Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 2-21 are pending. Claim 1 is canceled by Applicant.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs and/or columns and lines in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Applicant’s Reply Not Fully Responsive
The reply filed on 04/06/2026 is not fully responsive to the prior Office action because of the following omission(s) or matter(s): Applicant failed to respond to the objection to the specification repeated below. See 37 CFR 1.111. The response appears to be bona fide, but through an apparent oversight or inadvertence, consideration of some matter or compliance with some requirement has been omitted. Applicant is required to supply the omission or correction to thereby provide a full response to the instant Office action.
Specification Objections
The Specification is objected to because the title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
As per claim 10, in the last line on pg. 7 of the claims, “resources price” should be “resource price”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2-6, 10-12, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fausak et al. (US 9,183,059) (hereinafter Fausak as previously cited), in view ofJustafort et al. (US 2013/0268672) (hereinafter Justafort as previously cited), in view ofBallani et al. (US 2013/0219068) (hereinafter Ballani as previously cited), in view ofCannon (US 2009/0237404) (as previously cited), in view ofWeinman (US 2012/0016721) (as previously cited) in view of
Bethlehem et al. (US 2011/0251992) (hereinafter Bethlehem).
As per claim 2, Fausak primarily teaches the invention as claimed including a system, comprising:
one or more processors (Fausak col. 14, ll. 46-58);
a memory storing program instructions that, when executed on or across the one or more processors (Fausak col. 15, ll. 3-36), cause the one or more processors to:
provide one or more user interfaces for indicating: an amount of resources available for inclusion in a custom virtual machine (Fausak abstract graphical user interface virtual machine creation console indicates a set of predetermined available resources for virtual machine creation and fig. 2 illustrates a graphical user interface virtual machine creation console the amount of Random Access Memory and Number of processors in CPU that are available for inclusion in the virtual machine);
wherein the one or more user interfaces are further configured to receive a selection indicating a number of the available resources to be allocated for inclusion in the custom virtual machine (Fausak fig. 2 illustrates a graphical user interface virtual machine creation console receiving user input for indicating the number of resources to be allocated for inclusion in the virtual machine);
generate a configuration for the custom virtual machine based on the selected number of resources (Fausak col. 6, ll. 27-32 graphical user interface virtual machine creation console allows a user to create virtual machine configurations from the configuration features/options provided in fig. 2);
implement the custom virtual machine using the configuration for the custom virtual machine (Fausak fig. 2, block 216 illustrates a graphical user interface virtual machine creation console button for creating the virtual machine according to the user-specified configuration received from the user inputs to the graphical user interface console);
provide the custom virtual machine having the selected number of resources (Fausak col. 10, ll. 17-37 provide virtual machines having different resources).
Fausak does not explicitly teach:
provide one or more user interfaces for indicating: pricing associated with the resources available for inclusion in the custom virtual machine,
wherein the one or more user interfaces are further configured to present the per unit resource price for the amount of resources available for inclusion in the custom virtual machine;
update the user interface to reflect a different amount of resources available for inclusion in a different custom virtual machine and a different per unit resource price for the different amount of resources available for inclusion in the different custom virtual machine,
wherein the different amount of resources available for inclusion in the different custom virtual machine is different from the amount of resources available for inclusion in the custom virtual machine as a result of said implementing and providing the custom virtual machine, and
wherein the different per unit resource price for the different amount of resources available for inclusion in the different custom virtual machine is based on the different amount of the resources available for inclusion in the different custom virtual machine.
However, Justafort teaches:
pricing associated with the resources available for inclusion in the custom virtual machine (Justafort [0030] price-per-unit of each available data center resource and an amount of resources to be consumed by the virtual machines);
the per unit resource price for the amount of resources available to be included in the other custom virtual machine (Justafort [0030] price-per-unit of each available data center resource and an amount of resources to be consumed by the virtual machines).
Justafort and Fausak are both concerned with virtual machines and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Fausak in view of Justafort because it would provide a way for optimizing virtual machine placement within a cloud network by considering multiple objectives such as energy consumption, performance, utilization, cost, resiliency, and redundancy when placing the virtual machines to ensure that the virtual machines are properly supported.
Fausak in view of Justafort do not explicitly teach:
provide one or more user interfaces for indicating the pricing associated with the resources;
wherein the one or more user interfaces are further configured to present the resource price for the amount of resources available;
update the user interface to reflect a different amount of resources available for inclusion in a different custom virtual machine and a different per unit resource price for the different amount of resources available for inclusion in the different custom virtual machine,
wherein the different amount of resources available for inclusion in the different custom virtual machine is different from the amount of resources available for inclusion in the custom virtual machine as a result of said implementing and providing the custom virtual machine, and
wherein the different per unit resource price for the different amount of resources available for inclusion in the different custom virtual machine is based on the different amount of the resources available for inclusion in the different custom virtual machine.
However, Ballani teaches:
provide one or more user interfaces for indicating the pricing associated with the resources available (Ballani [0041]-[0042] present and display computed costs for different selected candidate resource combinations i.e., available resources to the user based on the number of VMs and [0071] explore options where the application start is delayed until a point in time that there are resources available and resource combinations are identified which still meet the tenant's high level constraint),
wherein the one or more user interfaces are further configured to present the resource price for the amount of resources available (Ballani [0041]-[0042] present and display computed costs for different selected candidate resource combinations i.e., available resources to the user based on the number of VMs and [0071] explore options where the application start is delayed until a point in time that there are resources available and resource combinations are identified which still meet the tenant's high level constraint).
Ballani and Fausak are both concerned with virtual machines and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Fausak in view of Justafort in view of Ballani because it would provide a way for selecting various candidate resource combinations which satisfy a user-specified high level constraint, so that a resource provider may have the flexibility regarding which candidate resource combination to allocate. The candidate resource combination may be selected which is optimum for the provider, for example, the candidate resource combination may be selected to optimize a datacenter provider's goal, such as minimizing the impact of the request on the datacenter provider's ability to accommodate subsequent tenant requests.
Fausak in view of Justafort in view of Ballani do not explicitly teach:
update the user interface to reflect a different amount of resources available for inclusion in a different custom virtual machine and a different per unit resource price for the different amount of resources available for inclusion in the different custom virtual machine,
wherein the different amount of resources available for inclusion in the different custom virtual machine is different from the amount of resources available for inclusion in the custom virtual machine as a result of said implementing and providing the custom virtual machine, and
wherein the different per unit resource price for the different amount of resources available for inclusion in the different custom virtual machine is based on the different amount of the resources available for inclusion in the different custom virtual machine.
However, Cannon teaches:
a different amount of resources available for inclusion in a different custom virtual machine, wherein the different amount of resources available for inclusion in the different custom virtual machine is different from the amount of resources available for inclusion in the custom virtual machine as a result of said implementing and providing the custom virtual machine (Cannon [0019] and [0022] after a virtual machine is added, i.e., implemented and provided, then there are less resources available to other virtual machines).
Cannon and Fausak are both concerned with virtual machines and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Fausak in view of Justafort in view of Ballani in view of Cannon because it would enable a system administrator to observe potential effects of migrating virtual machines in accordance with a set of recommendations by generating a pair of graphic displays, one representing a "before" snapshot of the cluster and another representing an "after" snapshot of the cluster. The recommendations may be automatically generated or manually entered by the system administrator.
Fausak in view of Justafort in view of Ballani in view of Cannon do not explicitly teach:
update the user interface to reflect a different amount of resources available;
update the user interface to reflect a different resource price for the different amount of resources available, and
wherein the different resource price for the different amount of resources available is based on the different amount of the resources available.
However, Weinman teaches:
update the user interface to reflect a different resource price for the different amount of resources available (Weinman fig. 3 resource pricing table; [0084] and [0088] user interfaces; [0024]; [0027]; [0063]; [0066] update resource pricing table based on changing availability of resources and when taken together, Weinman suggests that the resource pricing table could be displayed on the user interfaces and be updated based on the changing resource availability), and
wherein the different resource price for the different amount of resources available is based on the different amount of the resources available (Weinman fig. 3 resource pricing table; [0084] and [0088] user interfaces; [0024]; [0027]; [0063]; [0066] update resource pricing table based on changing availability of resources and when taken together, Weinman suggests that the resource pricing table could be displayed on the user interfaces and be updated based on the changing resource availability).
Weinman and Fausak are both concerned with managing computing resources and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Fausak in view of Justafort in view of Ballani in view of Cannon in view of Weinman because it would provide a way to optimize utilization of a resource of a cloud service provider based on variable pricing strategies via a more efficient pricing strategy that improves the utilization of computing resources in order to maximize profit. In addition, the resulting cloud service system can provide customers with a more efficient way to determine which jobs should be executed at which time based on the prices provided by one or more cloud service providers.
Fausak in view of Justafort in view of Ballani in view of Cannon in view of Weinman do not explicitly teach:
update the user interface to reflect a different amount of resources available.
However, Bethlehem teaches:
update the user interface to reflect a different amount of resources available ([0196] VM data source includes states of the VMs, the status of the VMs, CPU usage of a VM, current memory usage, and available memory which are synchronized and refreshed on a GUI to provide an accurate state of the data; [0200] a VM status such as its available RAM or other resources can be refreshed and synchronized on the GUI; [0246] the GUI assigns resources to a user profile for a VM to manage resources for the VM whereby the GUI provides a view of available resources for a user and assigned resources can be dynamically added to a user profile so that the changes are reflected in the GUI).
Bethlehem and Fausak are both concerned with virtual machines and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Fausak in view of Justafort in view of Ballani in view of Cannon in view of Weinman in view of Bethlehem because it would provide a way to synchronize data sources and provide a reconstructed version of the data that are refreshed on a GUI to provide an accurate state of the data.
As per claim 3, Fausak further teaches resource centers comprising servers configured to implement custom virtual machines, wherein the custom virtual machine having the selected number of resources is implemented using one or more servers located at one or more of the resource centers (col. 14, ll. 1-9 computing device communicates with server to facilitate creation of virtual machines using the virtual machine creation console using server resources).
As per claim 4, Justafort teaches wherein at least some of the resource centers are located geographically separate from other ones of the resource centers ([0021]-[0022] data centers are set up at different geographical locations).
As per claim 5, Fausak further teaches wherein resources of the servers at one or more of the resource centers, comprise: processing cores; graphics processors; solid state drives; hard disk drives; or non-volatile memory (col. 4, ll. 24-26 memory, hard drives, CPUs, GPUs; col. 6, ll. 52-60 cores; col. 15, ll. 3-12 non-volatile memory).
As per claim 6, Justafort teaches wherein the program instructions, when executed on or across the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to determine that the selection indicating the number of resources is feasible for said generating the configuration for the custom virtual machine ([0043]-[0044] determine feasible resources for virtual machine placements).
As per claim 10, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 11, Fausak further teaches wherein the one or more user interfaces are provided as a graphical user interface to a user of a service that provides the custom virtual machine (col. 10, ll. 17-27 user can be a subscriber to a service that provides virtual machines).
As per claim 12, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 17, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 18, it has similar limitations as claims 3-4 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 19, it has similar limitations as claim 5 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 20, it has similar limitations as claim 6 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 7-8 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fausak in view of Justafort in view of Ballani in view of Cannon in view of Weinman in view of Bethlehem and further in view of Cooper (US 2005/0097029) (as previously cited).
As per claim 7, Fausak, in view of Justafort, in view of Ballani, in view of Cannon in view of Weinman in view of Bethlehem do not explicitly teach wherein the program instructions, when executed on or across the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to: display on the one or more user interfaces a time corresponding with an end of a predetermined period of time at which the user interface presentation will be updated or display a timer representing the predetermined period of time.
However, Cooper teaches wherein the program instructions, when executed on or across the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to: display on the one or more user interfaces a time corresponding with an end of a predetermined period of time at which the user interface presentation will be updated or display a timer representing the predetermined period of time ([0027] display a timer which is constantly visible that displays the amount of time remaining until the displayed adjusted prices will be updated).
Cooper and Fausak are both concerned with user interfaces and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Fausak in view of Justafort in view of Ballani in view of Cannon in view of Weinman in view of Bethlehem in view of Cooper because it would provide for flexible timer intervals able to reflect the needs of the users by constantly displaying a countdown timer for when displayed adjusted prices will be updated.
As per claim 8, Cooper teaches wherein the program instructions, when executed on or across the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to: reset the predetermined period of time when the amount of available resources and per resource unit price is updated ([0025] flexible and different timer intervals are provided and determined for each resource price change).
As per claim 14, it has similar limitations as claim 7 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it has similar limitations as claim 8 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fausak in view of Justafort in view of Ballani in view of Cannon in view of Weinman in view of Bethlehem in view of Cooper and further in view of Rarity et al. (US 2005/0144061) (hereinafter Rarity as previously cited).
As per claim 9, Fausak in view of Justafort in view of Ballani in view of Cannon in view of Weinman in view of Bethlehem in view of Cooper do not explicitly teach wherein the program instructions, when executed on or across the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to: reset the predetermined period of time when the user interface presentation is updated.
However, Rarity teaches wherein the program instructions, when executed on or across the one or more processors, further cause the one or more processors to: reset the predetermined period of time when the user interface presentation is updated ([0017] customer portal has a valid price every six seconds after which it receives an updated price again for another six seconds).
Rarity and Fausak are both concerned with user interfaces and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Fausak in view of Justafort in view of Ballani in view of Cannon in view of Weinman in view of Bethlehem in view of Cooper in view of Rarity because it would provide for enabling a price quote to be published to an end-user which can be guaranteed to remain valid for a pre-defined time which is selected to be long enough for the end-user to adequately consider and trade at that price.
As per claim 16, it has similar limitations as claim 9 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 13 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Fausak in view of Justafort in view of Ballani in view of Cannon in view of Weinman in view of Bethlehem and further in view of Martin et al. (US 2012/0072910) (hereinafter Martin as previously cited).
As per claim 13, Fausak in view of Justafort in view of Ballani in view of Cannon in view of Weinman in view of Bethlehem do not explicitly teach receiving, subsequent to the implementing of the custom virtual machine, a modification to the selection indicating the number resources; and modifying the configuration of the custom virtual machine based on the received modification.
However, Martin teaches receiving, subsequent to the implementing of the custom virtual machine, a modification to the selection indicating the number resources; and modifying the configuration of the custom virtual machine based on the received modification ([0046] a GUI to change the configuration of a preexisting virtual machine by changing the number of CPUs which it has, change the amount of memory with which the virtual machine is provided, and/or add or remove hard drives for the virtual machine and save the modified virtual machine configuration).
Martin and Fausak are both concerned with virtual machines and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Fausak in view of Justafort in view of Ballani in view of Cannon in view of Weinman in view of Bethlehem in view of Martin because it would provide a way to configure, manage, and control virtual machines in an easy and intuitive way by allowing a customer to modify existing virtual machine configurations via a GUI.
As per claim 21, it has similar limitations as claim 13 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
All of Applicant's arguments have been fully considered. Applicant’s arguments regarding the prior art 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections on pg. 13 of the Remarks are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments because the new grounds 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.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Saffre (US 2012/0331476) in at least [0006] discloses price per unit increasing as a finite resource becomes scarcer.
Lewbel et al. (US 2021/0117050) in at least [0058] disclose a user interface view displaying a countdown timer reaching zero until a content item is changed on the user interface.
Chen et al. (US 2010/0332890) in at least [0045] disclose update the number of resources of at least one virtual machine responsive to changing the configuration of the virtual machine.
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 Adam Lee whose telephone number is (571) 270-3369. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 8AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Vital can be reached on 571-272-4215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
/Adam Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198 April 17, 2026
Prosecution Insights