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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission, filed on April 6, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1-20 are currently pending, of which independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serrano (US 20230251908) in view of Oberlin et al. (US 2015/0244595), hereinafter Oberlin.
Regarding claim 1, Serrano discloses a method, comprising:
“detecting that a request, from a second cloud environment, for a cross-cloud service provided by a first cloud service provider has been received by a first component of a first cloud environment of the first cloud service provider” ( a request received by a multi-cloud infrastructure 720 B ( first component) is being authenticating by module 722B (first cloud environment) where the request correspond to a provider of a service (fist service provider)( in order to authenticate a request the request has to be detected first) , from a second cloud environment 710A ,Serrano, [0175]; [0168]; the cloud service is equated to a cross cloud service because the service is between cloud service providers see [0022] of the specification );
“receiving an indication that deployment of the cross-cloud service at a location within the second cloud environment of a second cloud service provider is authorized based on the request” (a group permission is copied to a user account at the second cloud environment 710 A in second cloud service 710 and give to the user of the account full access to a service of the first cloud environment; deployment of services being done between various regions of various virtual clouds networks ( receiving the group permission is an indication that a deployment of a service is permitted following the request that was being identified ,Serrano,[0060]; [0226];[0175]) see [0175] for request being identified; in addition the second cloud environment is disclosed at a different location that the first cloud environment see [0211]; the cloud service is equated to a cross cloud service because the service is between cloud service providers see [0022] of the specification);
“in response to receiving the indication, generating, by a second component of the first cloud environment interfacing with the first component, an instruction for deploying the cross-cloud service within the second cloud environment of the second cloud service provider” ( after receiving the permission to copy the permission right of a service access of the first cloud environment to the second cloud environment, an admin group 1025 (that is an interface generated that synchronizes the access of the service of the first cloud environment with the second cloud environment), Serrano, [0226]));
“and causing, by the second component and based on the instruction, automated deployment of the cross- cloud service within the second cloud environment.” (a resource from the first cloud environment being deployed to a second cloud environment after a call for requesting resources is initiated, Serrano, [0228]).
Serrano does not explicitly teach “monitoring, by the first cloud environment, resource capacity of locations, within the second cloud environment;” and “selecting, based at least in part on the monitoring, a location from the locations within the second cloud environment as a deployment location.” However, Oberlin in the same field of endeavor, teaches a system for helping cloud customers get better-performing virtual machines and other computer resources. A user sends a request for a cloud resource, but the request also includes a performance standard or resource capacity, such as memory, CPU speed, network throughput, response time, or cost limits. The system requests a resource from the provider, tests or benchmarks it, and only gives it to the user if it meets the requested standard. [0008] - [0015] and [0048].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the teachings of Oberlin into Serrano’s teachings, because doing so would improve confidence that a leased cloud instance actually meets the customer’s performance needs and cost expectations. Oberlin, [0006].
Regarding claim 2, Serrano discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that the request is associated with a customer having a tenancy within the second cloud environment of the second cloud service provider ( the request received being associated with a first cloud infrastructure that contains tenancy of an account of a user using a cloud-link adaptor that performs translation between external cloud identifiers of the receive request) ,Serrano, [0176; [0177]]); where the received request is disclosed in [0175]).
Regarding claim 3, Serrano discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that the request is associated with a customer having a tenancy within the first cloud environment ( the request received being associated with a first cloud infrastructure that contains tenancy of an account of a user using a cloud-link adaptor that performs translation between external cloud identifiers of the receive request) ,Serrano, [0176; [0177]]); where the received request is disclosed in [0175]).
Regarding claim 8, Serrano discloses a system comprising: one or more processing systems; and one or more computer-readable media storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processing systems, cause the system to perform operations ( computer instances store in a memory being executed by a processor ,Serrano, [0113])); in addition, claim 8 is substantially similar to claim 1, thus the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is substantially similar to claim 2, thus the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is substantially similar to claim 2, thus the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 15, Serrano discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions which, when executed by one or more processing systems, cause a system to perform operations ( computer instances store in a memory being executed by a processor ,Serrano, [0113])) ; in addition, (claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 1, thus the same rationale applies).
