DETAILED ACTION
Authorization for Internet Communications
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax, Regular postal mail, or EFS Web (PTO/SB/439).
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
¶ [0068] of specification excludes signals from computer readable storage medium, thus no 101 rejection with regards to signals will be given to claim 8 and its dependents.
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 1-5, 7-12, 14-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Regarding claim 1, this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. MPEP §2106.03. The claim recites method steps; thus, the claim is directed to a process which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(II) and the October 2019 Update, a claim “recites” a judicial exception when the judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claim.
The limitations “creating, based on the plurality of intents, a plurality of functionally equivalent configurations for providing the network service; calculating, based on the plurality of intents and a current load of the network service, based on the plurality of intents and a current load of the network service, respective proportions for allocating a workload comprising incoming requests among respective configurations of the plurality of functionally equivalent configurations, the respective proportions defining an optimized mixture of the plurality of functionally equivalent configurations; configuring a workload partitioning mechanism to distribute respective portions of the workload among the respective configurations according to the respective proportions” as drafted, recite functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers functions that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitations as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and/or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2). Accordingly, claim 1 recites a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea).
Step 2A, Prong 2, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. This evaluation is performed by (a) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (b) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. 2019 PEG Section III(A)(2), 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55.
In this case, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements “computer-implemented” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component, or merely a generic processor or generic computer components to perform the judicial exception. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claim includes additional elements of insignificant extra solution activity “receiving a plurality of intents, each intent describing a possible desired state of a network service; and executing the workload using the plurality of functionally equivalent configurations according to the respective proportions.”
The ”receiving” step is not a practical application because it is merely data gathering which the court have identified as well understood, routine, and conventual activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
The “executing” step is not a practical application because it fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the recited “executing” and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Step 2B, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the “computer-implemented” are merely a generic computer or generic computer components to apply the judicial exception which cannot provide an inventive concept.
The claims include additional elements “receiving a plurality of intents, each intent describing a possible desired state of a network service; and executing the workload using the plurality of functionally equivalent configurations according to the respective proportions.”
The ”receiving” is not significantly more than the abstract idea and fails inventive concept because it is merely data gathering which the court have identified as well understood, routine, and conventual activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
The “executing” step is not significantly more than the abstract idea and fails inventive concept because it fails to meaningfully limit the claim because it does not require any particular application of the recited “executing” and is at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception. Mere instructions to apply an exception cannot provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 2 is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, the claims include additional elements “assigning respective incoming requests to respective configurations of the plurality of functionally equivalent configurations according to the respective proportions.” This additional element does not amount to a practical application, nor recite significantly more than a judicial exception, is merely data gathering which the court have identified as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Regarding claim 3, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, claims include additional elements “adjusting one or more functionally equivalent configurations of the plurality of functionally equivalent configurations to match respective portions of the workload allocated to the one or more configurations.” This additional element does not amount to a practical application, nor recite significantly more than a judicial exception, because the additional elements are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Regarding claim 4, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, claims include additional elements “continually reconciling an observed state of the network service to the optimized mixture of the plurality of functionally equivalent configurations.” This additional element does not amount to a practical application, nor recite significantly more than a judicial exception, because the additional elements are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Regarding claim 5, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, claims include additional elements “each configuration of the plurality of functionally equivalent configurations comprises one or more components of the network service; and configuring the workload partitioning mechanism allocating each respective portion of the workload to the one or more components of a corresponding configuration according to a corresponding proportion of the respective proportions.” This additional element does not amount to a practical application, nor recite significantly more than a judicial exception, because the additional elements are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Regarding claim 7, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, claims include additional elements “in response to receiving a request for a service chain, distributing traffic among alternative equivalent paths of the service chain according to the respective proportions.”
This additional element does not amount to a practical application, nor recite significantly more than a judicial exception, because the additional elements are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Regarding claim 21, is a dependent claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. Furthermore, claims include additional elements “the current load of the network service comprises resource utilization inside a managed application; calculating the respective proportions comprises calculating the respective proportions based on the plurality of intents and the resource utilization; and configuring the workload partitioning mechanism comprises configuring the workload partitioning mechanism to distribute the respective portions of the workload among the respective configurations according to the respective proportions calculated based on the plurality of intents and the resource utilization.”
This additional element does not amount to a practical application, nor recite significantly more than a judicial exception, because the additional elements are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Regarding claim 8, is an independent product claim which corresponds with claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. In particular, the claim recites additional elements “one or more computer readable storage medium and program instructions” The storage medium is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., generic medium) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor recite significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 9-12, and 14 are product claims corresponding to claims 2-5, and 7 above, respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15, is an independent system claim rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. In particular, the claim recites additional element “one or more processors; one or more computer readable storage media and program instructions” The processors, storage medium and program instructions are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processors, generic storage medium and program instructions) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, nor recite significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Regarding claim 16-19 are medium claims corresponding to claims 2-5 above, respectively, and are rejected for the same reasons.
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) 1-5, 7-12, 14-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohanram et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2018/0351806) in view of Parker et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2024/0223446).
Regarding claim 1, Mohanram teaches receiving a plurality of intents, each intent describing a possible desired state of a network service (see ¶[0024] “and computer-readable media for checking an intent specification in a software-defined network (SDN). In some examples, a system or method can obtain, from one or more controllers in the SDN network, a logical model of the SDN network. The logical model can include configurations of one or more objects in a hierarchical management information tree (MIT) that defines manageable objects and object properties for the SDN network.” See ¶ [0102] “The models can be generated based on specific configurations and/or network state parameters associated with various objects, policies, properties, and elements defined in MIM 200. The models can be implemented for network analysis and assurance, and may provide a depiction of the network at various stages of implementation and levels of the network.”);
creating, based on the plurality of intents, a plurality of functionally equivalent configurations for providing the network service (see ¶[0198] “ROBDDs are efficient data structures that can incrementally, i.e., rule-by-rule or contract-by-contract build a monolithic representation for the two input models. ROBDDs are canonical data structures under reduction and ordering, and thus, if the two models are functionally/semantically equivalent, their ROBDD representations will converge to the same data structure internally to demonstrate equivalence of the models.”);
calculating, based on the plurality of intents and a current load of the network service, based on the plurality of intents and a current load of the network service, respective proportions for allocating a workload comprising incoming requests among respective configurations of the plurality of functionally equivalent configurations(see ¶[0040] “Tenant space can include workloads, services, applications, devices, networks, and/or resources that are associated with one or more clients or subscribers. Accordingly, traffic in Network Environment 100 can be routed based on specific tenant policies, spaces, agreements, configurations, etc. Moreover, addressing can vary between one or more tenants. In some configurations, tenant spaces can be divided into logical segments and/or networks and separated from logical segments and/or networks associated with other tenants. Addressing, policy, security and configuration information between tenants can be managed by Controllers 116, Servers 106, Leafs 104, etc.”)
configuring a workload partitioning mechanism to distribute respective portions of the workload among the respective configurations according to the respective proportions (see ¶[0169] “In other examples, the Assurance Appliance 300 can also check intent realization, which can involve determining whether an intent has been correctly realized. For example, central intent is propagated to nodes in a distributed system. Due to various issues, such as scale, heterogeneity, frequent changes, failures, etc., the realization of intent can be difficult to achieve and may be error prone. In an SDN network, the ability of a user to inspect a distributed state to determine if the intent is realized can be extremely difficult and significantly limited. In many cases, nodes configure their data path dynamically and on-demand to meet intent as necessary. Workload mobility often requires frequent changes in intent realization, which can greatly exacerbate the problem of determining if central intent has been realized.”);
and executing the workload using the plurality of functionally equivalent configurations according to the respective proportions (see ¶[0214] “When acting under the control of appropriate software or firmware, the CPU 804 is responsible for executing packet management, error detection, and/or routing functions. The CPU 804 preferably accomplishes all these functions under the control of software including an operating system and any appropriate applications software.”).
Mohanram does not expressly disclose, however, Parker teaches the respective proportions defining an optimized mixture of the plurality of functionally equivalent configurations (see ¶[00789] “To illustrate, the agent-level reconciliation manager 216 may identify or determine a current check at regular intervals or based on any locally determined trigger condition independent from when the latest goal configuration state has been provided to the network function 112. Indeed, because the goal configuration state is a declarative state simply indicating a desired state of a configuration on the network function 112, the agent-level reconciliation manager 216 may perform any imperative commands to implement the configuration instructions on a schedule that is optimal for the network function 112, such as at a locally scheduled time that does not interrupt normal operation of the network function 112 (or other network functions being implemented on a shared set of computing resources).”).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Mohanram by adapting Parker for determining and reconciling configuration states for network function for deployment (see ¶[0047] of Parker).
Regarding claim 2, Mohanram teaches further comprising: further comprising: assigning respective incoming requests to respective configurations of the plurality of functionally equivalent configurations according to the respective proportions (see ¶[0105] “L_Model 270A can be a fabric or network-wide logical model. For example, L_Model 270A can account configurations and objects from each of Controllers 116. As previously explained, Network Environment 100 can include multiple Controllers 116. In some cases, two or more Controllers 116 may include different configurations or logical models for the network. In such cases, L_Model 270A can obtain any of the configurations or logical models from Controllers 116 and generate a fabric or network wide logical model based on the configurations and logical models from all Controllers 116. L_Model 270A can thus incorporate configurations or logical models between Controllers 116 to provide a comprehensive logical model. L_Model 270A can also address or account for any dependencies, redundancies, conflicts, etc., that may result from the configurations or logical models at the different Controllers 116”).
Regarding claim 3, Mohanram teaches further comprising: further comprising: adjusting one or more functionally equivalent configurations of the plurality of functionally equivalent configurations to match respective portions of the workload allocated to the one or more configurations (see ¶[0169] “n an SDN network, the ability of a user to inspect a distributed state to determine if the intent is realized can be extremely difficult and significantly limited. In many cases, nodes configure their data path dynamically and on-demand to meet intent as necessary. Workload mobility often requires frequent changes in intent realization, which can greatly exacerbate the problem of determining if central intent has been realized.”).
Regarding claim 4, Mohanram does not expressly disclose, however, Parker teaches further comprising: continually reconciling an observed state of the network service to the optimized mixture of the plurality of functionally equivalent configurations (see ¶[0078] “Indeed, because the goal configuration state is a declarative state simply indicating a desired state of a configuration on the network function 112, the agent-level reconciliation manager 216 may perform any imperative commands to implement the configuration instructions on a schedule that is optimal for the network function 112, such as at a locally scheduled time that does not interrupt normal operation of the network function 112 (or other network functions being implemented on a shared set of computing resources).”).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Mohanram by adapting Parker for determining and reconciling configuration states for network function for deployment (see ¶[0047] of Parker).
Regarding claim 5, Mohanram teaches wherein: each configuration of the plurality of functionally equivalent configurations comprises one or more components of the network service (see ¶[0030] “Network models can be constructed for a network and implemented for network assurance. A network model can provide a representation of one or more aspects of a network, including, without limitation the network's policies, configurations, requirements, security, routing, topology, applications, hardware, filters, contracts, access control lists, infrastructure, etc. As will be further explained below, different types of models can be generated for a network.”); and
configuring the workload partitioning mechanism allocating each respective portion of the workload to the one or more components of a corresponding configuration according to a corresponding proportion of the respective proportions (see ¶[0178] “The configurations in the logical model can include EPG configurations, context configurations, BD configurations, subnet configurations, security policies, etc. The EPG configurations can include EPG deployment information, EPG VLAN allocation, EPG attributes, etc. The security policies can include contracts, filters, entries, and so forth.”).
Regarding claim 7, Mohanram does not expressly disclose, however, Parker teaches further comprising: in response to receiving a request for a service chain, distributing traffic among alternative equivalent paths of the service chain according to the respective proportions (see ¶[0023] “As noted above, rather than requiring a customer to individually configure network functions, the systems described herein provide a mechanism whereby a customer can provide a single request to deploy network functions across multiple deployment areas. In one or more embodiments, this is accomplished by employing a request that includes an application programming interface (API) call which references nodes or branches of a hierarchical configuration model. Indeed, using single API call, an individual may indicate any number of network functions as well as deployment areas of a telecommunications network and any other identifiers that point to specific nodes or branches of the hierarchical configuration model. This unique format allows for the systems described herein to process a request in a way that filters, fans out, and customizes configurations of network function instances on computing resources of a telecommunications network.”).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Mohanram by adapting Parker for determining and reconciling configuration states for network function for deployment (see ¶[0047] of Parker).
Regarding claim 8, is an independent product claim corresponding with method claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons. In addition, Mohanram teaches a computer program product comprising: one or more computer readable storage media and program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media (see ¶[0212]).
Regarding claim 9-12, and 14, correspond with claims 2-5, and 7 above, and are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15, is an independent system claim corresponding with method claim 1, and is rejected for the same reasons. In addition, Mohanram teaches a computer system comprising: one or more computer processors (see ¶[0210]); one or more computer readable storage media (see ¶[0212]); and program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media for execution by at least one of the one or more computer processors (see ¶[0213]).
Regarding claim 16-19, correspond with claims 2-5 above, and are rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 21, Mohanram teaches wherein: the current load of the network service comprises resource utilization inside a managed application (see ¶[0140] “Unified Collector 314 can perform load balancing across individual collectors in order to streamline the efficiency of the overall collection process. Load balancing can be optimized by managing the distribution of subsets of nodes to collectors, for example by randomly hashing nodes to collectors.”);
calculating the respective proportions comprises calculating the respective proportions based on the plurality of intents and the resource utilization (see ¶[0124] “Assurance Appliance 300 can check to make sure the configurations or specification from L_Model 270A, which may reflect the user's intent for the network, including for example the security policies and customer-configured contracts, are correctly implemented and/or rendered in Li_Model 272, Ci_Model 274, and Hi_Model 276, and thus properly implemented and rendered by the fabric members (e.g., Leafs 104), and report any errors, contract violations, or irregularities found.”);
and configuring the workload partitioning mechanism comprises configuring the workload partitioning mechanism to distribute the respective portions of the workload among the respective configurations according to the respective proportions calculated based on the plurality of intents and the resource utilization (see ¶[0043] “ACI can provide an application-centric or policy-based solution through scalable distributed enforcement. ACI supports integration of physical and virtual environments under a declarative configuration model for networks, servers, services, security, requirements, etc. For example, the ACI framework implements EPGs, which can include a collection of endpoints or applications that share common configuration requirements, such as security, QoS, services, etc.”).
Claim(s) 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mohanram et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2018/0351806) in view of Parker et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2024/0223446) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Ulrich et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2002/0138559).
Regarding claim 22, Mohanram and Parker do not expressly disclose, however, Ulrich teaches wherein: the current load of the network service comprises signal strength and throughput measured by end user devices (see ¶[0568] “According to one embodiment, one or more of the servers can include specific software and hardware solutions, such as dedicated digital signal processors, which can add additional horse power to the generation of the object positioning plan 4025. For example, load balancing can be performed by an external client connected to the DFSS 3900.” See ¶[0571] “Each server then can immediately generate new positioning plans to take full advantage of the new components or configuration of the DFSS 3900. Each server then pushes their respective objects throughout the DFSS 3900, thereby efficiently balancing the throughput, capacity, or both, of the same.”);
calculating the respective proportions comprises calculating the respective proportions based on the plurality of intents, the signal strength, and the throughput (see ¶[0394] “One advantage achieved by the aforementioned distributed configurations is that they may provide increased data protection and/or fault tolerance. For example, if the replicated server node 150 fails or becomes unavailable, the second replicated server node 151 can handle client requests without service interruption. Another advantage achieved by using this interconnected arrangement is that alternative server node access paths 165 can be created where identical data can be read simultaneously from the two or more interconnected server nodes 150, 151. Thus, if one server node 150 in the cluster is busy and unavailable, another redundant server node 151 can service client requests to increase data throughput and accessibility. As with the single server node configuration, a plurality of clusters 160 may be present and accessible to the clients 110. Similarly, the clusters 160 can be configured to present a single disk image to the clients 110 to facilitate interaction by the end users of the distributed file storage system 100.”); and
configuring the workload partitioning mechanism comprises configuring the workload partitioning mechanism to distribute the respective portions of the workload among the respective configurations according to the respective proportions calculated based on the plurality of intents, the signal strength, and the throughput (see ¶[00508] “Using either the resource utilization statistics 3854, the file access statistics 3852, or a combination thereof, the one or more servers 130 of the distributed file storage system 100 predict future file and resource utilization characteristics 3856. In one embodiment, the future file and resource utilization characteristics 3856 describe a predicted workload for each of the disk arrays within the distributed file storage system 100. The predicted workload serves as a basis for determining how to best distribute the workload 3858 among available servers and disk arrays to improve access times and reduce bandwidth limitations. Furthermore, the predicted workload can be used to distribute files or content 3860 across the available disk arrays to balance future workloads.”).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Mohanram and Parker by adapting Ulrich to provide a dynamically distributed file system that accommodates current demands for high capacity, throughput, and reliability (see ¶[0025] of Ulrich).
Regarding claim 23, Mohanram and Parker do not expressly disclose, however, Ulrich teaches wherein: the current load of the network service comprises latency measured by end user devices and performance management data comprising counters on network events (see ¶[0135] “In the DFSS, the server workload includes communication with client machines, reading and writing files from disks, managing file metadata, and managing server resources such as storage capacity. The workload is divided up among the server hardware resources. If the workload is evenly divided, the resulting performance will be improved. Thus, one key to performance is intelligent resource management. In one embodiment, resource management involves adaptive load balancing of server workloads.”);
calculating the respective proportions comprises calculating the respective proportions based on the plurality of intents, the latency, and the performance management data (see ¶[0140] “Software resident on each server collects statistics regarding file accesses and server resource utilization. This includes information regarding the access frequency, access bandwidth and access locality for the individual files, the loading of each disk controller and disk storage element in terms of CPU utilization, data transfer bandwidth, transactions per second, and the loading of each network element in terms of network latency and data transfer bandwidth.”); and
configuring the workload partitioning mechanism comprises configuring the workload partitioning mechanism to distribute the respective portions of the workload among the respective configurations according to the respective proportions calculated based on the plurality of intents, the latency, and the performance management data (see ¶[0142] “The predicted workload is then used to develop a plan that where to move content (files) between storage elements and where to direct client accesses to controllers in such a manner that the overall workload is distributed as evenly as possible, resulting in best overall load balance and distributed server performance.” See ¶[0514] “File system software resident on each controller can collect statistics regarding file accesses and server resource utilization. This includes information of the access frequency, access bandwidth and access locality for the individual objects stored in the distributed file, the loading of each controller and disk storage element in terms of CPU utilization, data transfer bandwidth, and transactions per second, and the loading of each network element in terms of network latency and data transfer bandwidth.”).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teachings of Mohanram and Parker by adapting Ulrich to provide a dynamically distributed file system that accommodates current demands for high capacity, throughput, and reliability (see ¶[0025] of Ulrich).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-5, 7-12, 14-19, and 21-23 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kumar et al (U.S. PG PUB 2017/0310611) teaches a method includes creating a catalog of service function (“SF”) profiles, wherein each of the profiles is associated with an SF and indicates a type of the associated SF; storing the catalog of SF profiles in a memory device of a service controller associated with the DVS; creating a service profile group template (“SPGT”) that includes at least one SF profile from the catalog of SF profiles, wherein the SPGT includes a service chain definition identifying at least one service chain comprising the SF associated with the at least one SF profile to be executed in connection with a service path and at least one policy for classifying traffic to the at least one service chain; deploying a first SPG instance based on the SPGT; and deploying an additional SPG instance based on the SPGT in accordance with a scaling policy included in the SPGT.
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 CARINA YUN whose telephone number is (571)270-7848. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, 9-4 (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 call.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Young can be reached on (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.
Carina Yun
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2194
/CARINA YUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2194
/KEVIN L YOUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights