributed storage management (Leibovici: par. [0064]) which creates and instantiate the virtual machines (pars. [0007], [0036], [0049]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide distributed storage management as taught by Leibovici because distributed management offers superior scalability, high fault tolerance and increased performance by spreading management across multiple nodes.
Krits and Leibovici fail to teach containerized data importer (CDI) object. Alireza Kolahouzan (page 26, sec. 3.4 and sec. 3.4.1) teaches that CDI is persistent storage managed add-on for Kubernetes and CDI includes a CRD that provides an object type DataVolume and can be used to automate the creation and population of a PVC with data. CDI works with standard core Kubernetes resources and is a storage device compatible, to build disk image for Kubevirt. Kubevirt provides a uniformed development platform where developers can build, modify and deploy applications residing in both Application containers as well as virtual machines in a common, shared environment (page 18). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide CDI object with DataVolume in the system of Krits and Leibovici to automate the creation and population of a PVC and also provide uniformed development platform to build, modify and deploy applications in containers and virtual machines in common, shared environment as noted above.
As per claims 3, 12 and 20, Krits and Leibovici expressly fail to teach wherein the copying the volume comprises: determining that the virtual machine is scheduled to be started on the particular node; and including, based on the determining that the virtual machine is scheduled to be started on the particular node, the particular node in the plurality of nodes. However, Krits teaches a user requesting a clone request (par. [0032]), where it would be readily apparent to one having ordinary skill in the art to determine particular node on which the virtual machine will be stated and based on determination the disk image will be copied.
As per claims 4 and 13, Krits and Leibovici teach wherein the producing the clone of the volume on the particular node to start the virtual machine comprises directing, based on the particular node being included in the plurality of nodes where the volume is copied, the container system to deploy the virtual machine on the particular node. It is inherent that the particular node must be included in the plurality of nodes where the k copies must be copied.
Claims 2, 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krits et al. (US 2023/0221977), Leibovici et al. (US 2020/0036602) and Alireza Kolahouzan (Network Automation, Orchestration, Cloud: Tools and Technologies; Dec. 2019, pages 1-67) as applied to claims 1, 10 and 18 above, and further in view of Roland Schwarzkopf (Virtual Machine Lifecycle Management in Grid and Cloud Computing; pages 349; Nov. 2015).
As per claims 2, 11 and 19, Krits and Leibovici fail to teach wherein the copying the volume comprises copying the volume as a read-only volume to all the nodes associated with an entity in the container system.
Roland Schwarzkopf teaches copying the volume as a read-only volume to all the nodes associated with an entity in the container system (Roland: pages 46, 47, 49). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide read-only volume as taught by Ronald to provide reusability of the disk image to reduce deployment time of the virtual machines (Ronald: pages 42, 47).
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krits et al. (US 2023/0221977), Leibovici et al. (US 2020/0036602) and Alireza Kolahouzan (Network Automation, Orchestration, Cloud: Tools and Technologies; Dec. 2019, pages 1-67) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Jha et al. (US 2024/0248748).
As per claims 5 and 14, Krits and Leibovici fail to teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that the volume on the particular node has not been accessed for a threshold period of time; and deleting, based on the determining, the volume from the particular node. Jha teaches that data centers delete idle, unused or orphaned resource such, VMs, containers, disks etc. (Jha: par. [0005]) so that the resources used by the idle, unused VMs can be utilized for new VMs (Jha: par. [0077]).
Jha expressly fails to teach threshold period of time, however, determining the VM as an idle VM, some type of threshold period must be determined to indicate that the VM is idle. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to delete idle VM (idle is determined based on threshold period of inactivity) to recover the suboptimal resources which can be utilized for new virtual machines (Jha: par. [0077]).
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krits et al. (US 2023/0221977), Leibovici et al. (US 2020/0036602), Alireza Kolahouzan (Network Automation, Orchestration, Cloud: Tools and Technologies; Dec. 2019, pages 1-67) and Jha et al. (US 2024/0248748) as applied to claims 5 and 14 above, and further in view of Sun et al. (US 2021/0247906).
As per claims 6 and 15, Krits, Leibovici and Jha fail to teach wherein the threshold period of time is based on an amount of storage available on the particular node. Sun teaches wherein the threshold period of time is based on an amount of storage available on the particular node (Sun: par. [0235]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine threshold period based on the amount of storage available as taught by Sun to improve the performance of the system (Sun: pars. [0146], [0161]).
Claims 7, 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krits et al. (US 2023/0221977), Leibovici et al. (US 2020/0036602), Alireza Kolahouzan (Network Automation, Orchestration, Cloud: Tools and Technologies; Dec. 2019, pages 1-67) and Jha et al. (US 2024/0248748) as applied to claims 5 and 14 above, and further in view of Sabev et al. (US 2020/0183723).
As per claims 7 and 16, Krits, Leibovici and Jha fail to teach wherein the deleting the volume from the particular node is further based on determining that at least a threshold number of copies of the volume remain on the plurality of nodes.
Sabev teaches , wherein the deleting the volume from the particular node is further based on determining that at least a threshold number of copies of the volume remain on the plurality of nodes (Sabev: par. [0029]: “in order to be able to satisfy demands for VMs, each VM pool 108 needs to maintain a minimum available number of VMs. Meanwhile, in order to not exceed available hardware resource capability, the number of VMs kept in the VM pool 108 should be limited to a maximum size consistent with the available hardware resource capability”)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to maintain minimum available number of VMs to maintain future demand and also delete the VMs in order to not exceed available resource capacities as taught by Sabev to maintain availability and scalability (Sabev: par. [0001]).
As per claim 8, Krits, Leibovici, Jha and Sabev expressly fail to teach wherein the threshold number of copies is defined based on input provided by a user. However, Sabev teaches maintaining minimum and maximum number of VMs in the pool, where it would be readily apparent to one having ordinary skill in the art to set the limits based on the system requirements.
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krits et al. (US 2023/0221977), Leibovici et al. (US 2020/0036602) and Alireza Kolahouzan (Network Automation, Orchestration, Cloud: Tools and Technologies; Dec. 2019, pages 1-67) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Amir Husain (US 2008/0201711).
As per claims 9 and 17, Krits and Leibovici fail to teach determining that a current time has exceeded an expiration time associated with the volume on the particular node; and deleting, based on the determining, the volume from the particular node.
Amir Husain teaches determining that a current time has exceeded an expiration time associated with the volume on the particular node; and deleting, based on the determining, the volume from the particular node (Amir Husain: par. [0197] – [0198]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide expiration time to virtual machines and delete upon expiration time as taught by Amir Husain to start the virtual machines as needed by increasing the number of virtual machines for particular period of time and delete once the load decreases.
Conclusion
The examiner also requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line no(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application. 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(d) (1) requires such support in the Specification for any new language added to the claims and 37 C.F.R. § 1.83(a) requires support be found in the Drawings for all claimed features.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111(c).
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims above 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 from the applicant, in preparing the responses, to 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.
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 KAUSHIKKUMAR M PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-5536. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM.
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, Tim T Vo can be reached at 571-272-3642. 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.
Kaushikkumar M. Patel
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2138
/Kaushikkumar M Patel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2138
Prosecution Insights