DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to amendment filed on January 29th, 2026.
Claims 1~20 are examined.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/23/26 and 01/29/26 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
Claims 1~20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1~20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,792,086. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1~20 of the instant application is anticipated/obvious over claims 1~20 of the U.S Patent above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1~5, 8~12 and 15~19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang et al. hereinafter Tang (U.S 2022/0027197) and Ganesan et al. hereinafter Ganesan (U.S 2015/0372878) in view of Wang et al. hereinafter Wang (U.S 2023/0134539), and further in view of Gazier et al. hereinafter Gazier (U.S 2018/0077080).
Regarding Claim 1,
Tang taught a computer-implemented method, comprising:
monitoring telemetry data by the compute service executing on the SD-WAN edge device during execution of the one or more workloads, wherein the telemetry data comprises a plurality of context elements at the first SD-WAN edge device [¶26, measured service: cloud systems automatically control and optimize resource use by leveraging a metering capability at some level of abstraction appropriate to the type of service (for example, storage, processing, bandwidth, and active user accounts). Resource usage can be monitored, controlled, and reported providing transparency for both the provider and consumer of the utilized service; ¶72, workload scheduling system 510 (“compute service”)]; and
offloading, in coordination with the orchestrator, the at least one of the one or more workloads from the first SD-WAN edge device to the second SD-WAN edge device that satisfies the one or more requirements for running the at least one of the one or more workloads [¶66, if it is determined to offload the workload of the target function, one or more incoming requests for the target function are routed to the second computing environment; ¶73, provisioner 516].
While Tang taught determining, by the compute service of the first SD-WAN edge device, that a context change occurs for at least one of the context elements at the first SD-WAN edge device [¶66, the workload of the target function is found to exceed a current processing capacity of the service available for the target function in the first computing environment] however, did not specifically teach that a context change occurs due to the edge device that violates at least one of the resource requirements for running at least one of the one or more workloads and in response to the context change, communicating with an orchestrator to cause the orchestrator to identify a second SD-WAN edge device that satisfies requirements for running the at least one of the one or more workloads.
Ganesan taught determining, by the compute service of the first SD-WAN edge device, that a context change occurs for at least one of the context elements at the first SD-WAN edge device that violates at least one of the resource requirements for running at least one of the one or more workloads [¶31, the host physical machine (“first SD-WAN edge device”) capability determinator 508 is configured to determine if the host physical machine has enough capacity to mitigate the SLA violation. This determines the extra capacity required by the VM to overcome the SLA violation and then check if the host PM is able to assign the extra capacity to the VM i.e. the extra capacity assignment does not violate the host PM utilization threshold];
in response to the context change, communicating with an orchestrator to cause the orchestrator to identify a second SD-WAN edge device that satisfies requirements for running the at least one of the one or more workloads [¶31, virtual machine migration engine 512 is configured to migrate the VM to another PM (target PM) in the virtual environment to overcome the SLA violation. The virtual machine migration engine 512 includes target physical machine selector 514 configured to select a target PM where the VM should be migrated. The target physical machine selector 514 includes SLA violation estimator 516 and collocation compatibility checker 518. The SLA violation estimator 516 is configured to estimate the possibility of SLA violation if the VM is migrated to the target PM. If the SLA violation estimator 516 finds that the migration of the VM to the target PM will satisfy all the SLA parameter, then the target physical machine selector 514 selects that target PM and the virtual machine migration engine 512 migrates the VM to that selected target PM].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to combine, Ganesan’s teaching of limitations with the teachings of Tang, because the combination predicts SLA violation before moving the workload in new physical machine in virtual environment [Ganesan: ¶6].
The combination of Tang and Ganesan did not specifically teach obtaining, from an orchestrator at a first software defined wide area network (SD-WAN) edge device, a manifest file that specifies resource requirements for one or more workloads for deploying on the SD-WAN edge device.
Wang taught obtaining, from an orchestrator at a first software defined wide area network (SD-WAN) edge device, a manifest file that specifies resource requirements for one or more workloads for deploying on the SD-WAN edge device [¶42, network analysis system 124 can utilize WAN link characterization data 130 of WAN links 142A-A through 142A-N (or a subset thereof) to customize local policy 107A of site 106A; ¶44; ¶64, historical WAN link characterization data 208].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to combine, Wang’s teaching of limitations with the teachings of Tang and Ganesan, because the combination may lower the network operational costs for a site and/or increase network performance for a site [Wang: ¶8].
The combination of Tang, Ganesan and Wang did not specifically teach performing, by the SD-WAN edge device, a pre-deployment check to confirm availability of the resource requirements for the one or more workloads above resource utilization prioritized for core network services that i) execute on the SD-WAN edge device and ii) facilitate virtual network overlay functions for an SD-WAN; responsive to passing the pre-deployment check, deploying the one or more workloads using a compute service of the SD-WAN edge device.
Wang taught performing, by the SD-WAN edge device, a pre-deployment check to confirm availability of the resource requirements for the one or more workloads above resource utilization prioritized for core network services that i) execute on the SD-WAN edge device and ii) facilitate virtual network overlay functions for an SD-WAN [¶44, to obtain measurements, such as, available compute, type of compute, available storage, location of compute/storage, available power, environmental conditions, theoretical workload and requirements of service; ¶45, measurement of actual workload performance and feedback therefrom for analysis and potential reassignment to new resources; ¶48];
responsive to passing the pre-deployment check, deploying the one or more workloads using a compute service of the SD-WAN edge device [¶48, the activation includes manual/automated workload or resource placement based on the determination and the measurements].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to combine, Gazier’s teaching of limitations with the teachings of Tang, Ganesan, and Wang, because the combination would optimally constrain workload distribution to achieve performance targets for business objectives [Gazier: ¶33].
Regarding Claim 2,
Tang taught wherein the plurality of context elements comprise at least one of central processing unit (CPU) performance, memory performance, cost of compute, network bandwidth (BW), or network latency [¶106, CPU bounded workload, memory bounded workload type].
Regarding Claim 3,
Tang taught wherein the context change for the at least one of the one or more workloads comprises a deallocation of one or more resources for running the at least one of the one or more workloads on the first SD-WAN edge device [¶24, Resource pooling: the providers computing resources are pooled to serve multiple consumers using a multi-tenant model, with different physical and virtual resources dynamically assigned and reassigned according to demand], and wherein the one or more resources comprise at least one of compute capacity, storage capacity, or network bandwidth capacity allocated for running the at least one of the one or more workloads on the first SD-WAN edge device [¶53, local processing and memory resources].
Regarding Claim 4,
Tang taught wherein the one or more workloads are one or more containerized workloads orchestrated by the orchestrator [¶77, containers can be provisioned to run the service in computing environment 401].
Regarding Claim 5,
Tang taught wherein in response to determining that the context change occurs for at least one of the context elements at the first SD-WAN edge device, updating configuration of the orchestrator to reflect the context change [¶90, API objects 702, 704, and 706 may be updated if configurations related to target function 522-2 are changed].
Regarding Claims 8~12 and 15~19, the claims are similar in scope to claims 1~5 and therefore, rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 6, 7, 13, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tang, Ganesan, Wang, and Gazier in view of Kinnaird et al. hereinafter Kinnaird (U.S 2023/0125491).
Regarding Claim 6,
Tang-Ganesan-Wang-Gazier-Kinnaird taught wherein offloading the at least one of the one or more workloads from the first SD-WAN edge device to the second SD-WAN edge device comprises: generating a replica of the at least one of the one or more workloads on the second SD-WAN edge device [¶116, workload A can be replicated in multiple edge locations. For each of those locations, workload A can have a different version. Workloads in edge locations are continuously changing. For example, the workloads change while the edge cluster has local cache and is constantly synchronizing with the primary workload]; and
terminating the at least one of the one or more workloads scheduled on the first SD-WAN edge device [Tang: ¶144, workload scheduling system 510 causes at least one incoming request for the target function to be routed to a target instance of the target function, the target instance of the target function being provisioned in a second computing environment different from the first computing environment].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made, to combine, Kinnaird’s teaching of limitations with the teachings of Tang, Ganesan, Wang, and Gazier, because the combination would provide reduction in service outage [Kinnaird: ¶132].
Regarding Claim 7,
Tang-Ganesan-Wang-Gazier-Kinnaird taught wherein the second SD-WAN edge device is the closest SD-WAN edge device to the first SD-WAN edge device among all edge devices within a tenant that includes the first SD-WAN edge device [Kinnaird: ¶6, leverage reduced processing and power costs of edge locations which can be positioned: close to the systems to be migrated; ¶36; ¶37].
The rationale to combine as discussed in claim 6, applies here as well.
Regarding Claims 13, 14, and 20, the claims are similar in scope to claims 6 and 7 and therefore, rejected under the same rationale.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/29/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claims 1~20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground 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.
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 HEE SOO KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-3229. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas Taylor can be reached on (571) 272-3889. 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.
/HEE SOO KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443