DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-7 and 165-177 are pending in this application.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 165 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 165 includes typographical errors. Specifically, an “a” is missing from before the terms “memory” and “processor circuitry” respectively.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 172-177 are directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 172 is directed to a “machine-readable storage medium”. The “machine-readable storage medium” is not disclosed in the specification or disclosed (paragraph 0490) to exclude non-statutory embodiment. For instance, the “machine-readable storage medium” does not exclude carrier wave, “transmission medium and the like and is therefore directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 173-177 are rejected for the same reason as claim 172 above.
Appropriate corrected is required.
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, 2, 165, 166 and 172 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0147553 A1 to Palavalli et al. (hereinafter referred to as Palavalli’553) in view of U.S Pub. No. 2014/0143885 A1 to Blotsky et al. and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0065231 A1 to Schmisseur et al.
As to claim 1, Palavalli’553 teaches a method comprising:
the first features associated with a semiconductor device of the first server configurable to provide the first features (physical processor), the license to activate the first features (license), the VM state associated with a VM hosted by the first server (VM/VM1);
identifying features (Guest OS optimization module 116) a second server (second host computing system) with second features configurable to ones of the first features (assigning a physical core/processor based license) (“…Guest OS optimization module 116 may then migrate/place VM VM1 to/on a physical core of a second host computing system by assigning a physical processor based license if a physical processor of a first host computing system does not exist that is licensed to execute the OS based on the computing resource requirements of the VM, the physical processor based license, and/or assigned affinity to physical processors of the first host computing system. In some embodiments, guest OS cost optimization module 116 places the VM VM1 on a physical core of second host computing system 106B by assigning a physical core/processor based license if a licensed physical core is not available in first host computing system 106A in the virtual datacenter that has spare capacity to run the VM. Guest OS cost optimization module 116 then powers on the placed VM VM1 on the physical core of second host computing system 106B...Based on the outcome of determination at block 206, process 200 goes to block 210 and migrates/places the VM on a physical core of a second host computing system by assigning a physical processor based license if a physical processor of a first host computing system does not exist that is licensed to execute the OS based on the computing resource requirements of the VM, the physical processor based license, and/or assigned affinity to physical processors of the first host computing system…” paragraphs 0017/0025); and
reconfiguring the second server based on the first features (assigning a physical core/processor based license) (“…Guest OS optimization module 116 may then migrate/place VM VM1 to/on a physical core of a second host computing system by assigning a physical processor based license if a physical processor of a first host computing system does not exist that is licensed to execute the OS based on the computing resource requirements of the VM, the physical processor based license, and/or assigned affinity to physical processors of the first host computing system. In some embodiments, guest OS cost optimization module 116 places the VM VM1 on a physical core of second host computing system 106B by assigning a physical core/processor based license if a licensed physical core is not available in first host computing system 106A in the virtual datacenter that has spare capacity to run the VM. Guest OS cost optimization module 116 then powers on the placed VM VM1 on the physical core of second host computing system 106B...Based on the outcome of determination at block 206, process 200 goes to block 210 and migrates/places the VM on a physical core of a second host computing system by assigning a physical processor based license if a physical processor of a first host computing system does not exist that is licensed to execute the OS based on the computing resource requirements of the VM, the physical processor based license, and/or assigned affinity to physical processors of the first host computing system…” paragraphs 0017/0025).
Palavalli’553 is silent with reference to storing data associated with a first server in secure storage, the data including at least one of first features, a license, or a virtual machine (VM) state associated with the first server, and
in response to migrating the VM from the first server to the second server, executing the workload on the VM of the second server based on the at least one of the first features, the license, or the VM state.
Blotsky teaches storing data associated with a first server in secure storage, the data including at least one of first features (dedicated hardware/firmware), a license (license), or a virtual machine (VM) state associated with the first server (Secure Environment 230) (“…License evaluator 410 performs operations associated with evaluating a software license to determine whether the software license is valid. In some embodiments, license evaluator 410 generates, receives, and/or stores a license validity indicator when licensed program 220 is installed by computing device 210. Additionally, or alternatively, license evaluator 410 determines whether a software license is valid, based on the license validity indicator, when computing device 210 receives a request to use licensed program 220. License evaluator 410 may transmit a validity notification, to license enforcer 420, that indicates whether the license is valid. In some embodiments, license evaluator 410 includes dedicated hardware (e.g., at least a portion of a dedicated security processor). In some embodiments, license evaluator 410 includes instructions (e.g., software, firmware, etc.) that are executed in a secure environment (e.g., instructions executed by a dedicated security processor, instructions executed by a virtual security processor, etc.)…” paragraph 0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Palavalli’553 with the teaching of Blotsky because the teaching of Blotsky would improve the system of Palavalli’553 by providing a software licensing process for obtaining or determining a valid software license or authorization.
Schmisseur teaches in response to migrating the VM from the first server to the second server (a system 1600 for migrating virtual machines), executing the workload on the VM of the second server based on the at least one of the first features, the license, or the VM state (The resource manager server 1606 is additionally configured to manage virtual machines (VMs) to execute a workload (e.g., an application) using the allocated resources) (“…Referring now to FIG. 15, a system for executing one or more workloads (e.g., applications) may be implemented in accordance with the data center 100. In the illustrative embodiment, the system 1510 includes an orchestrator server 1520, which may be embodied as a managed node comprising a compute device (e.g., a compute sled 800) executing management software (e.g., a cloud operating environment, such as OpenStack) that is communicatively coupled to multiple sleds 400 including a large number of compute sleds 1530 (e.g., each similar to the compute sled 800), memory sleds 1540 (e.g., each similar to the memory sled 1400), accelerator sleds 1550 (e.g., each similar to the memory sled 1000), and storage sleds 1560 (e.g., each similar to the storage sled 1200). One or more of the sleds 1530, 1540, 1550, 1560 may be grouped into a managed node 1570, such as by the orchestrator server 1520, to collectively perform a workload (e.g., an application 1532 executed in a virtual machine or in a container). The managed node 1570 may be embodied as an assembly of physical resources 620, such as processors 820, memory resources 720, accelerator circuits 1020, or data storage 1250, from the same or different sleds 400. Further, the managed node may be established, defined, or “spun up” by the orchestrator server 1520 at the time a workload is to be assigned to the managed node or at any other time, and may exist regardless of whether any workloads are presently assigned to the managed node. In the illustrative embodiment, the orchestrator server 1520 may selectively allocate and/or deallocate physical resources 620 from the sleds 400 and/or add or remove one or more sleds 400 from the managed node 1570 as a function of quality of service (QoS) targets (e.g., performance targets associated with a throughput, latency, instructions per second, etc.) associated with a service level agreement for the workload (e.g., the application 1532)…Referring now to FIG. 16, a system 1600 for migrating virtual machines may be implemented in accordance with the data center 100 described above with reference to FIG. 1. The illustrative system 1600 includes a resource manager server 1606 communicatively coupled to multiple compute sleds 1602 and a memory sled 1608 via a network switch 1604. The resource manager server 1606 is configured to manage resources of the system 1600 to perform various workload operations. The resource manager server 1606 is additionally configured to manage virtual machines (VMs) to execute a workload (e.g., an application) using the allocated resources. In some embodiments, one or more containers may be used in conjunction with or independent of a virtual machine (VM) instance…” paragraphs 0078/0082).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Palavalli’553i and Blotsky with the teaching of Schmisseur because the teaching of Schmisseur would improve the system of Palavalli’553 and Blotsky by providing a resource manager server configured to manage resources of the system 1600 to perform various workload operations (Schmisseur paragraph 0082) using the allocated resources.
As to claim 2, Blotsky teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the secure storage is a trusted execution environment of a third server (Secure Environment 230) (“…License evaluator 410 performs operations associated with evaluating a software license to determine whether the software license is valid. In some embodiments, license evaluator 410 generates, receives, and/or stores a license validity indicator when licensed program 220 is installed by computing device 210. Additionally, or alternatively, license evaluator 410 determines whether a software license is valid, based on the license validity indicator, when computing device 210 receives a request to use licensed program 220. License evaluator 410 may transmit a validity notification, to license enforcer 420, that indicates whether the license is valid. In some embodiments, license evaluator 410 includes dedicated hardware (e.g., at least a portion of a dedicated security processor). In some embodiments, license evaluator 410 includes instructions (e.g., software, firmware, etc.) that are executed in a secure environment (e.g., instructions executed by a dedicated security processor, instructions executed by a virtual security processor, etc.)…” paragraph 0031).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Palavalli’553 and Schmisseur with the teaching of Blotsky because the teaching of Blotsky would improve the system of Palavalli’553 and Schmisseur by providing a software licensing process for obtaining or determining a valid software license or authorization.
As to claims 165 and 172, see the rejection of claim 1 expect for a memory; a processor circuitry and least one machine-readable storage.
Palavalli’553 teaches a memory (“…a computer-readable medium (e.g., as a hard disk; a memory…” paragraph 0029); a processor circuitry (Processor) and least one machine-readable storage (“…a computer-readable medium (e.g., as a hard disk; a memory…” paragraph 0029).
As to claim 166, see the rejection of claim 2 above.
Claims 3, 167 and 173 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0147553 A1 to Palavalli et al. (hereinafter referred to as Palavalli’553) in view of U.S Pub. No. 2014/0143885 A1 to Blotsky et al. and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0065231 A1 to Schmisseur et al. as applied to claims 1, 165 and 172 above, and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0255890 A1 to Palavalli et al. (hereinafter referred to as Palavalli’890).
As to claim 3, Palavalli’553 as modified by Blotsky and Schmisseur teaches the method of claim 1, however it is silent with reference to
generating a recommendation to improve execution of the workload, the recommendation including a change of one or more of the first features; and
determining to migrate the VM based on the recommendation.
Palavalli’890 teaches generating a recommendation to improve execution of the workload, the recommendation including a change of one or more of the first features (Guest OS Cost Optimization Module 1204); and
determining to migrate the VM based on the recommendation (Steps 1601-1612) (“…The guest OS cost optimization module 1204 includes methods to calculate configuration recommendations that optimize the cost to data center customers while deploying new services. The input is a plan for new application services, which includes types of VMs, the type of licensed software, the types of guest OSs. Method generate a plan to optimize server computer utilization based on licensing, including recommendations to buy new computer hardware…The guest OS cost optimization module 1204 provides VM placement recommendations to data center customers while a customer attempts to manually performing VM migration. FIG. 16 shows a control-flow diagram of a method to generate VM placement recommendations. In block 1601, a VM is selected by a data center customer for migration to a target server computer. In block 1602, the target server computer is identified. In block 1603, the guest OS of the VM is identified. In block 1604, the target server computer OS license is identified. In decision block 1605, if the target server computer is licensed for the guest OS of the VM, control flows to block 1610. Otherwise, control flows to block 1606. In block 1606, a search is conducted to identify server computer with an OS that is licensed for the guest OS of the VM selected for migration and has additional computational and storage capacity to support the VM. In decision block 1607, if a target server computer has been identified, control flows to decision block 1608. Otherwise, control Lows to block 1609. In decision block 1608, the customer is asked if the customer approves of an alternative target server computer. If the customer approves, control flows to block 1610. If the customer does not approve, control flows to block 1609. In block 1609, an alert is generated indicating that the migration cannot be completed because the target server computer does not have a license that is compatible with the guest OS of the VM. In block 1610, migration of the VM to the target server computer is completed. In decision block 1611, if the customer decides to purchase a license for the target server computer, control flows to block 1610. If the customer decides not to purchase the license, control flows to decision block 1612. In decision block 1612, if the data center customer has selected another VM for migration, control returns to block 1601…” paragraph 0065/0066).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Palavalli’553, Schmisseur and Blotsky with the teaching of Palavalli’890 because the teaching of Palavalli’890 would improve the system of Palavalli’553, Schmisseur and Blotsky by providing a guest OS cost optimization module that includes methods to calculate configuration recommendations that optimize the cost to data center customers while deploying new services (Palavalli’890 paragraph 0065).
As to claims 167 and 173, see the rejection of claim 3 above.
Claims 4, 168 and 174 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0147553 A1 to Palavalli et al. (hereinafter referred to as Palavalli’553) in view of U.S Pub. No. 2014/0143885 A1 to Blotsky et al. and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0065231 A1 to Schmisseur et al. as applied to claims 1, 165 and 172 above, and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0353364 A1 to Kreiner et al.
As to claim 4, Palavalli’553 as modified by Blotsky and Schmisseur teaches the method of claim 1, however it is silent with reference to obtaining the license from the secure storage; and deploying the license on the second server to activate the first features on the second server.
Kreiner teaches obtaining the license from the storage (Recommendation Output Engine 408/In some embodiments, the recommendation engine 204 can suggest types of licenses to obtain to have the minimal cost outlay for licenses to obtain the desired configuration…” paragraph 0081); and deploying (add) the license on the second server to activate the first features on the second server (server device/server device) (“…In another embodiment, the recommendation output engine 408 can recommend which, if any, and/or which type of, licenses should be added to a server device and/or which VMs should migrate to or from a server device to gain the best or at least a minimum value for licensing. For example, the recommendation output engine 408 can generate information about the type, terms and/or number of licenses to add to avoid operations that do not comprise a sufficient number or type of licenses and the like. In some embodiments, the server device can be a new server device added with three times the CPU speed but the same number of CPUs as another pre-existing server device…” paragraph 0067).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Palavalli’553, Schmisseur and , Blotsky with the teaching of Kreiner because the teaching of Kreiner would improve the system of Palavalli’553, Schmisseur and , Blotsky by providing a technique for determining and recommending optimal computing resources.
As to claims 168 and 174, see the rejection of claim 4 above.
Claims 5, 169 and 175 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0147553 A1 to Palavalli et al. (hereinafter referred to as Palavalli’553) in view of U.S Pub. No. 2014/0143885 A1 to Blotsky et al. and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0065231 A1 to Schmisseur et al. as applied to claims 1, 165 and 172 above, and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0005189 A1 to Vega et al.
As to claim 5, Palavalli’553 as modified by Blotsky and Schmisseur teaches the method of claim 1, however it is silent with reference to obtaining the VM state from the secure storage, the VM state including at least one of a hardware counter, a software counter, or a progress of execution of the workload; and
deploying the VM state on the second server to resume execution of the workload.
Vega teaches obtaining the VM state from the storage (disk), the VM state including at least one of a hardware counter, a software counter, or a progress of execution of the workload (the device state and memory state of VM A); and
deploying the VM state on the second server to resume execution of the workload (a copy runs in a new location. One way to implement migration involves saving the device state and the entire memory state of the virtual machine to a file on disk, then copying the file to the new host and restoring the machine state) (“…In the event that a need arises to migrate VM A from host OS 104 to host OS 104', such as for load balancing, software upgrades, hardware maintenance, or for reasons of disaster recovery, the device state and memory state of VM A are transferred to host OS 104', according to Microsoft patent application 20040010787,entitled, "Method for forking or migrating a virtual machine," via a standard network connection between computer hardware 102 and computer hardware 102'. The '787 patent application, incorporated herein by reference, describes that, when a virtual machine is migrated, the original virtual machine is permanently suspended, and a copy runs in a new location. One way to implement migration involves saving the device state and the entire memory state of the virtual machine to a file on disk, then copying the file to the new host and restoring the machine state…At step 134, the migration process is initiated (either manually or automatically for initiation as well as for any or all steps herein indicated) by pausing the VM A 108 on host OS 104 and transferring its device and memory states to host OS 104', according to the '787 patent application. At this point in time, VM A 108 and VM A' 108' both exist briefly in a paused state, for a period of time long enough to transfer critical device state and critical memory state information from VM A 108 to VM A' 108'. For example, the state of the processor registers, the state of the virtual hardware, and a small amount of working memory are migrated from VM A 108 to VM A' 108'. The memory is transferred incrementally by use of a "demand paging" process, wherein the memory of VM A 108 is prioritized, based on what VM A' 108' actively requires, as is described in the '787 patent application…” paragraphs 0038/0041).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Palavalli’553, Schmisseur and Blotsky with the teaching of Vega because the teaching of Vega would improve the system of Palavalli’553, Schmisseur and Blotsky by providing a technique for resuming workload/task execution after a migration.
As to claims 169 and 175, see the rejection of claim 5 above.
Claims 6, 170 and 176 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0147553 A1 to Palavalli et al. (hereinafter referred to as Palavalli’553) in view of U.S Pub. No. 2014/0143885 A1 to Blotsky et al. and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0065231 A1 to Schmisseur et al. as applied to claims 1, 165 and 172 above, and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0283836 A1 to Goud et al.
As to claim 6, Palavalli’553 as modified by Blotsky and Schmisseur teaches the method of claim 1, however it is silent with reference to wherein the data is first data, and the method further including:
reconfiguring the first server based on a change of the first features;
storing second data associated with the second server in the secure storage, the second data including the license or the VM state associated with the second server; and
migrating the VM from the second server to the first server.
Goud teaches wherein the data is first data, and the method further including:
reconfiguring (Once the offline host 102 is powered back on) the first server based on a change of the first features (“…More specifically, HA module(s) 114 will restart the VMs 105 that were allocated for that particular host 102 into other, healthy hosts 102, and when DRS 142 is configured on top of HA, DRS 142 makes sure that the protected VMs 105 get properly balanced to the remaining hosts 102. Once the offline host 102 is powered back on, DRS 142 recommends migration of one or more VMs 105 to the host 102, keeping the cluster balanced. Without DRS 142, an administrator would manually balance out the VMs 105 around the cluster…” paragraph 0044);
storing (register) second data associated with the second server in the storage, the second data including the license or the VM state associated with the second server (“…As shown in FIG. 4, at 410, the VM 105 is registered for a restart or placement on a host 102. For example, a master HA 114 registers the VM 105 for restart/placement on the current host 102, on another host 102 within the host cluster 101, or on another host 102 within another host cluster…” paragraph 0054); and
migrating (DRS 142) the VM from the second server to the first server (“…More specifically, HA module(s) 114 will restart the VMs 105 that were allocated for that particular host 102 into other, healthy hosts 102, and when DRS 142 is configured on top of HA, DRS 142 makes sure that the protected VMs 105 get properly balanced to the remaining hosts 102. Once the offline host 102 is powered back on, DRS 142 recommends migration of one or more VMs 105 to the host 102, keeping the cluster balanced. Without DRS 142, an administrator would manually balance out the VMs 105 around the cluster…” paragraph 0044).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Palavalli’553, Schmisseur and Blotsky with the teaching of Goud because the teaching of Goud would improve the system of Palavalli’553, Schmisseur and Blotsky by providing a technique for resuming workload/task execution after an offline host becomes active or comes back online.
As to claims 170 and 175, see the rejection of claim 6 above.
Claims 7, 171 and 177 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0147553 A1 to Palavalli et al. (hereinafter referred to as Palavalli’553) in view of U.S Pub. No. 2014/0143885 A1 to Blotsky et al. and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0065231 A1 to Schmisseur et al. and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20220283836 A1 to Goud et al. as applied to claim 6, 171 and 176 above, and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0180063 A1 to Blandaru et al.
As to claim 7, Palavalli’553 as modified by Blotsky, Schmisseur and Goud teaches the method of claim 6, however it is silent with reference to (BUT, Blandaru teaches) obtaining the license from the storage (In such a case, the license activation is triggered by the cloud OS at the same time that the cloud OS is enacting the VM/VNF migration);
obtaining the VM state from the storage, the VM state including at least one of a hardware counter, a software counter, or a progress of execution of the workload (“…In an alternative embodiment, a license authorization during a migration of VMs/VNFs can be transparently handled by the network of SECs when a VM is migrated. In such a case, the license activation is triggered by the cloud OS at the same time that the cloud OS is enacting the VM/VNF migration. A license server aware cloud may transmit a secure message to the license server indicating a VM migration event. The cloud OS would be aware if a special VM launch is used, as in the case of service-VMs (e.g., fire-walls, load-balancers, etc.). Since the SEC has different and unique keys that are never exposed outside the SEC, the license server will assume no unauthorized use of those credentials. Hence, each SEC associated with each VM/VNF has a unique communication connection with the SEC license server, and the license attestation is protected by non-repudiation…” paragraph 0021);
deploying the license on the first server to activate the change of the first features on the first server (Operation 504); and
deploying the VM state on the first server to resume execution of the workload (Operation 504) (“…In operation 500, the license agent requests, via an associated SEC, a license from the license server. This involves sending the metadata of the client host, such as the MAC-address, host-name, IP-address and time of the client to the license server using a secure clock. This information is transmitted securely through the SEC, as discussed above. In operation 502, the license server creates the license using the metadata of the client and sends the license to the license agent. The license includes the expiration time based on the client time and a lease period, as well as an expiration time based on the server time and the lease period. The license also includes the host-name, MAC-address, and IP-address of the client, as well as the server-time-stamp. The license is saved in the license database, then signed with an attached certificate and issued to the license agent. When the license agent receives the license in operation 502, it validates the license signature and caches the license in the SEC associated with the license agent. As long as the client expire time is less than the actual client time, the license is valid and may be used by the client…In operation 504, a license renew request is sent from the license agent to the license server, as discussed above. If the license metadata matches the license data stored in the license database, and the license has not yet expired, then the license is renewed. If the license has expired, then a return expired message is sent to the license agent, the license is harvested, and the licensed-ID is disabled. If the license metadata and/or signature do not match that stored in the license database, then it is possible a clone or migration of a VM is attempting to use the license. During a clean VM migration, as discussed above, the license server is informed and the license is harvested and re-issued on a request from a new client host. Either the license-refresh or an error code is sent to the license agent in operation 506. All requests, responses, and errors are logged by the license server and may be saved in the license database…” paragraphs 0023/0026).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Palavalli’553, Schmisseur, Blotsky and Goud with the teaching of Blandaru because the teaching of Blandaru would improve the system of Palavalli’553, Schmisseur, Blotsky and Goud by providing a technique for resuming workload/task execution after a migration based on a deployment for a virtual machine and its license.
As to claims 171 and 177, see the rejection of claim 7 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Pat. No. 9,245,096 B2 issued to Abuelsaad et al. and directed to an approach for managing licenses for software installations on virtual machine (VM) instances in a networked computing environment (e.g., a cloud computing environment).
U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0033316 A1 to Scarlata et al. and directed to a method for licensing features in a secure processing environment.
U.S. Pat. No. 9,286,448 B2 issued to Cushion et al. and directed to a method for enhanced license management in a computer processing environment.
U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0328225 A1to Chambers et al. an directed to automation-based techniques for implementing and enforcing software license requirements, specifically the permissions, rights and restrictions under which a particular program or software package can be used.
U.S. Pub. No. 20200034171 A1 to Kommular et al. and directed to an apparatus that has a workload authorizer (110) that determines to migrate the first number of virtual machines to a second server rack to reduce a temperature in a first server room (103a) by threshold amount of heat.
U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0162666 A1 to Casey et al. and directed to directed to a network orchestrator for migrating a first virtual machine instance from a first server of a plurality of servers to a second server of the plurality of servers as a second virtual machine instance.
E.P.O No. 3376378 A1 issued to Zhang et al. and directed to a container license management process.
U.S. Pat. No. 7,313,512 B1 issued to Traut et al. and directed to a a method for licensing software of one or more guest computer systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES E ANYA whose telephone number is (571)272-3757. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fir. 9-6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/CHARLES E ANYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194