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 2, thus the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 3, thus the same rationale applies.
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serrano in view of Oberlin and further in view of Devadoss (US 12,021, 978).
Regarding claim 4, Serrano in view of Oberlin does not explicitly disclose further comprising: in response to determining that the request is associated with the tenancy of the customer within the first cloud service provider, denying the request.
Devadoss discloses further comprising: in response to determining that the request is associated with the tenancy of the customer within the first cloud service provider, denying the request ( in response to a login request associated with a user to access computing resources of a service provider, the access request is denied when the biometric privacy key to a mobile device of a user that has his previous login attempts not valid, Devadoss, Claim 1])).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Devasso’s teachings with Serrano’s and Oberlin’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently control the access of a computing resource by denying access to the computing resources when previous access attempts of a given user failed.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is substantially similar to claim 4, thus the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 4, thus the same rationale applies.
Claims 5-6, 12-13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serrano in view of Oberlin and further in view of Paris et al. (hereinafter “Paris”) (US 2018/0260469).
Regarding claim 5, Serrano in view of Oberlin does not disclose wherein causing the deployment of the cross-cloud service within the second cloud environment comprises identifying a cluster placement group within the second cloud environment for the deployment.
Paris discloses wherein causing the deployment of the cross-cloud service within the second cloud environment comprises identifying a cluster placement group within the second cloud environment for the deployment ( the execution of a virtual machine flows from one cloud-based environment to another using index Engine to identify a level of the token index (the execution of the virtual machine to another cloud environment is equated to deployment of a cloud service to a second cloud environment) ,Paris, [0095]; [0179])).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Paris’s teachings with Serrano’s and Oberlin’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently deploy network resources in another cloud environment by efficiently identifying the virtual machines where the network resources have to be deployed.
Regarding claim 6, Serrano in view of Oberlin does not disclose wherein second cloud environment comprises one or more infrastructures, and wherein the cluster placement group is located in an infrastructure of the one or more infrastructures.
Paris discloses wherein second cloud environment comprises one or more infrastructures (where another cloud-based environment (second cloud environment) is made of virtual machines, Paris, [0095]; [0179])), and wherein the cluster placement group is located in an infrastructure of the one or more infrastructures (the position ( location) of level (row) group of cells in the data structure (where the group of cells is equated to a cluster of virtual machines) ,Paris, [0095]; [0179])).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine Paris’s teachings with Serrano’s and Oberlin’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the teachings in order to efficiently deploy network resources in another cloud environment by efficiently identifying the virtual machines where the network resources have to be deployed.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is substantially similar to claim 5, thus the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is substantially similar to claim 6, thus the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 5, thus the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 6, thus the same rationale applies.
Claims 7, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Serrano in view of Oberlin and further in view of SUBRAMANIAN et al. (hereinafter “SUBRAMANIAN”) (US 2014/0123296 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Serrano in view of Oberlin does not disclose wherein the indication is received from a cloud service of the second cloud environment.
SUBRAMANIAN discloses wherein the indication is received from a cloud service of the second cloud environment (an indication is received from a second cloud domain to perform a service, SUBRAMANIAN, [0025]; [0027])).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate SUBRAMANIAN’s teachings into the teachings of Serrano and Oberlin. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine these teachings to efficiently perform a service in a cloud domain by receiving an indication to perform the service in the domain where the service is to be performed.
Regarding claim 14, claim 14 is substantially similar to claim 7, thus the same rationale applies.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 8-10, and 15-17 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emmanuel L Moise whose telephone number is (571)272-3865. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 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, Colleen Fauz can be reached on 571 272-1667. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EMMANUEL L MOISE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights