DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-14, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferris et al. (US 2009/0300607) in view of Hayatnagarkar et al. (US 2021/0224091) further in view of Farshteindiker et al. (U 2022/0060490).
With respect to claim 1, Ferris discloses: receiving, via a graphical user interface, a first request to create a compute target entity, wherein the first request comprises an infrastructure definition that defines a set of resources (a) for implementing the compute target entity and (b) to be selected from a set of tenant- managed resources implemented on a tenant's premises ([0012] “virtual machine” corresponds to Applicant’s “compute target entity”; the “resource servers” correspond to Applicant’s “tenant-managed resources”, [0016], “private network” corresponds to “tenant’s premises”, no further limitation explains what “tenant’s premises” encompasses and under the broadest reasonable interpretation a “private network” is interpreted to be within a commercial premise or building or even the reach of the private network itself can be interpreted as the extent “tenant’s premise”; [0025], [0026]: “browser interface” corresponds to “GUI”);
responsive to receiving the first request: generating, by a service provider system, a compute target entity, the compute target entity being associated with an addressable identifier corresponding to the set of resources selected from the set of tenant-managed resources ([0012], [0013], [0025], [0026], “IP address”, which corresponds to Applicant’s “addressable identifier”, can identify individual virtual machines built from the stored configuration of the image of a virtual machine that is designated a management instance);
Ferris does not specifically disclose: receiving, by the service provider system, a second request for execution of a set of operations, wherein the second request specifies the addressable identifier associated with the compute target entity for execution of the set of operations, wherein the set of operations comprises one or more operations; and
causing, by the service provider system, execution of the set of operations on the set of resources on the tenant's premises via the compute target entity.
However, Hayatnagarkar discloses: receiving, by the service provider system, a second request for execution of a set of operations, wherein the second request specifies the addressable identifier associated with the compute target entity for execution of the set of operations, wherein the set of operations comprises one or more operations ([0028], “sharable link” corresponds to “addressable identifier” as it identifies as well as connects the user to the virtual machine); and
causing, by the service provider system, execution of the set of operations on the set of resources on the tenant's premises via the compute target entity. ([0028], upon validation of the user, operation requests from the user can be relayed to the virtual machine; “cloud computing facility” corresponds to “tenant’s premises”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Hayatnagarkar to ensure that users are verified and have permission to instantiate and use the cloud’s resources thereby ensuring higher security through the authentication process.
Ferris and Hayatnagarkar do not specifically disclose: mapping, by the service provider system, the addressable identifier of the compute target entity to the set of resources.
However, Farshteindiker discloses: mapping, by the service provider system, the addressable identifier of the compute target entity to the set of resources ([0046], [0047], where the virtual machine identifier is mapped to resources).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Farshteindiker to enable threat detection by analyzing a statistical, normal consumption of physical resources and use that analysis to detect in real time any anomalous behavior. The mapping to a physical resource allows Farshteindiker’s threat detection module to search log files to obtain the historical usage data of a resource.
With respect to claim 2, Hayatnagarkar discloses: wherein causing execution of the set of operations on the set of resources comprises obtaining access to the set of resources using a set of credentials associated with the compute target entity ([0028], “credential validation” corresponds to “…obtaining access…credentials…entity”).
With respect to claim 3, Ferris discloses: wherein causing execution of the set of operations on the set of resources comprises requesting execution of the set of operations using an Application Programming Interface (API) associated with the set of tenant-managed resources ([0025]).
With respect to claim 7, Ferris discloses: wherein the set of resources correspond to a subset of a cluster of compute resources comprised in the set of tenant-managed resources ([0012], [0015]).
With respect to claim 8, Ferris discloses: wherein the operations further comprise: receiving, via the graphical user interface, a second request to create a second compute target entity, wherein the second request comprises a second infrastructure definition that defines a second set of resources (a) for implementing the second compute target entity and (b) to be selected from a set of service provider-managed resources implemented within service provider system ([0018], [0027] inherent is that Ferris does not only deal with one user request. It can entertain more than one request from one user or multiple users as it is a cloud orchestration/management system).
With respect to claim 9, Ferris discloses: wherein the operations further comprise configuring, by the service provider system, the set of resources of the set of tenant-managed resources implemented on the tenant's premises ([0019], [0016], where private network is interpreted as encompassing “tenant’s premises”).
With respect to claim 10, Hayatnagarkar discloses: wherein causing execution of the set of operations comprises: executing, by the service provider system, an application that generates commands for performing the set of operations, and transmitting the commands to a resource manager that manages the set of resources for a tenant ([0028]).
With respect to claim 11, Ferris discloses: wherein the set of resources comprise a set of physical infrastructure resources on the tenant's premises ([0022]).
With respect to claims 12-14, 17-19, they recite similar limitations as claims 1-3, 8-10, respectively, and are therefore rejected under the same citations and rationale.
With respect to claim 20, it recites similar limitations as claim 1 and is, therefore, rejected under the same citations and rationale.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferris et al. (US 2009/0300607) in view of Hayatnagarkar et al. (US 2021/0224091) further in view of Farshteindiker et al. (U 2022/0060490) further in view of Range et al. (US 12052285)
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Ferris, Hayatnagarkar, and Farshteindiker do not specifically disclose: wherein the first request further specifies a namespace to be accessible to the compute target entity, wherein the set of resources, of the set of tenant-managed resources, are limited to the namespace specified by the first request for the compute target entity.
However, Range discloses: wherein the first request further specifies a namespace to be accessible to the compute target entity, wherein the set of resources, of the set of tenant-managed resources, are limited to the namespace specified by the first request for the compute target entity (col. 15, lines 1-12).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate namespaces as taught by Range to ensure isolation of resources for multiple processes which allows each container to have its own private view of the resources independent of other containers/virtual machines such that a process in one container cannot access a resources outside that container ensuring each container operates as if it were running on a separate system.
Claims 5 and 15 are under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferris et al. (US 2009/0300607) in view of Hayatnagarkar et al. (US 2021/0224091) further in view of Farshteindiker et al. (U 2022/0060490) further in view of Kirchhofer et al. (US 10298515).
With respect to claim 5, Ferris, Hayatnagarkar, and Fashteindiker do not specifically disclose: wherein the operations further comprise assigning the compute target entity a particular role of a plurality of roles, and wherein the set of resources, of the set of tenant-managed resources, are limited based on the role assigned to the compute target entity.
However, Kirchhofer discloses: wherein the operations further comprise assigning the compute target entity a particular role of a plurality of roles, and wherein the set of resources, of the set of tenant-managed resources, are limited based on the role assigned to the compute target entity (col. 10, lines 25-32).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Kirchhofer to improve the security of the Ferris, Hayatnagarkar, and Fashteindiker combination by allowing only a user or related role with an appropriate level of authority to access or administer the resource thereby preventing any kind of tampering, sabotage, or misuse of the resource.
With respect to claim 15, it recites similar limitations as claim 5 and is, therefore, rejected under the same citations and rationale.
Claims 6 and 16 are under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ferris et al. (US 2009/0300607) in view of Hayatnagarkar et al. (US 2021/0224091) further in view of Farshteindiker et al. (U 2022/0060490) further in view of Pandey et al. (US 2023/0418966).
With respect to claim 6, Ferris, Hayatnagarkar, and Fashteindiker do not specifically disclose: wherein the operations further comprise: transmitting, by the service provider system to a resource manager associated with the set of tenant- managed resources, a request for a status update regarding the set of one or more operations; receiving, by the service provider system from the resource manager, the status update regarding the set of one or more operations; and displaying, by the GUI, the status update in association with the compute target entity.
However, Pandey discloses: wherein the operations further comprise: transmitting, by the service provider system to a resource manager associated with the set of tenant- managed resources, a request for a status update regarding the set of one or more operations; receiving, by the service provider system from the resource manager, the status update regarding the set of one or more operations; and displaying, by the GUI, the status update in association with the compute target entity ([0105]-[0107], API calls are made for operation status update, status of “UP” corresponds to displaying status update).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Pandey to reduce computational overhead of executing events for managing databases by aggregating scheduled events ([0053], Pandey).
With respect to claim 16, it recites similar limitations as claim 6 and is, therefore, rejected under the same citations and rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lucovsky et al. (US 2011/0265164): cloud computing environment provides the ability to deploy a web application that has been developed using one of a plurality of application frameworks and is configured to execute within one of a plurality of runtime environments. The cloud computing environment receives the web application in a package compatible with the runtime environment (e.g., a WAR file to be launched in an application server, for example) and dynamically binds available services by appropriately inserting service provisioning data (e.g., service network address, login credentials, etc.) into the package. The cloud computing environment then packages an instance of the runtime environment, a start script and the package into a web application deployment package, which is then transmitted to an application (e.g., container virtual machine, etc.). The application container unpacks the web application deployment package, installs the runtime environment, loads the web application package into the runtime environment and starts the start script, thereby deploying the web application in the application container.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WISSAM RASHID whose telephone number is (571)270-3758. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
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 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.
/WISSAM RASHID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195
Prosecution Insights