DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Specification
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.
Claim objections
Claims 1, 3, 9-10, 12 and 18-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1, 3, 9-10, 12 and 18-19, it recites abbreviations “GUI”.
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 therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1, Statutory Category: Yes, the claim 1 is a method claim that recites a series of steps and therefore falls in the statutory category of a process.
Step 2A- Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited: Yes, the claim recites: “determining, based on the identifier, whether a network link has been established between the tenancy of the user in the first cloud environment and an account of the user in the second cloud environment; responsive to determining that the network link has not been established, redirecting the user to a second GUI associated with the second cloud environment; and configuring the set of pre-requisite resources in the second cloud environment” As drafted, the claim as a whole recites a method that includes a series of steps could be performed in the human mind, but for the recitation of generic computing components. The human mind can determining/identifying/evaluating based on the identifier, whether a network link has been established between the tenancy of the user in the first cloud environment and an account of the user in the second cloud environment, responsive to determining/identifying that the network link has not been established, redirecting/planning/scheduling/assigning the user to a second GUI associated with the second cloud environment, and configuring/allocating/scheduling the set of pre-requisite resources in the second cloud environment. Therefore, but for the recitation of generic computing components, these steps may be a Mental Processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Therefore, yes, the claims do recite judicial exceptions.
Step 2A- Prong 2: Integrated into a practical Application: No, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites an additional limitations that “receiving, at a first GUI of a multi-cloud console of a multi-cloud infrastructure, an identifier of a tenancy of a user in a first cloud environment” which is insignificant pre-solution data gathering (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)). In addition, “the multi-cloud infrastructure providing one or more services of the first cloud environment to customers of a second cloud environment” is an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h))). Moreover, the limitation of “the redirecting facilitating a set of pre-requisite resources in the second cloud environment to be configured for the user” and “upon configuring…initiating a workflow that establishes the network link between the first cloud environment and the second cloud environment” which is directed to Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim does not define any particular machine to “initiating a workflow that establishes” “the network link” and no details what so ever on how the claimed function will occur.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept: No. The additional element “the multi-cloud infrastructure providing one or more services of the first cloud environment to customers of a second cloud environment” is an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h))). In addition, the limitation of “the redirecting facilitating a set of pre-requisite resources in the second cloud environment to be configured for the user” and “upon configuring…initiating a workflow that establishes the network link between the first cloud environment and the second cloud environment” which is directed to Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim does not define any particular machine to “initiating a workflow that establishes” “the network link” and no details what so ever on how the claimed function will occur. Further, the limitation of “receiving, at a first GUI of a multi-cloud console of a multi-cloud infrastructure, an identifier of a tenancy of a user in a first cloud environment” which is insignificant pre-solution data gathering (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) which are well understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). Courts have identified “receiving and transmitting data, storing and retrieving information”, et cetera as well understood, routine, conventional and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f))). These additional elements and combination of the elements does not amount to significant more than the exception itself or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the “receiving” step was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A as insignificant data gathering and communication and are well understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The “receiving” step was for the purpose of “communication” and “transmitting the data” and these can be reached on one of court case (Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) see MPEP § 2106.05(d) II). Accordingly, a conclusion that ““receiving” step is well understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer options 2.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is ineligible.
Independent claims 10 and 19 are rejected for the same reason as claim 1 above. Claim 10 further recites “One or more computer readable non-transitory media storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors”. Claim 19 further recites “A computing device comprising: one or more processors; and a memory including instructions that, when executed with the one or more processors”. These additional elements are directed to generic computing components/functions merely applying the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
With respect to the dependent claim 2, the claim elaborates that wherein a first cloud infrastructure of the first cloud environment is provided by a first cloud services provider (CSP), and a second cloud infrastructure corresponding to the second cloud environment is provided by a second CSP that is different from the first CSP, the first cloud environment being different than the second cloud environment (these limitations are directed to Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
With respect to the dependent claim 3, the claim elaborates that wherein the first GUI corresponds to a signup GUI of the multi- cloud console, and the second GUI corresponds to a login GUI associated with a portal of the second cloud environment (these limitations are directed to Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
With respect to the dependent claim 4, the claim elaborates that wherein the determining further comprises: verifying, whether a link resource object is created, wherein the link resource object includes information linking the tenancy of the user in the first cloud environment to the account of the user in the second cloud environment, and includes information indicative of whether the network link is created; and responsive to determining that the network link has not been established, creating the link resource object (“verifying, whether a link resource object is created” are being treated as part of abstract idea and is analogous to Mental processes, such that concept can be performed in the human mind. In addition, “creating the link resource object” are directed to Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
With respect to the dependent claim 5, the claim elaborates that wherein the set of pre-requisite resources includes a hierarchy of resources, each resource in the hierarchy of resources being associated with a respective role (these limitations are directed to Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
With respect to the dependent claim 6, the claim elaborates that wherein a hierarchy of roles associated with the hierarchy of resources includes a networking role, an observability role, and a validator role, and wherein the networking role permits creation of the network link between the first cloud environment and the second cloud environment, the observability role permits an observability module included in the multi-cloud infrastructure to publish data associated with resources deployed in the first cloud environment to the second cloud environment, and the validator role permits a control plane of the multi-cloud infrastructure to perform user validation (“networking role permits”, “observability role permits”, “the validator role permits” are being treated as part of abstract idea and is analogous to Mental processes, such that concept can be performed in the human mind. In addition, These additional elements are directed to generic computing components/functions merely applying the abstract idea (MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
With respect to the dependent claim 7, the claim elaborates that selecting a first primary region for the first cloud environment, and a second primary region for the second cloud environment; and establishing the network link between the first primary region and the second primary region (“selecting” are being treated as part of abstract idea and is analogous to Mental processes, such that concept can be performed in the human mind. In addition, “establishing the network link” are directed to Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
With respect to the dependent claim 8, the claim elaborates that wherein the workflow is further configured to create a compartment in the tenancy of the user in the first cloud environment, the compartment hosting at least one resource associated with the one or more services (“create a compartment in the tenancy” are directed to Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
With respect to the dependent claim 9, the claim elaborates that responsive to establishing the network link between the first cloud environment and the second cloud environment, redirecting the user to a third GUI of the multi-cloud console, the third GUI providing a listing of the one or more services offered by the multi-cloud infrastructure (“redirecting the user to a third GUI of the multi-cloud console” are being treated as part of abstract idea and is analogous to Mental processes, such that concept can be performed in the human mind. In addition, “the third GUI providing a listing of the one or more services offered by the multi-cloud infrastructure” are directed to Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claims 11-18 recite the same features as applied to claims 2-9 respectively above. Therefore, they are also rejected under the same rationale.
Dependent claim 20 recite the same features as applied to claim 2 above. Therefore, it is also rejected under the same rationale.
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) 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 1-4, 7, 10-13, 16 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang et al. (US Patent. 10,129,177 B2) in view of Liebherr et al. (US Pub. 2020/0153736 A1) and further in view of Fakhrai et al. (US Pub. 2012/0144464 A1).
Liebherr was cited in the IDS.
As per claim 1, Chang teaches the invention substantially as claimed including A method comprising:
receiving, at a first GUI of a multi-cloud console of a multi-cloud infrastructure, an identifier of a tenancy of a user in a first cloud environment (Chang, Fig. 1, 100 (as a multi-cloud infrastructure); Fig. 5, 400 cloud broker GTWY, 505 tenant credentials, 510 request resources; 305 private cloud (as first cloud environment); Fig. 4, 400 Cloud broker GTWY, 442 API (as first GUI); Col 7, lines 16-23, Inter-cloud API process 442 represents a set of routines, protocols, and tools for integrating cloud broker gateway 400 with various cloud infrastructure platforms (e.g., OpenStack, Cloudstack, VMware vCloud Director, and the like). Operatively, inter-cloud API 442 provides an outward facing graphical interface that allows customers (e.g., users, tenants, administrators, etc.) to programmatically manage workloads in a hybrid cloud environment; Col 9, lines 34-41, private cloud network 305 sends tenant credentials (505) to cloud broker gateway 400. As discussed above, the tenant credentials may include login and/or account information for cloud service providers (e.g., public clouds). Typically, cloud broker gateway 400 uses the tenant credentials (as identifier of a tenancy of a user) and acts as a proxy for private cloud network 305 when requesting resources from the public clouds);
determining, based on the identifier, whether a network link has been established between the tenancy of the user in the first cloud environment and an account of the user in the second cloud environment (Chang, Claim 7, receiving, by the cloud broker gateway, a second request from the tenant associated with the enterprise network for at least one additional computing resource; determining, by the cloud broker gateway, the hybrid cloud is established (as a network link has been established between the tenancy of the user in the first cloud environment and an account of the user in the second cloud environment) between the second public cloud and the enterprise network; Col 6, lines 43-48, a cloud broker gateway, such as cloud broker gateway 400, can consolidate and store tenant credentials for each public cloud service provider and act as a proxy, using those tenant credentials, when securing computing resources from respective public cloud networks; Col 7, line 63- Col 8, line 2, control cloud brokerage operations. Specifically, brokerage policy process 444, when executed by cloud broker gateway 400, operates to receive requests for computing resources from tenants in a private cloud network (e.g., enterprise network), and coordinates amongst public cloud networks to secure the computing resources and establish a hybrid cloud network [Examiner noted: when cloud broker gateway receives the request, it will determined whether the hybrid cloud is established (as a network link), and direct to the hybrid cloud if it is established or establish when it is not established]);
responsive to determining that the network link has not been established, redirecting the user to the second cloud environment, the redirecting facilitating a set of pre-requisite resources in the second cloud environment to be configured for the user (Chang, Fig. 6, 603 redirect request, 320 public cloud, 321 cloud GTWY (as set of pre-requisite resources in the second cloud environment) and is established with 640 hybrid cloud network (as network link); Col 5, lines 47-67, cloud broker gateway may receive requests for computing resources from a private cloud network (e.g., private cloud network 105), and negotiate amongst various public clouds networks (e.g., public cloud networks 110, 115) to identify an appropriate public cloud network for securing the computing resources specified in the request. The cloud broker gateway can further coordinate establishing a hybrid cloud between the appropriate public cloud network and the private cloud network. Notably, the cloud broker gateway may be employed as a single node/device and/or it may be employed in a distributed fashion (e.g., residing in each of the various public clouds). In some embodiments, the cloud broker gateway may also include a brokerage policy engine that stores tenant credentials for the various public clouds, ranks or prioritizes the various public clouds by, for example, tenant preferences, Service Level Agreements (SLAs), monitors historical capabilities and performance, maintains consumption statistics per tenant (and for each cloud service), catches responses from the public clouds (e.g., when a public cloud network cannot service a request for computing resources), and re-directs a rejected request to another public cloud; Col 15, lines 5-12, Claim 12, redirect the request to the second public cloud based on the brokerage policy for the tenant when the response indicates the first public cloud cannot provide the one or more computing resources; and establish a hybrid cloud that provides access to the one or more computing resources between the second public cloud and the enterprise network); and
upon configuring the set of pre-requisite resources in the second cloud environment, initiating a workflow that establishes the network link between the first cloud environment and the second cloud environment (Chang, Fig. 6, 603 redirect request, 320 public cloud, 321 cloud GTWY (as set of pre-requisite resources in the second cloud environment) and is established with 640 hybrid cloud network (as network link); Col 10, lines 1-4, Cloud broker gateway 400 receives the response and performs operations to establish a hybrid cloud instances (550) between public cloud network 320 and private cloud 305—e.g., a hybrid cloud network is established; Col 10, lines 35-50, Cloud broker gateway 615 further determines that its brokerage policy process for a tenant associated with the initial request 601 provides a third option for securing cloud computing resources—here, public cloud network 320. Accordingly, cloud broker gateway 615 redirects the request (e.g., redirected request 603) to a cloud broker gateway 620 hosted by public cloud network 320. Cloud broker gateway 620 receives redirected request 603, determines public cloud network 320 can service the request, and sends a response to cloud broker gateway 610 indicating the same. Cloud broker gateway 610 then sends a response 604 to enterprise cloud manager 605 indicating public cloud 320 can service the request. Subsequently, enterprise cloud manager 605 and cloud broker gateway 620 establish a hybrid cloud network 640 between enterprise gateway 306 and cloud broker gateway 321; Col 15, lines 5-12, Claim 12, redirect the request to the second public cloud based on the brokerage policy for the tenant when the response indicates the first public cloud cannot provide the one or more computing resources; and establish a hybrid cloud that provides access to the one or more computing resources between the second public cloud and the enterprise network (as include initiating a workflow (i.e., including operation of send response and then establishing) for establishing the network link/ hybrid cloud network)).
Chang fails to explicitly teach the multi-cloud infrastructure providing one or more services of the first cloud environment to customers of a second cloud environment.
However, Liebherr teaches the multi-cloud infrastructure providing one or more services of the first cloud environment to customers of a second cloud environment (Liebherr, [0002] lines 1-5, multiple tenants may be served by a shared pool of computing resources including, for example, computer networks, servers, storage, applications, services, and/or the like. The cloud-computing environment may have a multi-cloud architecture in which the shared pool of computing resources are hosted by several cloud providers; [0026] lines 1-10, A hybrid multi-cloud computing environment may include a shared pool of computing resources hosted by multiple cloud providers including, for example, private cloud providers, public cloud providers, and/or the like. As such, the hybrid multi-cloud computing environment may include a multitude of individual private cloud computing platforms deployed on on-premise cloud infrastructures as well as public cloud computing platforms deployed on third-party cloud infrastructures; also see Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Chang with Liebherr because Liebherr’s teaching of providing a multi-cloud architecture that sharing the resources for multiple tenants would have provided Chang’s system with the advantage and capability to allow the system to sharing the resources among the different clouds including private and public cloud which improving the resource utilization and system performance.
Chang and Liebherr fail to specifically teach when redirecting the user to the second cloud environment, it is redirecting the user to a second GUI associated with the second cloud environment.
However, Fakhrai teaches when redirecting the user to the second cloud environment, it is redirecting the user to a second GUI associated with the second cloud environment (Fakhrai, Fig. 3, GUI 315, when user selects authentication by B the browser or application is redirected to server B; [0081] lines 1-8, FIG. 3 conceptually illustrates a user interface where user U goes directly to server A to access information (e.g., accessing its website, etc.) in some embodiments of the invention. As shown in the graphical user interface of FIG. 3, the user has the option to use conventional methods such as entering username 305 and password 310 to login directly to server A. But the user is also provided with a link 315 such as "Secure Sign in Powered by B").
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Chang and Liebherr with Fakhrai because Fakhrai’s teaching of redirecting the user to other GUI of second server would have provided Chang and Liebherr’s system with the advantage and capability to allow the system to easily coordinating the user with the cloud environment in order to improving the system performance and efficiency.
As per claim 2, Chang, Liebherr and Fakhrai teach the invention according to claim 1 above. Chang further teaches wherein a first cloud infrastructure of the first cloud environment is provided by a first cloud services provider (CSP), and a second cloud infrastructure corresponding to the second cloud environment is provided by a second CSP that is different from the first CSP, the first cloud environment being different than the second cloud environment (Chang, Fig. 1, 105 private cloud (E.g., Enterprise network) (as first cloud infrastructure of the first cloud environment is provided by a first cloud services provider (CSP)), 110 pub cloud 110, VMs (as second cloud infrastructure corresponding to the second cloud environment is provided by a second CSP that is different from the first CSP); Col 3, lines 29-34, FIG. 1 illustrates an example hybrid cloud environment 100 illustratively comprising a plurality of networks or “clouds”, such as one or more private clouds or datacenters 105, e.g., enterprise network, and one or more public clouds 110, 115 separated by a public network 120, such as the Internet. Also see Col 2, lines 15-20, a cloud broker gateway orchestrates and coordinates securing cloud resources in a hybrid cloud environment—e.g., between a private cloud (e.g., enterprise network) and a public cloud (e.g., third party cloud network provider)).
As per claim 3, Chang, Liebherr and Fakhrai teach the invention according to claim 1 above. Chang further teaches wherein the first GUI corresponds to a signup GUI of the multi- cloud console (Chang, Col 7, lines 16-23, Inter-cloud API process 442 represents a set of routines, protocols, and tools for integrating cloud broker gateway 400 with various cloud infrastructure platforms (e.g., OpenStack, Cloudstack, VMware vCloud Director, and the like). Operatively, inter-cloud API 442 provides an outward facing graphical interface that allows customers (e.g., users, tenants, administrators, etc.) to programmatically manage workloads in a hybrid cloud environment; Col 9, lines 34-41, private cloud network 305 sends tenant credentials (505) to cloud broker gateway 400. As discussed above, the tenant credentials may include login and/or account information for cloud service providers (e.g., public clouds). Typically, cloud broker gateway 400 uses the tenant credentials and acts as a proxy for private cloud network 305 when requesting resources from the public clouds).
In addition, Fakhrai teaches the second GUI corresponds to a login GUI associated with a portal of the second cloud environment (Fakhrai, Fig. 3, GUI 315, when user selects authentication by B the browser or application is redirected to server B, user name, password; [0081] lines 1-8, FIG. 3 conceptually illustrates a user interface where user U goes directly to server A to access information (e.g., accessing its website, etc.) in some embodiments of the invention. As shown in the graphical user interface of FIG. 3, the user has the option to use conventional methods such as entering username 305 and password 310 to login directly to server A. But the user is also provided with a link 315 such as "Secure Sign in Powered by B").
As per claim 4, Chang, Liebherr and Fakhrai teach the invention according to claim 1 above. Chang further teaches wherein the determining further comprises: verifying, whether a link resource object is created, wherein the link resource object includes information linking the tenancy of the user in the first cloud environment to the account of the user in the second cloud environment, and includes information indicative of whether the network link is created; (Chang, Fig. 6, 640 hybrid cloud network (as network link); Claim 7, determining, by the cloud broker gateway, the hybrid cloud is established between the second public cloud and the enterprise network; and directing, by the cloud broker gateway, the second request to the second public cloud based on an affinity policy when the hybrid cloud is established between the second public cloud and the enterprise network; Col 8, lines 31-40, if a hybrid cloud network exists between private cloud network 305 and public cloud network 315, affinity policy process 446 may tag the resources in the hybrid cloud network with an origin identifier of the public cloud network—here, public cloud network 315. Affinity policy process 446 may further police brokerage policy process 444, based on the origin identifier, and direct additional requests for computing resources to the same public cloud network—i.e., public cloud network 315.) and
responsive to determining that the network link has not been established, creating the link resource object (Chang, Col 7, line 64- Col 8, line 20, brokerage policy process 444, when executed by cloud broker gateway 400, operates to receive requests for computing resources from tenants in a private cloud network (e.g., enterprise network), and coordinates amongst public cloud networks to secure the computing resources and establish a hybrid cloud network. With regard to coordinating amongst the public cloud networks, brokerage policy process 444 can direct and re-direct the tenant request (e.g., using respective tenant credentials for each public cloud service stored in inter-cloud API 442) public cloud networks that can service the requested computing resources. In this fashion, brokerage policy process 444 can receive responses from public cloud networks, e.g., response return codes, representational state transfer (REST) return codes, and the like, and perform additional cloud broker re-direction functions. For example, in some embodiments, specific response return codes (e.g., a HTTP Return Code: 307 Temporary Redirect) may be used by cloud service providers to indicate a particular public cloud service provider cannot service the computing resources included in a request. The specific response return code(s) may cause or trigger the brokerage policy process 444 to determine a tenant-mapping or a tenant-priority for alternative cloud service providers, and redirect the request accordingly; Col 8, lines 39-50, in the event public cloud network 315 cannot service the request, cloud broker gateway 400 can send a notification to the tenant of private cloud network 305 indicating the existing hybrid cloud environment cannot service the request. Alternatively, cloud broker gateway 400 may determine another public cloud network—e.g., public cloud network 320—can service the additional request as well support the underlying resource consumption, migrate the resources to public cloud network 320, and establish a new hybrid cloud environment between private cloud network 305 and public cloud network 320. (as to determining that the network link has not been established (i.e., the existing one cannot service the request, that is, the target network link has not been established for service the request), then creating the link resource object)).
As per claim 7, Chang, Liebherr and Fakhrai teach the invention according to claim 1 above. Chang further teaches selecting a first primary region for the first cloud environment, and a second primary region for the second cloud environment; and establishing the network link between the first primary region and the second primary region (Chang, Fig. 6, 306 ENTY GTWY 306, 321 cloud GTWY 321 within public cloud 320 (as first primary region and second primary region that are selected for hybrid cloud network 640); Col 10, lines 45-50, Cloud broker gateway 610 then sends a response 604 to enterprise cloud manager 605 indicating public cloud 320 can service the request. Subsequently, enterprise cloud manager 605 and cloud broker gateway 620 establish a hybrid cloud network 640 between enterprise gateway 306 and cloud broker gateway 321; Col 11, lines 47-51, second cloud may be selected based on the tenant cloud brokerage policy).
As per claims 10-13 and 16, they are one or more computer readable non-transitory media claims of claims 1-4 and 7 respectively above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1-4 and 7 respectively above.
As per claims 19 and 20, they are computing device claims of claims 1 and 2 respectively above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 and 2 respectively above.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang, Liebherr and Fakhrai, as applied to claims 1 and 10 respectively above, and further in view of Griffin et al. (US Pub. 2004/0162894 A1).
As per claim 5, Chang, Liebherr and Fakhrai teach the invention according to claim 1 above. Chang, Liebherr and Fakhrai fail to specifically teach wherein the set of pre-requisite resources includes a hierarchy of resources, each resource in the hierarchy of resources being associated with a respective role.
However, Griffin teaches wherein the set of pre-requisite resources includes a hierarchy of resources, each resource in the hierarchy of resources being associated with a respective role (Griffin, Claim 20, providing for the association of a first role with a first resource in a hierarchy of resources; providing for the association of a first policy with a second resource in the hierarchy of resources, wherein the first policy is based at least partially on the first role; and wherein the first role can supercede a second role associated with a parent of the first resource if the first role and the second role have the same identity; and wherein the first policy can supercede a second policy associated with a parent of the second resource if the first policy and the second policy have the same identity).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Chang, Liebherr and Fakhrai with Griffin because Griffin’s teaching of using resource hierarchy that including respective role associated with respective resource would have provided Chang, Liebherr and Fakhrai’s system with the advantage and capability to allow the system to easily managing the resources with different roles and policy in order to improving the system performance and efficiency.
As per claim 14, it is one or more computer readable non-transitory media claim of claim 5 above. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason as claim 5 above.
Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang, Liebherr and Fakhrai, as applied to claims 1 and 10 respectively above, and further in view of Tsurbeleu et al. (US Pub. 2017/0171211 A1).
As per claim 8, Chang, Liebherr and Fakhrai teach the invention according to claim 1 above. Chang, Liebherr and Fakhrai fail to explicitly teach wherein the workflow is further configured to create a compartment in the tenancy of the user in the first cloud environment, the compartment hosting at least one resource associated with the one or more services.
However, Tsurbeleu teaches wherein the workflow is further configured to create a compartment in the tenancy of the user in the first cloud environment, the compartment hosting at least one resource associated with the one or more services (Tsurbeleu, [0018] The datacenter operator may offer different levels of cloud computing services to tenants. With an Infrastructure-as-a-Service (IaaS) offering, the lower levels of the IT stack are delivered as a service, which frees up developers from much of the complexity of provisioning physical machines and configuring networks. With IaaS, tenants can easily provision virtual machines in a highly scalable and available cloud environment, develop and test solutions, then deploy applications to production. With a Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) offering, everything from network connectivity through the runtime is provided. PaaS makes development easy by providing additional support for application services and management of the operating system, including updates. With PaaS, tenants can focus on the business logic of application and quickly move applications from concept to launch. With a Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) offering, a single finished application or suite of applications can be delivered to customers through a web browser, thereby eliminating their need to manage the underlying components of the IT stack including application code).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Chang, Liebherr and Fakhrai with Tsurbeleu because Tsurbeleu’s teaching of provisioning virtual machines in a highly scalable and available cloud environment for the tenants would have provided Chang, Liebherr and Fakhrai’s system with the advantage and capability to allow the system to quickly move applications from concept to launch, thereby eliminating their need to manage the underlying components of the IT stack including application code which improving the system performance and efficiency(see Tsurbeleu [0018]).
As per claim 17, it is one or more computer readable non-transitory media claim of claim 8 above. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason as claim 8 above.
Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang, Liebherr and Fakhrai, as applied to claims 1 and 10 respectively above, and further in view of Zagone (US Pub. 2020/0184464 A1).
As per claim 9, Chang, Liebherr and Fakhrai teach the invention according to claim 1 above. Chang teaches establishing the network link between the first cloud environment and the second cloud environment (Chang, Col 10, lines 1-4, Cloud broker gateway 400 receives the response and performs operations to establish a hybrid cloud instances (550) between public cloud network 320 and private cloud 305—e.g., a hybrid cloud network is established; Col 10, lines 35-50, Cloud broker gateway 615 further determines that its brokerage policy process for a tenant associated with the initial request 601 provides a third option for securing cloud computing resources—here, public cloud network 320. Accordingly, cloud broker gateway 615 redirects the request (e.g., redirected request 603) to a cloud broker gateway 620 hosted by public cloud network 320. Cloud broker gateway 620 receives redirected request 603, determines public cloud network 320 can service the request, and sends a response to cloud broker gateway 610 indicating the same. Cloud broker gateway 610 then sends a response 604 to enterprise cloud manager 605 indicating public cloud 320 can service the request. Subsequently, enterprise cloud manager 605 and cloud broker gateway 620 establish a hybrid cloud network 640 between enterprise gateway 306 and cloud broker gateway 321).
Chang, Liebherr and Fakhrai fail to specifically teach responsive to establishing the network link between the first cloud environment and the second cloud environment, redirecting the user to a third GUI of the multi-cloud console, the third GUI providing a listing of the one or more services offered by the multi-cloud infrastructure.
However, Zagone teaches responsive to establishing the network link between the first cloud environment and the second cloud environment, redirecting the user to a third GUI of the multi-cloud console, the third GUI providing a listing of the one or more services offered by the multi-cloud infrastructure (Zagone, [0076] At step 408, in response to validation of the end user's identity, access is allowed to the customized mobile wallet via the user computing device 110. For example, the mobile wallet circuit 136 allows access to the customized mobile wallet via the user computing device 110. That is, the mobile wallet circuit 136 allows the user computing device 110 to access, utilize, deploy, etc. the various services included in the customized mobile wallet. The wallet service 220 thereby provides the user computing device 110 with access to (i.e., with the ability to use the services of) the particular customized wallet associated with the sign-in request at step 404; [0078] At step 502, a request to edit an end user's mobile wallet is received. For example, the administration tool circuit 200 receives a request to edit an end user's mobile wallet. The request may be input by an administrator to the administrator device 190 and transmitted from the administrator device 190 to the administration tool circuit 200. In response to receiving the request, at step 504 a list of enrolled services and a list of assigned services is provided. For example, the administration tool circuit 200 may generate a graphical user interface that includes a list of the enrolled services and a list of the services already assigned to the selected user (i.e., already available in the selected mobile wallet). The graphical user interface may be displayed by the administrator device 190. An example of such a graphical user interface is shown in FIG. 7 and described in detail with reference thereto).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Chang, Liebherr and Fakhrai with Zagone because Zagone’s teaching of generating a graphical user interface that includes a list of the enrolled services for user selection once the user is connected would have provided Chang, Liebherr and Fakhrai’s system with the advantage and capability to allow the user to easily selecting and determining which serveries that cloud will be offered in order to improving the user experience and system performance.
As per claim 18, it is one or more computer readable non-transitory media claim of claim 9 above. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason as claim 9 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if overcomes the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Reasons of Allowable Subject Matter:
The closest prior arts of record Chang et al. (US Patent. 10,129,177 B2) teaches a “cloud broker gateway” that sits between an enterprise network and multiple public clouds. It receives a tenant’s request for computing resources and decides which public cloud should receive the request first. If the first cloud cannot supply the resources, the gateway forwards the request to another cloud according to a brokerage policy. The gateway uses tenant-specific information such as credentials, preferences, pricing, service levels, and historical performance to make the routing decision and establishing the network link between the tenant of enterprise with the public cloud.
Liebherr et al. (US Pub. 2020/0153736 A1) teaches a hybrid multi-cloud computing environment that include a shared pool of computing resources hosted by multiple cloud providers including, for example, private cloud providers, public cloud providers. As such, the hybrid multi-cloud computing environment may include a multitude of individual private cloud computing platforms deployed on on-premise cloud infrastructures as well as public cloud computing platforms deployed on third-party cloud infrastructures.
Fakhrai et al. (US Pub. 2012/0144464 A1) teaches a redirecting mechanism that when user selects authentication in other server in the browser or application, the browser or application is redirected to the other server for performing login authentication.
KO et al. (US Pub. 2023/0131060 A1) teaches a resource system host that permit establishing secure communication sessions based on self-signed digital certificates, with a trust validator to analyze the attestation token received in the API call from API service of computing device and to determine that the attestation token is a valid token from token provider, and that properly identifies computing device acting as a secure enclave in order to grant access to data persisted at resource system host.
VAN DEN BROECK et al. (US Pub. 2015/0178713 A1) teaches a cloud-based computing resource that transmits data that allows the selected application to be displayed on the display screen of the computing device, the selected application being stored on the cloud-based memory device of the cloud-based computing resource.
Srivastava et al. (US Pub. 2023/0156649 A1) teaches a control plane function for mobility management for use in a mobile network which operates to perform quota validation in relation to a maximum number of user equipment permitted in a network slice.
The feature “wherein a hierarchy of roles associated with the hierarchy of resources includes a networking role, an observability role, and a validator role, and wherein the networking role permits creation of the network link between the first cloud environment and the second cloud environment, the observability role permits an observability module included in the multi-cloud infrastructure to publish data associated with resources deployed in the first cloud environment to the second cloud environment, and the validator role permits a control plane of the multi-cloud infrastructure to perform user validation” when taken in the context of the claims (i.e., claims 1, 5 and 6) as a whole, were not found in the prior art teachings.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZUJIA XU whose telephone number is (571)272-0954. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-5:30 EST.
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, Aimee J Li can be reached at (571) 272-4169. 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.
/ZUJIA XU/Examiner, Art Unit 2195
Prosecution Insights