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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-20 are allowed.
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung et al (US 2010/0325191) (hereinafter Jung) in view of Zhou et al (US 2025/0173172) (hereinafter Zhou) .
As per claim 1, Jung teaches:
A method comprising:
receiving an input comprising optimization goals for deploying a group of heterogeneous VMs, the optimization goals comprising at least one goal and a defined quantity of VMs in the group of heterogeneous VMs (Jung, [0071], [0072]—under BRI, one goal and a defined quantity of VMs can be information for requesting a specific virtual device and number [one] of virtual device) ;
based on the optimization goals, identifying candidate VMs (Jung, Fig 512, 514) ;
listing the identified candidate VMs into a candidate group of VMs (Jung, [0072]—under BRI, a candidate group of VMs can be resource pool), each of the VMs in the candidate group of VMs being assigned to a location from a plurality of locations (Jung, Fig 2, 200, 250—under BRI, a location from a plurality of locations can be 200 amongst 200 and 340);
when the recommendation timer has not expired (NOT REQUIRED: ):
determining a score for each of the identified candidate VMs;
assigning a candidate VM with a highest score amongst the determined scores to a first group recommendation of a plurality of group recommendations;
updating a location usage counter for the location of the candidate VM;
determining whether the location usage counter for the location of the candidate VM has met a location usage threshold;
upon determining that the location usage counter for the location of the candidate VM has met the location usage threshold, removing the candidate VM from the candidate group of VMs and any other VM from the candidate group of VMs that have been assigned to the location of the candidate VM; and
upon determining that the location usage counter for the location of the candidate VM has not met the location usage threshold, updating the score for the candidate VM and any other VM from the candidate group of VMs that have been assigned to the location of the candidate VM based on the updated location usage counter for the location of the candidate VM; identifying a total score for each of the plurality of group recommendations;
based on the total score for each of the plurality of group recommendations, selecting a group recommendation from the plurality of group recommendations to deploy the group recommendation comprising the group of heterogeneous VMs; and
deploying the group of heterogeneous VMs in the selected group recommendation.
Jung does not expressly teach:
setting a recommendation timer;
However, Zhou discloses:
setting a recommendation timer (Zhou, [0027]);
Both Zhou and Jung pertain to the art of VM assignment.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Zhou’s method to set a timer because it is well-known in the art that it prevents over-migration, stabilizes the cluster, and balances compute costs against performance benefits.
As per claim 10, Jung/Zhou teaches:
The method of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1), wherein the optimization goals comprise one or more of the following: capacity and price (Jung, [0038]).
Claims 2-3, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung/Zhou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of RAMASWAMY et al (US 2024/0419504) (hereinafter RAMASWAMY).
As per claim 2, Jung/Zhou teaches:
The method of claim 1 (See rejection on claim 1).
Jung/Zhou does not expressly teach:
wherein each of the identified candidate VMs comprises a signal score, a configuration, and location information.
However, RAMASWAMY discloses:
wherein each of the identified candidate VMs comprises a signal score, a configuration, and location information (RAMASWAMY, [0034]).
Both RAMASWAMY and Jung/Zhou pertain to the art of VM assignment.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use RAMASWAMY’s method to use a signal score, a configuration, and location information because it is well-known in the art that these are common factors that can be used to determine VM assignments.
As per claim 3, Jung/Zhou/RAMASWAMY teaches:
The method of claim 2 (see rejection on claim 2), wherein the configuration comprises Stock Keeping Unit (SKU) and location information comprises region and availability zone information (RAMASWAMY, [0034]).
As per claim 5, Jung/Zhou teaches:
The method of claim 1 (See rejection on claim 1).
However, RAMASWAMY discloses:
wherein assigning the candidate VM causes the first group recommendation to reach the defined quantity of VMs (RAMASWAMY, [0018]).
Both RAMASWAMY and Jung/Zhou pertain to the art of VM assignment.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use RAMASWAMY’s method to assign group recommendations because it is well-known in the art that grouping Virtual Machines (VMs) allows administrators to manage multiple instances as a single logical entity. Key benefits include automated scaling, simplified administration, improved fault tolerance, streamlined backups, and consistent network security.
Claims 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung/Zhou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shatsky et al (US 2022/02221132022/0222113) (hereinafter Shatsky).
As per claim 6, Jung/Zhou teaches:
The method of claim 1 (See rejection on claim 1).
Jung/Zhou does not expressly teach:
wherein the identified candidate VMs in a first location have a first location usage threshold that is different from a second location usage threshold for a second identified candidate VM assigned to a second location.
However, Shatsky discloses:
wherein the identified candidate VMs in a first location have a first location usage threshold that is different from a second location usage threshold for a second identified candidate VM assigned to a second location (Shatsky, [0074]).
Both Shatsky and Jung/Zhou pertain to the art of VM assignment.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Shatsky’s method use location thresholds because it is well-known in the art that a location threshold dictates when a hypervisor or orchestrator shifts a Virtual Machine (VM) to a new physical host based on geography, zone, or operational boundaries. This ensures compliance, low latency, and efficient load balancing.
As per claim 9, Jung/Zhou teaches:
The method of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1).
Jung/Zhou does not expressly teach:
wherein the location usage threshold is a number of times a VM in a same region and availability zone can be used.
However, Shatsky discloses:
wherein the location usage threshold is a number of times a VM in a same region and availability zone can be used (Shatsky, [0074]).
Both Shatsky and Jung/Zhou pertain to the art of VM assignment.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Shatsky’s method use location thresholds because it is well-known in the art that a location threshold dictates when a hypervisor or orchestrator shifts a Virtual Machine (VM) to a new physical host based on geography, zone, or operational boundaries. This ensures compliance, low latency, and efficient load balancing.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung/Zhou as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Jing et al (US 2024/0354147) (hereinafter Jing).
As per claim 7, Jung/Zhou teaches:
The method of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1).
Jung/Zhou does not expressly teach:
wherein the total score is a sum of scores for all candidate VMs in each of the plurality of group recommendations.
However, Jing discloses:
wherein the total score is a sum of scores for all candidate VMs in each of the plurality of group recommendations (Jing, [0025]).
Both Jing and Jung/Zhou pertain to the art of VM assignment.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Jing’s method to use a total score because it is well-known in the art that totaling up scores in virtual machine (VM) assignments provides quantifiable metrics to optimize resource locality, workload performance, and hardware efficiency.
As per claim 8, Jung/Zhou teaches:
The method of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1).
Jung/Zhou does not expressly teach:
wherein the selected group recommendation has a highest total score amongst the plurality of group recommendations.
However, Jing discloses:
wherein the selected group recommendation has a highest total score amongst the plurality of group recommendations (Jing, [0025]—under BRI, a highest total score can be the one that has the least total network cost score).
Both Jing and Jung/Zhou pertain to the art of VM assignment.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Jing’s method to select nodes with highest score because it is well-known in the art that Selecting the highest score in virtual machine (VM) assignments maximizes your application performance.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2025/0231794 teaches: a method for setting a timer .
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLIE SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-5100. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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, Pierre Vital can be reached at (571) 272-4215. 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.
/CHARLIE SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Prosecution Insights