DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to application filed on March 15, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending and are presented to examination.
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, paragraphs, figures 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 their 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.
Drawings
The drawings filed on March 15, 2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Foreign Priority
The foreign priority date considered for this application is October 19, 2023.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 9, before “LCM”, --the-- should be inserted.
Claim 8, line 11, before “LCM”, --the-- should be inserted.
Claims 2-7 and 9-14 depend on the objected claims and inherit the same issue.
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 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 15 recites "A virtualized system…" various components including "a distributed key-value store” and “a first host”, none of which are implemented in hardware. Therefore, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the system
could be implemented purely in software, which is non-statutory. See MPEP 2106. It is
suggested Applicants amend the claim by reciting the system components are implemented using hardware components, such as a memory and a processor, to ensure the system conforms to statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 16-20, when taken in combination with claim 15, does not overcome the deficiency of claim 15 and, therefore, is also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Haryadi et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0311717 – hereinafter Haryadi).
With respect to claim 1, Haryadi teaches a method of hypervisor lifecycle management in a virtualized computing system having a cluster of hosts, the method comprising: obtaining, by a lifecycle manager (LCM) agent executing in a host of the hosts, a desired state document, the desired state document defining a desired state of software in the host, the software including a hypervisor, the desired state including a plurality of images (See figure 1 (and related text), abstract and paragraph [0007], “An image of a virtualization software in a plurality of hosts is installed or upgraded by performing the steps of: in response to a user input, generating a software specification that specifies a desired state of the virtualization software; based on the software specification, preparing a desired image of the virtualization software and storing the desired image of the virtualization software in a storage location accessible to the hosts; and instructing each of the hosts to install the desired image of the virtualization software or upgrade a current image of the virtualization software to the desired image of the virtualization software.”. See paragraph [0024], “In the desired state model according to embodiments, the end user expresses the desired state of the virtualization software (i.e., hypervisor 150) for the cluster of hosts through a UI 101 of VM management server 100. One example form for expressing the desired state is a software specification 105, which is generated based on selections made through UI 101. The selections that can be made through UI 101 include (1) base image, (2) add-on, (3) solution, (4) user component(s), and (5) firmware package (see FIG. 2). Image manager 112 consumes software specification 105 to composite a desired image that is modeled as a hierarchical software stack, including (1) the base image, which is the lowest layer of the software stack, (2) the add-on, which is layered on top of the base image, (3) firmware manifest corresponding to the selected firmware package in the layer above the add-on, and then on the top (4) solution drivers and agents and other user components.”. Furthermore, see paragraph [0048]). comparing selection criteria in a software policy of the desired state document against hardware information obtained from a hardware platform of the host to select an image of the plurality of images defined in the desired state document (See paragraph [0051], “The pre-check subprocess is represented by steps S8 to S12. Coordinator 114 at step S8 issues a pre-check API to image manager 152 of each host 131 and to hardware support manager 170. In response to the pre-check API, image manager 152 of each host 131 at step S9 accesses desired image 125 and retrieves the current state of the virtualization software from image database 153, and compares the two to determine whether or not the virtualization software in the host can be upgraded to desired image 125 at that time, and performs several other checks on the host and at step S10 sends the results of the checks to coordinator 114. The other checks include whether or not the host can enter into maintenance mode at that time and a check on the operational health of the host. Similarly, in response to the pre-check API, hardware support manager 170 at step S11 performs a check on each host 131 to determine whether or not the firmware in the host can be upgraded to the firmware specified by the firmware manifest in desired image 125 at that time, and at step S12 sends the results of this check to coordinator 114. A pre-check might fail for firmware if higher versions of firmware are already installed, or if the combination of drivers in the image and the firmware specified by the firmware manifest would be incompatible (e.g. if the end user overrode a component in a way that is incompatible with the firmware specified by the firmware manifest). There may also be hardware-specific reasons the firmware specified by the firmware manifest cannot be applied (e.g., defects in system that need repair, lack of resources for the firmware in baseboard management controller 154, etc.)”) and applying, by LCM agent, the selected image to the host (See paragraph [0052], “Coordinator 114 determines whether or not to proceed with the application of desired image 125 to hosts 131 based on the results of the pre-check. For example, if the operational health of one of the hosts 131 is bad, coordinator 114 will not proceed with the application of desired image 125 to hosts 131. Upon determining to proceed with the application of desired image 125 to hosts 131, coordinator 114 executes the stage subprocess.”).
With respect to claim 8, the claim is directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium that corresponds to the method recited in claim 1, respectively (see the rejection of claim 1 above; wherein Haryadi also teaches such medium in paragraph [0059]).
With respect to claim 15, the claim is directed to a system that corresponds to the method recited in claim 1, respectively (see the rejection of claim 1 above; wherein Haryadi also teaches such system in figure 1).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-5, 7, 9-12, 14 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haryadi et al. (US Pub. No. 2021/0311717 – hereinafter Haryadi) in view of Li et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0188091 – hereinafter Li). With respect to claim 2, Haryadi is silent to disclose, however in an analogous art, Li teaches wherein the desired state document defines a default image and an alternative image, and wherein the software policy includes selection criteria for the alternative image (See abstract and paragraphs [0009], [0096], “A method of updating a desired state of a virtualization software for a cluster of hosts includes: in response to a notification of a change associated with the cluster, determining versions of a base image of the virtualization software that are compatible with the cluster; for each compatible version of the base image, determining versions of an add-on image of the virtualization software that are compatible with the compatible version of the base image and the cluster; presenting as a recommended image a complete image of the virtualization software, the complete image containing a first version of the base image that is compatible with the cluster and a first version of the add-on image that is compatible with the first version of the base image and the cluster; and upon acceptance of the recommended image, updating a software specification to include the recommended image.”. Examiner notes: version compatibility, i.e., selection criteria). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Haryadi’s teaching, uses an image of a virtualization software in a plurality of hosts, by defining a default image and an alternative image and wherein the software policy includes selection criteria for the alternative image as suggested by Li, as Li would provide a mechanism for updating a desired state of a virtualization software to be installed in a cluster of hosts (see paragraph [0009]). With respect to claim 3, Haryadi is silent to disclose, however in an analogous art, Li teaches wherein the default image is not associated with any selection criteria in the software policy (See paragraph [0049] and figure 3, “At step 310, image manager 122 commits the desired image to shared storage 150 as desired image 152, and the method of FIG. 3 ends. Otherwise, if there was any violation, then at step 312, image manager 122 returns an error to the end user, and the method of FIG. 3 ends.”. Examiner notes: not matching criteria/compatibility throw error). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Haryadi’s teaching, uses an image of a virtualization software in a plurality of hosts, by managing default images as suggested by Li, as Li would provide a mechanism for updating a desired state of a virtualization software to be installed in a cluster of hosts (see paragraph [0009]). With respect to claim 4, Haryadi is silent to disclose, however in an analogous art, Li teaches determining, by the LCM agent, that the hardware information matches the selection criteria (See figure 4 and paragraphs [0014], [0027]-[0028], [0040]-[0041], [0043], Hardware compatibility, e.g., yes or no evaluation, i.e., match or not match) wherein the selected image comprises the alternative image (See figures 1, 10-11 (and related text), add-on image)). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Haryadi’s teaching, uses an image of a virtualization software in a plurality of hosts, by managing hardware information matching a selection criteria as suggested by Li, as Li would provide a mechanism for updating a desired state of a virtualization software to be installed in a cluster of hosts (see paragraph [0009]). With respect to claim 5, Haryadi is silent to disclose, however in an analogous art, Li teaches determining, by the LCM agent, that the hardware information does not match the selection criteria (See figure 4 and paragraphs [0014], [0027]-[0028], [0040]-[0041], [0043], Hardware compatibility, e.g., yes or no evaluation, i.e., match or not match) wherein the selected image comprises the default image (See figures 1, 10-11 (and related text), add-on image)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Haryadi’s teaching, uses an image of a virtualization software in a plurality of hosts, by managing hardware information with a selection criteria as suggested by Li, as Li would provide a mechanism for updating a desired state of a virtualization software to be installed in a cluster of hosts (see paragraph [0009]). With respect to claim 7, Haryadi is silent to disclose, however in an analogous art, Li teaches wherein the selection criteria includes (See figure 4 and paragraphs [0014], [0027]-[0028], [0040]-[0041], [0043], Hardware compatibility). Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Haryadi’s teaching, uses an image of a virtualization software in a plurality of hosts, by managing hardware information based on a hardware specification as suggested by Li, as Li would provide a mechanism for updating a desired state of a virtualization software to be installed in a cluster of hosts (see paragraph [0009]).
With respect to claims 9-12 and 14, the claims are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium that corresponds to the method recited in claims 2-5 and 7, respectively (see the rejection of claims 2-5 and 7 above).
With respect to claims 16-20, the claims are directed to a system that corresponds to the method recited in claims 2-5 and 7, respectively (see the rejection of claims 2-5 and 7 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
After sufficient search and analysis, Examiner concluded that the claimed invention has been recited in such a manner that dependent claim 6 is not taught by any prior reference found through search. The primary reason for allowance of the claims in this case, is the inclusion of the
limitations “receiving, at an LCM from a user, a draft of the desired state document, the draft including specifications for each of the plurality of images and a software policy document defining the software policy; and committing, by the LCM, the draft to generate the desired state document.” which are not found in the prior
art of record. Incorporating claim 6 into claim 1 would put claim 1 in condition for allowance.
After sufficient search and analysis, Examiner concluded that the claimed invention has been recited in such a manner that dependent claim 13 is not taught by any prior reference found through search. The primary reason for allowance of the claims in this case, is the inclusion of the
limitations “receiving, at an LCM from a user, a draft of the desired state document, the draft including specifications for each of the plurality of images and a software policy document defining the software policy; and committing, by the LCM, the draft to generate the desired state document.” which are not found in the prior
art of record. Incorporating claim 13 into claim 8 would put claim 8 in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. He et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0229644) discloses a method of managing a lifecycle of virtualization software in a host (see abstract).
Beard et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0229678) uses an example virtualized computing system including a host cluster having a virtualization layer executing on hardware platforms of hosts (see abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANIBAL RIVERACRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1200. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM-6:00 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, Hyung S Sough can be reached at 5712726799. 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.
/ANIBAL RIVERACRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights