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 .
Detail Action
On 01/29/2024, Application 18/425,346 was filed with claims 1-20.
This is a Non-Final Action.
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 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because a computer program product comprising non-transitory computer readable program code capable of being executed by one or more processor is software per se.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea/mental process without significantly more.
Claim 1:
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 1 recites the step of:
Claim identifying … in a current state of the cluster, a degree to which pods are distributed unevenly across availability domains; MPEP 2106.04(a);
This step can reasonably be performed in the human mind, through observation, judgement and opinion, with the aid of pen and paper, and therefore recite a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim only recites mere instructions to apply an exception (A Method), with additional elements comprising only insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 1 recites the additional element of:
providing, by a container engine, a deployment service involving a cluster of nodes that comprises a plurality of availability domains having respective physically separate resources;
provisioning, by the container engine, one or more pods to one or more of the plurality of availability domains, wherein the one or more pods implement an instance of an application;
accessing, by the container engine, a domain set object comprising a value indicating an allocation of pods across availability domains;
responsive to identifying the degree to which pods are distributed unevenly across availability domains, reprovisioning, by the container engine, the pods across the availability domains such that the cluster achieves a state where pods are distributed more evenly across availability domains than the current state; MPEP 2106.05(d);
amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Further, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 2:
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 2 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 2 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (A method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 2 recites the additional element of:
wherein the availability domains are logical groupings of data centers within a region; MPEP 2106.5(d);
amount to is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 2 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 3:
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 2 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (A method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 3 recites the additional element of:
in response to deployment of a new version of the application, causing the new version of the application to be distributed across different availability domains; MPEP 2106.5(d);
amount to is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 3 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 4:
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 4 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 4 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (A method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 4 recites the additional element of:
where the domain set object specifies pods that are groupable together, and/or acceptable asymmetry of distribution of pods across availability domains; MPEP 2106.5(d);
amount to is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 4 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 5:
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 5 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (A method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 5 recites the additional element of:
wherein a boundary defines a scope of availability domains across which pods are provisioned such that the domain set object does not conflict with other domain set objects; MPEP 2106.5(d);
amount to is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 5 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 5:
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 5 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (A method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 5 recites the additional element of:
wherein a boundary defines a scope of availability domains across which pods are provisioned such that the domain set object does not conflict with other domain set objects; MPEP 2106.5(d);
amount to is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 5 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 6:
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 6 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (A method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 6 recites the additional element of:
wherein the container engine includes a scheduler configured to assign pods to nodes; MPEP 2106.5(d);
amount to is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 6 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claim 7:
(2A Prong 1 Analysis: Whether a Claim is Directed to a Judicial Exception)
Claim 7 is dependent on claim 1, and therefore inherits the same judicial exception recited in claim 1.
The judicial exceptions recited in claims 6 and 1 are not integrated into a practical application because the recited additional elements comprise only mere instructions to apply an exception (A method) and insignificant extra-solution activity.
(2A Prong 2/2B Analysis: Whether a claim amounts to significantly more)
Claim 7 recites the additional element of:
wherein the scheduler prioritizes topologies that reduce asymmetry of distribution of the pods across the availability domains; MPEP 2106.5(d);
amount to is merely an attempt to limit the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data outputting, and are additionally well-understood, routine or conventional activities for storing data. Additionally, these additional elements merely recite using computing components in their ordinary capacity to store data that is a result of the recited mental process, and thus can be considered mere instructions to apply an exception. These additional elements of insignificant extra-solution activity and mere instructions to apply recited in claim 7 are not indicative of integration into a practical application. Even when considered in combination with the additional elements of claim 1, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept, thus the claim is not eligible.
Claims 8-14 are directed to a container engine comprise the steps which the at least one process platform of the method of claims 1-7 are configured to perform. Claims 8-14 recite the same limitations as claims 1-7, respectively; therefore, claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a container engine without significantly more for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 1-7. See above.
Claims 15-20 are directed to a computer program product comprise the steps which the at least one process platform of the method of claims 1-2 and 4-7 are configured to perform. Claims 15-20 recite the same limitations as claims 1-2 and 4-7, respectively; therefore, claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of a a computer program product without significantly more for the same reasons presented with respect to claims 1-2 and 4-7. See above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 20 recite “identifying, by the container engine, in a current state of the cluster, a degree to which pods are distributed unevenly across availability domains; and responsive to identifying the degree to which pods are distributed unevenly across availability domains, reprovisioning, by the container engine, the pods across the availability domains such that the cluster achieves a state where pods are distributed more evenly across availability domains than the current state;” is not recited by the specification.
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 1-5, 8-12, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnaprasad et al US Publication 2011/0016090 in view of Mohammed et al. US Publication 2018/0262563.
18/425,346
Krishnaprasad et al US Publication 2011/0016090 in view of Mohammed et al. US Publication 2018/0262563
Claim 1
A method comprising:
providing, by a container engine, a deployment service involving a cluster of nodes that comprises a plurality of availability domains having respective physically separate resources;
Krishnaprasad teaches multiple instances of data modules may be stored in different nodes for availability of those data modules. The data manager also determines which instances of data modules are to be primary instances of the data modules with respect to data operations and which are to be secondary instances of the data modules with respect to the data operations. p0007; p0038; p0053;
provisioning, by the container engine, one or more pods to one or more of the plurality of availability domains, wherein the one or more pods implement an instance of an application;
Mohammed teaches the cluster manager provisions, de-provisions, monitors and executes operations for computing resources in the computing cluster; p0033, p0047, p0122-p0124;
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Mohammed’s teaching with method of Krishnaprasad in order to protected against hardware failures and allow for updates based on fault domains and update domains
accessing, by the container engine, a domain set object comprising a value indicating an allocation of pods across availability domains;
Mohammed teaches configuration score for a cluster-tenant can be an indication of available allocation capacity for virtual machine instances based on both the cluster-tenant and the computing cluster where the cluster tenant is located; p0076-p0084.
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Mohammed’s teaching with method of Krishnaprasad in order to provide optimization that determine a rebalancing cost for a cluster-tenant.
identifying, by the container engine, in a current state of the cluster, a degree to which pods are distributed unevenly across availability domains; and
Mohammed teaches determination is made whether there are cluster-tenants whose virtual machine instances are not evenly distributed across isolated domains; p0076-p0088.
responsive to identifying the degree to which pods are distributed unevenly across availability domains, reprovisioning, by the container engine, the pods across the availability domains such that the cluster achieves a state where pods are distributed more evenly across availability domains than the current state.
Mohammed teaches rebalancing operations are initiated for one or more virtual machines set; p0076-p0088.
Claim 2
The method of claim 1, wherein the availability domains are logical groupings of data centers within a region.
Mohammed teaches a region is a defined geographic location with a computing infrastructure for providing a distributed computing system; (see Mohammed p0031)
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Mohammed’s teaching with method of Krishnaprasad in order to provide computing infrastructure with high availability and redundancy and also close proximity to a customer using the computing infrastructure.
Claim 3
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
in response to deployment of a new version of the application, causing the new version of the application to be distributed across different availability domains.
Krishnaprasad deployed updated application; p0083;
Claim 4
The method of claim 1, where the domain set object specifies pods that are groupable together, and/or acceptable asymmetry of distribution of pods across availability domains.
Mohammed teaches determination is made whether there are cluster-tenants whose virtual machine instances are not evenly distributed across isolated domains; p0076-p0088.
Claim 5
The method of claim 1, wherein a boundary defines a scope of availability domains across which pods are provisioned such that the domain set object does not conflict with other domain set objects.
Mohammed teaches the cluster manager provisions, de-provisions, monitors and executes operations for computing resources in the computing cluster; p0033, p0047, p0122-p0124;
As per claims 8-12, they are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1-5. See rejection above.
As per claims 15-18, they are rejected under the same rationale as claims 1, 2, 4 and 5. See rejection above.
Claims 6, 7, 13, 14, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krishnaprasad et al US Publication 2011/0016090 in view of Mohammed et al. US Publication 2018/0262563 and Inbaraj US Publication 2019/0087297.
18/425,346
Krishnaprasad et al US Publication 2011/0016090 in view of Mohammed et al. US Publication 2018/0262563 and Inbaraj US Publication 2019/0087297
Claim 6
The method of claim 1, wherein the container engine includes a scheduler configured to assign pods to nodes.
Inbaraj teaches scheduling distribute pod based on rules; p0017.
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Inbaraj’s teaching with method of Krishnaprasad in order to optimize workload of the computing racks using the user-defined optimization rules well as predefined goals and constraints.
Claim 7
The method of claim 6, wherein the scheduler prioritizes topologies that reduce asymmetry of distribution of the pods across the availability domains.
Mohammed teaches determination is made whether there are cluster-tenants whose virtual machine instances are not evenly distributed across isolated domains; p0076-p0088.
As per claims 13-14 and 19-20, they are rejected under the same rationale as claims 5-6. See rejection above.
Related Prior Art
Here is a list of references relates to pod distribution system
He et al. US Patent 8,601,483 discloses Barsness does not specifically teaches prevent any one of the cooling systems from operating in a first of the realms until all of the cooling systems are operating in a second of the realms, the second of the realms having an immediately lower performance and cost than the first of the realms.
Rathineswaran US 2019/0089483 discloses in an aspect of the disclosure, a method, a computer-readable medium, and a computer system are provided. A first service processor of the computer system emulates a first storage device to a composed machine of a computing pod. The first service processor exposes a bootable utility image to the composed machine through the first storage device. The bootable utility image is configured to boot a program that collects hardware inventory information from the composed machine. The first service processor emulates a second storage device to the composed machine. The first service processor receives the hardware inventory information from the composed machine through the second storage device.
Tang US 2014/0351443 discloses a Virtual Resource Object Component; it achieves the goal of mapping logical POD to physical POD. The technical solution is: the Virtual Resource Object Component abstractly represents the physical resources in a physical POD as virtual resources. An embodiment of the Virtual Resource Object Component is utilized in a service delivery platform which automatically organizes and connects the physical resources in the physical POD(s), and transforms them into virtual resources which will be delivered to a logical POD.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PENG KE whose telephone number is (571)272-4062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-5:00.
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, Kevin Young can be reached at (571) 270-3180. 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.
PENG KE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2194
/PENG KE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights