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 .
This office action is in response to claims filed 04/26/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for priority from application no. 63462875 filed 04/28/2023 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Applicant has cited information disclosure statement(s) (IDS's) that include numerous Patents/PG Pubs/NPL. In accordance with dicta from Molins PLC v. Textron, Inc., 48 F.3d 1172 (Fed. Cir. 1995), stating that forcing the Examiner to find "a needle in a haystack" is "probative of bad faith." Id. [The Molins] case presented a situation where the disclosure was in excess of 700 pages and contained more than 50 references. Likewise, the instant application's combined IDS's also include more than 50 references. According to MPEP Section 2004 "Aids to Compliance With Duty of Disclosure [R-08.2012]", "It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to Applicant's attention and/or are known to be of most significance." See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aff'd, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974), Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995). It should be noted that the Examiner having to consider all of the cited references without identifying statements as to their respective applicability to the patentability of each of the instant application's claims does not properly enable the Examiner to review them with significant depth. The IDS has been placed in the application file and marked as considered, but the information referred to therein has only been given a cursory review. Examiner formally requests that if any information previously cited by Applicant in the IDS's is known to be truly material for patentability as defined by 37 C.F.R. § 1.56, Applicant should present a new IDS outlining them and inclusive of a concise but detailed statement as to the relevance of that/those particular documents therein cited under 37 CFR § 1.105.
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 1, 3, and 5-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzman et al. (US 20230037199 A1) in view of Parulkar et al. (US 20210168027 A1), hereinafter referred to as Holzman and Parulkar, respectively.
Regarding Claim 1, Holzman discloses A method comprising: transmitting, to a cloud environment, a first deployment request to deploy a first resource ([0049] the user or an administrator requesting the desired state of cloud infrastructure; [0050] what cloud resources will be deployed with exact configuration when the plan is executed. Please note that the user requesting the desired state of cloud infrastructure, where cloud resources are deployed when the plan is executed corresponds to Applicant’s method comprising transmitting a first deployment request to deploy a first resource to a cloud environment. );
receiving a message indicating approval of the first deployment request, wherein approval of the first deployment request is conditioned on evaluating the first deployment request against a state of the cloud environment ([0052] the cloud management platform may automatically determine whether one or more resources requested under the plan is valid based on predetermined acceptable resources for the cloud management platform. In some examples, in step 340, a user may approve the plan based on the one or more resources requested under the plan. Please note that the cloud management platform determining whether resources requested under the plan are valid corresponds to Applicant’s receiving a message indicating approval of the first deployment request, wherein approval of the first deployment request is conditioned on evaluating the first deployment request against a state of the cloud environment, as the requested resources under the plan are evaluated against the predetermined acceptable resources for the platform, i.e., a state of the environment, and if so, an approval is sent.);
responsive to receiving the message indicating approval of the first deployment request: deploying the first resource ([0052] the cloud management platform may determine that the storage request under the plan is valid, and therefore, the plan is valid and approved for deployment. Please note that the plan being approved for deployment after the cloud management platform determines the request under the plan is valid corresponds to Applicant’s deploying the first resource responsive to receiving the message indicating approval of the first deployment request.);
wherein the method is performed by at least one device including a hardware processor ([0042] the cloud management platform (or a processor within the cloud management platform) may prepare to create the desired state of the cloud infrastructure. Please note that the processor within the cloud management platform that creates the desired state of the cloud infrastructure corresponds to Applicant’s method being performed by a device including a hardware processor. ).
Holzman does not explicitly disclose a first cloud partition in a plurality of cloud partitions of a cloud environment;
the first cloud partition
However, Parulkar discloses a first cloud partition in a plurality of cloud partitions of a cloud environment ([0059] A provider substrate extension 300 provides resources and services of the cloud provider network within a CSP network 302; [0062] the provider substrate extension servers 310 can host compute instances 312.; [0064] the servers 310 may host one or more data volumes 324, if desired by the customer. The volumes may be provisioned within their own isolated virtual network within the provider substrate extension 300. The compute instances 312 and any volumes 324 collectively make up a data plane extension 308B of the provider network data plane 116A within the provider substrate extension 300. Please note that the provider substrate extension 300 providing resources of the cloud provider network, where there are volumes provisioned within isolated virtual networks within the provider substrate extension 300 which can also host compute instances 312 corresponds to Applicant’s first cloud partition in a plurality of cloud partitions of a cloud environment. As stated in [0037] of the Specification, “a secure and isolated partition within the cloud infrastructure environment where the customer can create, organize, and administer their cloud resources. […] Within a tenancy, customers can create, manage, and organize a wide range of cloud resources, including compute instances, storage volumes, and networks. ” Therefore, the provider substrate extension 300 corresponds to the first cloud partition, as it is an isolated partition within the cloud infrastructure environment in which data volumes and compute instances may be managed.);
the first cloud partition ([0059] A provider substrate extension 300. Please note that, as previously stated, a particular instance of a provider substrate extension 300 corresponds to Applicant’s first cloud partition.)
Holzman and Parulkar are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cloud resource deployment management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Holzman to incorporate the teachings of Parulkar to modify the system transmitting a deployment request to be approved by evaluating the request against a state of the cloud environment and deploying the resource based on the approval to do so in a first cloud partition of a plurality of cloud partitions of a cloud environment, allowing for isolation between instances and extension of functionality of the cloud provider network, as described in Parulkar.
Regarding Claim 3, Holzman-Parulkar as described in Claim 1, Parulkar further discloses wherein the state of the cloud environment comprises a state of resource deployments in a second cloud partition of the plurality of cloud partitions ([0061] a function for collecting metrics for monitoring instance health and sending them to a monitoring service, and a function for coordinating transfer of instance state data during live migration. However, generally the control plane 306B functionality for a provider substrate extension 300 will remain in the cloud provider network 100 in order to allow customers to use as much resource capacity of the provider substrate extension as possible. Please note that the instance state data for a second instance distinct from the first corresponds to Applicant’s state of the cloud environment comprising a state of resource deployments in a second cloud partition of the plurality of cloud partitions.);
Holzman further discloses wherein evaluating the first deployment request against the state of the cloud environment comprises determining that the first resource has already been deployed to the second cloud partition ([0114] Third, the cloud management platform may determine or identify a list of established cloud resources based on the state file for the existing cloud infrastructure. Fourth, the cloud management platform may a compare list of requested resources under the configuration file with the list of the established resources to determine changes required to achieve the desired state of cloud infrastructure. Please note that the cloud management platform determining established cloud resources based on the state file for the existing cloud infrastructure for the existing cloud infrastructure, and comparing the list of requested resources to the established resources corresponds to Applicant’s evaluating the first deployment request against the state of the cloud environment comprising determining that the first resource has already been deployed to the second cloud partition, i.e., seeing that the requested resource is already in the list of established resources.).
Regarding Claim 5, Holzman-Parulkar as described in Claim 1, Parulkar further discloses the first cloud partition ([0059] A provider substrate extension 300. Please note that, as previously stated, a particular instance of a provider substrate extension 300 corresponds to Applicant’s first cloud partition.)
Holzman further discloses wherein transmitting the first deployment request is performed by a global deployment orchestrator for the plurality of cloud partitions ([0042] the cloud management platform (or a processor within the cloud management platform) may prepare to create the desired state of the cloud infrastructure. Specifically, the cloud management platform may identify one or more resources, resource providers, and one or more plugins required to create the cloud infrastructure. […] the one or more plugins may help to interpret the requested cloud infrastructure within the configuration file. Please note that the cloud management platform preparing to create the desired state of the cloud infrastructure corresponds to Applicant’s transmitting the first deployment request being performed by a global deployment orchestrator, as the request is interpreted by the cloud management platform to prepare to carry out its plan.);
wherein evaluating the first deployment request against the state of the cloud environment is performed by a partition-specific deployment orchestrator for the first cloud partition ([0051] a user (or an administrator of the cloud management platform) may approve or reject a deployment of a virtual machine (VM) based on the published plan information. […] upon receiving a plan rejection from the user, the steps such as applying policies and executing the plan (e.g., steps 330-370 of FIG. 3A) are not performed.; [0052] the cloud management platform may automatically determine whether one or more resources requested under the plan is valid based on predetermined acceptable resources for the cloud management platform. In some examples, in step 340, a user may approve the plan based on the one or more resources requested under the plan. Please note that the cloud management platform automatically determining whether the specific requested resources under the specific plan are valid corresponds to Applicant’s evaluating the first deployment request against the state of the cloud environment being performed by a partition-specific deployment orchestrator).
Regarding Claim 6, Holzman-Parulkar as described in Claim 5, Holzman further discloses wherein the first deployment request comprises a snapshot of at least part of the state of the cloud environment ([0074] the user may perform other actions such as […] creating a snapshot [...] for the corresponding native resources within the cloud management platform. Please note that creating a snapshot for the corresponding native resources within the cloud management platform corresponds to Applicant’s first deployment request comprising a snapshot of at least part of the state of the cloud environment.).
Regarding Claim 7, Holzman-Parulkar as described in Claim 5, Parulkar further discloses wherein the state of the cloud environment comprises a state of the first cloud partition ([0061] a function for collecting metrics for monitoring instance health and sending them to a monitoring service, and a function for coordinating transfer of instance state data during live migration. However, generally the control plane 306B functionality for a provider substrate extension 300 will remain in the cloud provider network 100 in order to allow customers to use as much resource capacity of the provider substrate extension as possible. Please note that the instance state data corresponds to Applicant’s state of the cloud environment comprising a state of the first cloud partition.).
Regarding Claim 8, Holzman-Parulkar as described in Claim 5, Parulkar further discloses before transmitting the first deployment request: determining, by the global deployment orchestrator, that the first deployment request satisfies one or more global deployment constraints applicable to the plurality of cloud partitions ([0088] instances launched based on the application profile are provided with the requested resources (assuming the requested resources are available at any provider substrate extension locations satisfying other application profile constraints). In some embodiments, users may specify resource constraints in terms of defined instance types (e.g., instance types associated with defined amounts of CPU, memory, networking, etc., resources as defined by the cloud provider network 100). Please note that the instances being provided with the resources assuming the requested resources are available at provider substrate extension locations satisfying application profile constraints corresponds to Applicant’s determining, by the global deployment orchestrator, that the first deployment request satisfies one or more global deployment constraints applicable to the plurality of cloud partitions before transmitting the first deployment request. This is because the satisfaction of constraints applicable to instances to be launched is checked prior to providing the resources, i.e., prior to transmitting the first deployment request.).
Regarding Claim 9, Holzman-Parulkar as described in Claim 1, Parulkar further discloses monitoring the cloud environment, on an ongoing basis, to determine the state of the cloud environment ([0061] a function for collecting metrics for monitoring instance health and sending them to a monitoring service, and a function for coordinating transfer of instance state data during live migration. However, generally the control plane 306B functionality for a provider substrate extension 300 will remain in the cloud provider network 100 in order to allow customers to use as much resource capacity of the provider substrate extension as possible. Please note that monitoring instance health to determine instance state data corresponds to Applicant’s monitoring the cloud environment, on an ongoing basis, to determine the state of the cloud environment.).
Regarding Claim 10, Holzman-Parulkar as described in Claim 1, Parulkar further discloses wherein evaluating the first deployment request against the state of the cloud environment comprises determining if the first deployment request satisfies a partition-specific deployment constraint associated with the first cloud partition ([0102] issues a request to launch a compute instance to the hardware virtualization service 606. Here, the parameters of the request can include a device identifier and an indication of a latency constraint or requirement.; [0113] the edge location mobility service 830 determines that a communications delay between the electronic device 890 and a first compute instance 813 via the second access point 889 would not satisfy a latency constraint (and thus a migration of the compute instance is to occur so that the latency constrain is satisfied). The constraint may be unsatisfied due to additional hops or distance. Please note that the latency constraint parameter of the request to launch the compute instance considering a communications delay for the particular instance corresponds to Applicant’s evaluating the first deployment request against the state of the cloud environment comprising determining if the first deployment request satisfies a partition-specific deployment constraint associated with the first cloud partition.).
Regarding Claim 11, Holzman-Parulkar as described in Claim 10, Parulkar further discloses wherein the partition-specific deployment constraint limits one or more of a time, a duration, or a frequency of deployments permitted in the first cloud partition ([0102] issues a request to launch a compute instance to the hardware virtualization service 606. Here, the parameters of the request can include a device identifier and an indication of a latency constraint or requirement.; [0113] the edge location mobility service 830 determines that a communications delay between the electronic device 890 and a first compute instance 813 via the second access point 889 would not satisfy a latency constraint (and thus a migration of the compute instance is to occur so that the latency constrain is satisfied). The constraint may be unsatisfied due to additional hops or distance. Please note that the constraint relating to latency, which may be unsatisfied due to additional hops corresponds to Applicant’s partition-specific deployment constraint limiting a frequency of deployments permitted in the first cloud partition, as the latency is affected by how frequently deployments have occurred in the cloud network. As the limitation states the constraint limiting “one or more of” the factors, the Examiner interprets this as meeting the requirements of the Claim.).
Regarding Claim 12, Holzman-Parulkar as described in Claim 10, Parulkar further discloses wherein the first deployment request comprises state information associated with at least a second cloud partition in the plurality of cloud partitions ([0061] a function for collecting metrics for monitoring instance health and sending them to a monitoring service, and a function for coordinating transfer of instance state data during live migration. However, generally the control plane 306B functionality for a provider substrate extension 300 will remain in the cloud provider network 100 in order to allow customers to use as much resource capacity of the provider substrate extension as possible. Please note that the instance state data for a second instance distinct from the first corresponds to Applicant’s first deployment request comprising state information associated with at least a second cloud partition in the plurality of cloud partitions.).
Regarding Claim 13, Holzman-Parulkar as described in Claim 1, Parulkar discloses a second cloud partition ([0059] A provider substrate extension 300. Please note that a particular instance of a provider substrate extension 300 distinct from the first corresponds to Applicant’s second cloud partition.)
Holzman further discloses transmitting, to a second cloud partition in the plurality of cloud partitions of the cloud environment, a second deployment request to deploy a second resource to the second cloud partition ([0049] the user or an administrator requesting the desired state of cloud infrastructure; [0050] what cloud resources will be deployed with exact configuration when the plan is executed. Please note that the user requesting the desired state of cloud infrastructure, where cloud resources are deployed when the plan is executed, for a second requested plan distinct from the first corresponds to Applicant’s transmitting a second deployment request to deploy a second resource. );
receiving, from the second cloud partition, a message indicating denial of the second deployment request ([0051] a user (or an administrator of the cloud management platform) may approve or reject a deployment of a virtual machine (VM) based on the published plan information. […] upon receiving a plan rejection from the user, the steps such as applying policies and executing the plan (e.g., steps 330-370 of FIG. 3A) are not performed. Please note that rejecting a deployment based on the published plan information, and receiving the plan rejection, corresponds to Applicant’s receiving a message indicating denial of the second deployment request from the second cloud partition. );
responsive to receiving the message indicating denial of the second deployment request: refraining from deploying the second resource to the second cloud partition ([0051] a user (or an administrator of the cloud management platform) may approve or reject a deployment of a virtual machine (VM) based on the published plan information. […] upon receiving a plan rejection from the user, the steps such as applying policies and executing the plan (e.g., steps 330-370 of FIG. 3A) are not performed. Please note that not performing the steps of executing the plan upon receiving a plan rejection corresponds to Applicant’s refraining from deploying the second resource to the second cloud partition responsive to receiving the message indicating denial of the second deployment request. ).
Regarding Claim 14, Holzman-Parulkar as described in Claim 13, Parulkar further discloses a second cloud partition ([0059] A provider substrate extension 300. Please note that a particular instance of a provider substrate extension 300 distinct from the first corresponds to Applicant’s second cloud partition.)
Holzman further discloses subsequent to refraining from deploying the second resource to the second cloud partition: transmitting, to the second cloud partition, a third deployment request to deploy the second resource to the second cloud partition([0049] the user or an administrator requesting the desired state of cloud infrastructure; [0050] what cloud resources will be deployed with exact configuration when the plan is executed. [0051] To modify the plan, the user may need to modify the cloud template and perform the plan phase 310 again. Please note that the user requesting the desired state of cloud infrastructure, where cloud resources are deployed when the plan is executed, for a third requested plan distinct from the first two corresponds to Applicant’s transmitting a third deployment request to deploy a second resource. Furthermore, the plan having been modified corresponds to subsequent to refraining from deploying the second resource to the second cloud partition, as in the event of a rejection, it would be obvious to modify the plan to retry. );
receiving, from the second cloud partition, a message indicating approval of the second deployment request ([0052] the cloud management platform may automatically determine whether one or more resources requested under the plan is valid based on predetermined acceptable resources for the cloud management platform. In some examples, in step 340, a user may approve the plan based on the one or more resources requested under the plan. Please note that the cloud management platform determining whether resources requested under the plan are valid, for second resources distinct from the first resources, corresponds to Applicant’s receiving a message indicating approval of the second deployment request.);
responsive to receiving the message indicating approval of the second deployment request: deploying the second resource to the second cloud partition ([0052] the cloud management platform may determine that the storage request under the plan is valid, and therefore, the plan is valid and approved for deployment. Please note that the plan being approved for deployment after the cloud management platform determines the request under the plan is valid, for second resources distinct from the first resources, corresponds to Applicant’s deploying the second resource responsive to receiving the message indicating approval of the second deployment request.).
Regarding Claim 15, Holzman-Parulkar as described in Claim 1, Parulkar further discloses wherein the plurality of cloud partitions comprises one or more of (a) a plurality of geographically distinct regions of the cloud environment or (b) a logical grouping of the plurality of geographically distinct regions of the cloud environment ([0048] In some implementations, an edge location may be an extension of the cloud provider network substrate formed by one or more servers located on-premise in a customer or partner facility, wherein such server(s) communicate over a network (e.g., a publicly-accessible network such as the Internet) with a nearby availability zone or region of the cloud provider network.; [0052] Provider substrate extensions 216-220 include computing resources managed as part of a cloud provider network but installed or sited within various points of a CSP network (e.g., on premise in a CSP owned or leased space). Please note that the provider substrate extensions including computing resources managed as part of a cloud provider network but installed within various points of a CSP network correspond to Applicant’s plurality of cloud partitions comprising a logical grouping of the plurality of geographically distinct regions of the cloud environment, i.e., edge locations that are an extension of the cloud provider network substrate. As the limitation states the cloud partitions comprising “one or more of” the factors, the Examiner interprets this as meeting the requirements of the Claim.).
Regarding Claim 16, Holzman-Parulkar as described in Claim 1, Parulkar further discloses wherein the cloud environment is operated by a cloud service provider (CSP); wherein the first cloud partition is operated, at least in part, by a second entity that is different from the CSP ([0048] In some implementations, an edge location may be an extension of the cloud provider network substrate formed by one or more servers located on-premise in a customer or partner facility, wherein such server(s) communicate over a network (e.g., a publicly-accessible network such as the Internet) with a nearby availability zone or region of the cloud provider network. This type of substrate extension located outside of cloud provider network data centers can be referred to as an “outpost” of the cloud provider network. Please note that the substrate extension located outside the cloud provider network data centers called an “outpost” of the cloud provider network corresponds to Applicant’s cloud environment being operated by a CSP, but the first cloud partition being operated by a second entity that is different from the CSP, such as when a particular provider substrate extension is hosted at a partner facility as an outpost.).
Regarding Claim 17, Holzman-Parulkar as described in Claim 16, further discloses wherein the second entity provides access to the first cloud partition to a third entity that is different from both the CSP and the second entity ([0048] This type of substrate extension located outside of cloud provider network data centers can be referred to as an “outpost” of the cloud provider network. Some outposts may be integrated into communications networks, for example as a multi-access edge computing (MEC) site having physical infrastructure spread across telecommunication data centers, telecommunication aggregation sites, and/or telecommunication base stations within the telecommunication network. Please note that the outposts being integrated into communications networks being spread across telecommunication base stations within the telecommunication network corresponds to Applicant’s second entity providing access to the first cloud partition to a third entity that is different from both the CSP and the second entity, as there could conceivably be a third base station in communication with the second as part of its integration into a MEC site hosting the provider substrate extension.).
Regarding Claim 18, Holzman-Parulkar as described in Claim 17, Parulkar further discloses wherein the second entity is a customer of the CSP and the third entity is a customer of the second entity ([0048] In some implementations, an edge location may be an extension of the cloud provider network substrate formed by one or more servers located on-premise in a customer or partner facility, wherein such server(s) communicate over a network (e.g., a publicly-accessible network such as the Internet) with a nearby availability zone or region of the cloud provider network. Please note that the edge locations being an extension of the cloud provider network substrate formed by servers located on-premise in a customer facility corresponds to Applicant’s second entity being a customer of the CSP and the third entity being a customer of the second entity, as they are part of the cloud provider network substrate formed by customers.).
Regarding Claim 19, Holzman discloses One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions which, when executed by one or more hardware processors, cause performance of operations ([0006] A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that stores instructions configured to be executed by one or more processors of a computing device associated with a cloud management platform is disclosed. The non-transitory computer-readable storage medium when executed by the one or more processors cause the computing device to carry out steps. Please note that the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that causes the computing device to carry out steps when executed by the processors corresponds to Applicant’s one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions which, when executed by one or more hardware processors, cause performance of operations.) comprising:
transmitting, to a cloud environment, a first deployment request to deploy a first resource ([0049] the user or an administrator requesting the desired state of cloud infrastructure; [0050] what cloud resources will be deployed with exact configuration when the plan is executed. Please note that the user requesting the desired state of cloud infrastructure, where cloud resources are deployed when the plan is executed corresponds to Applicant’s transmitting a first deployment request to deploy a first resource to a cloud environment. );
receiving a message indicating approval of the first deployment request, wherein approval of the first deployment request is conditioned on evaluating the first deployment request against a state of the cloud environment ([0052] the cloud management platform may automatically determine whether one or more resources requested under the plan is valid based on predetermined acceptable resources for the cloud management platform. In some examples, in step 340, a user may approve the plan based on the one or more resources requested under the plan. Please note that the cloud management platform determining whether resources requested under the plan are valid corresponds to Applicant’s receiving a message indicating approval of the first deployment request, wherein approval of the first deployment request is conditioned on evaluating the first deployment request against a state of the cloud environment, as the requested resources under the plan are evaluated against the predetermined acceptable resources for the platform, i.e., a state of the environment, and if so, an approval is sent.);
responsive to receiving the message indicating approval of the first deployment request: deploying the first resource ([0052] the cloud management platform may determine that the storage request under the plan is valid, and therefore, the plan is valid and approved for deployment. Please note that the plan being approved for deployment after the cloud management platform determines the request under the plan is valid corresponds to Applicant’s deploying the first resource responsive to receiving the message indicating approval of the first deployment request.);
Holzman does not explicitly disclose a first cloud partition in a plurality of cloud partitions of a cloud environment;
the first cloud partition
However, Parulkar discloses a first cloud partition in a plurality of cloud partitions of a cloud environment ([0059] A provider substrate extension 300 provides resources and services of the cloud provider network within a CSP network 302; [0062] the provider substrate extension servers 310 can host compute instances 312.; [0064] the servers 310 may host one or more data volumes 324, if desired by the customer. The volumes may be provisioned within their own isolated virtual network within the provider substrate extension 300. The compute instances 312 and any volumes 324 collectively make up a data plane extension 308B of the provider network data plane 116A within the provider substrate extension 300. Please note that the provider substrate extension 300 providing resources of the cloud provider network, where there are volumes provisioned within isolated virtual networks within the provider substrate extension 300 which can also host compute instances 312 corresponds to Applicant’s first cloud partition in a plurality of cloud partitions of a cloud environment. As stated in [0037] of the Specification, “a secure and isolated partition within the cloud infrastructure environment where the customer can create, organize, and administer their cloud resources. […] Within a tenancy, customers can create, manage, and organize a wide range of cloud resources, including compute instances, storage volumes, and networks. ” Therefore, the provider substrate extension 300 corresponds to the first cloud partition, as it is an isolated partition within the cloud infrastructure environment in which data volumes and compute instances may be managed.);
the first cloud partition ([0059] A provider substrate extension 300. Please note that, as previously stated, a particular instance of a provider substrate extension 300 corresponds to Applicant’s first cloud partition.)
Holzman and Parulkar are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cloud resource deployment management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Holzman to incorporate the teachings of Parulkar to modify the system transmitting a deployment request to be approved by evaluating the request against a state of the cloud environment and deploying the resource based on the approval to do so in a first cloud partition of a plurality of cloud partitions of a cloud environment, allowing for isolation between instances and extension of functionality of the cloud provider network, as described in Parulkar.
Regarding Claim 20, Holzman discloses A system comprising: at least one device including a hardware processor; and the system being configured to perform operations ([0007] A server associated with a first cloud management platform is disclosed and includes one or more processors; persistent storage, comprising an encrypted region; non-persistent storage; and memory storing one or more programs configured to be executed by the one or more processors. Please note that the server including processors to execute programs corresponds to Applicant’s system comprising at least one device including a hardware processor and configured to perform operations.) comprising:
transmitting, to a cloud environment, a first deployment request to deploy a first resource ([0049] the user or an administrator requesting the desired state of cloud infrastructure; [0050] what cloud resources will be deployed with exact configuration when the plan is executed. Please note that the user requesting the desired state of cloud infrastructure, where cloud resources are deployed when the plan is executed corresponds to Applicant’s transmitting a first deployment request to deploy a first resource to a cloud environment. );
receiving a message indicating approval of the first deployment request, wherein approval of the first deployment request is conditioned on evaluating the first deployment request against a state of the cloud environment ([0052] the cloud management platform may automatically determine whether one or more resources requested under the plan is valid based on predetermined acceptable resources for the cloud management platform. In some examples, in step 340, a user may approve the plan based on the one or more resources requested under the plan. Please note that the cloud management platform determining whether resources requested under the plan are valid corresponds to Applicant’s receiving a message indicating approval of the first deployment request, wherein approval of the first deployment request is conditioned on evaluating the first deployment request against a state of the cloud environment, as the requested resources under the plan are evaluated against the predetermined acceptable resources for the platform, i.e., a state of the environment, and if so, an approval is sent.);
responsive to receiving the message indicating approval of the first deployment request: deploying the first resource ([0052] the cloud management platform may determine that the storage request under the plan is valid, and therefore, the plan is valid and approved for deployment. Please note that the plan being approved for deployment after the cloud management platform determines the request under the plan is valid corresponds to Applicant’s deploying the first resource responsive to receiving the message indicating approval of the first deployment request.);
Holzman does not explicitly disclose a first cloud partition in a plurality of cloud partitions of a cloud environment;
the first cloud partition
However, Parulkar discloses a first cloud partition in a plurality of cloud partitions of a cloud environment ([0059] A provider substrate extension 300 provides resources and services of the cloud provider network within a CSP network 302; [0062] the provider substrate extension servers 310 can host compute instances 312.; [0064] the servers 310 may host one or more data volumes 324, if desired by the customer. The volumes may be provisioned within their own isolated virtual network within the provider substrate extension 300. The compute instances 312 and any volumes 324 collectively make up a data plane extension 308B of the provider network data plane 116A within the provider substrate extension 300. Please note that the provider substrate extension 300 providing resources of the cloud provider network, where there are volumes provisioned within isolated virtual networks within the provider substrate extension 300 which can also host compute instances 312 corresponds to Applicant’s first cloud partition in a plurality of cloud partitions of a cloud environment. As stated in [0037] of the Specification, “a secure and isolated partition within the cloud infrastructure environment where the customer can create, organize, and administer their cloud resources. […] Within a tenancy, customers can create, manage, and organize a wide range of cloud resources, including compute instances, storage volumes, and networks. ” Therefore, the provider substrate extension 300 corresponds to the first cloud partition, as it is an isolated partition within the cloud infrastructure environment in which data volumes and compute instances may be managed.);
the first cloud partition ([0059] A provider substrate extension 300. Please note that, as previously stated, a particular instance of a provider substrate extension 300 corresponds to Applicant’s first cloud partition.)
Holzman and Parulkar are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cloud resource deployment management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Holzman to incorporate the teachings of Parulkar to modify the system transmitting a deployment request to be approved by evaluating the request against a state of the cloud environment and deploying the resource based on the approval to do so in a first cloud partition of a plurality of cloud partitions of a cloud environment, allowing for isolation between instances and extension of functionality of the cloud provider network, as described in Parulkar.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holzman et al. (US 20230037199 A1) in view of Parulkar et al. (US 20210168027 A1) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Kaul (US 20230055276 A1), hereinafter referred to as Holzman, Parulkar, and Kaul, respectively.
Regarding Claim 2, Holzman-Parulkar as described in Claim 1, Parulkar further discloses the first cloud partition ([0059] A provider substrate extension 300. Please note that, as previously stated, a particular instance of a provider substrate extension 300 corresponds to Applicant’s first cloud partition.)
Holzman further discloses the second resource ([0032] Cloud resources may be any resources provided by cloud service providers (e.g., AWS, Azure, GCP, and the like). In some examples, the cloud resource 132 may include a host hardware, one or more virtual machines (VMs) running on the host hardware. Please note that a particular cloud resource, different from a first, corresponds to Applicant’s second resource.)
Holzman-Parulkar does not explicitly disclose wherein the state of the cloud environment comprises a version number of a second resource deployed in the first cloud partition;
wherein evaluating the first deployment request against the state of the cloud environment comprises determining that the version number of the second resource satisfies a minimum version requirement.
However, Kaul discloses wherein the state of the cloud environment comprises a version number of a second resource deployed in the first cloud partition ([0013] the workload execution manager can determine which of the eligible nodes satisfy an OS version threshold associated with the workload (e.g., the newest version of the OS, a particular version of the OS, etc.). A node that satisfies the OS version threshold can be selected as a target node for the workload. Please note that the target node for the workload being a node that satisfies the OS version threshold corresponds to Applicant’s state of the cloud environment comprising a version number of a second resource, i.e., the version number of the node to be used for the workload. As Parulkar from Holzman-Parulkar states that the cloud resource may include VMs, and Kaul discloses OS versions, a person of ordinary skill in the art would identify the version of a node as corresponding to the version number of the second resource.);
wherein evaluating the first deployment request against the state of the cloud environment comprises determining that the version number of the second resource satisfies a minimum version requirement ([0040] the OS version preference can specify an OS version that has a minimum threshold or a maximum threshold. In these instances, the OS version preference can indicate that the target node should have a version that is greater than a particular version, a version that is less than a particular version, or some combination thereof. Please note that the OS version preference specifying a target node that should have a version greater than a particular version corresponds to Applicant’s evaluating the first deployment request against the state of the cloud environment comprising determining that the version number of the second resource satisfies a minimum version requirement, i.e. is greater than a particular version. ).
Holzman-Parulkar and Kaul are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of managing cloud computing request processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Holzman-Parulkar to incorporate the teachings of Kaul to modify the system as described in Claim 1 to have the state of the cloud environment comprise a version number of a second resource deployed in the first cloud partition and have evaluating the first deployment request against the state of the cloud environment comprise determining that the version number of the second resource satisfies a minimum version requirement, allowing for increased resource availability and reduced service disruption, as described in Kaul.
Regarding Claim 4, Holzman-Parulkar as described in Claim 1, Parulkar further discloses the first cloud partition ([0059] A provider substrate extension 300. Please note that, as previously stated, a particular instance of a provider substrate extension 300 corresponds to Applicant’s first cloud partition.)
Holzman further discloses the first resource ([0032] Cloud resources may be any resources provided by cloud service providers (e.g., AWS, Azure, GCP, and the like). In some examples, the cloud resource 132 may include a host hardware, one or more virtual machines (VMs) running on the host hardware. Please note that a particular cloud resource corresponds to Applicant’s first resource.)
Holzman-Parulkar does not explicitly disclose wherein the first deployment request is for a target version number of the first resource; wherein the state of the cloud environment comprises a current version number of the first resource already deployed in the first cloud partition; wherein evaluating the first deployment request against the state of the cloud environment comprises determining if the target version number differs from the current version number by less than a threshold value.
However, Kaul discloses wherein the first deployment request is for a target version number of the first resource ([0013] The workload execution manager can identify nodes within the environment that have the appropriate resources to execute the workload (e.g., the nodes that are eligible to execute the workload). Once eligible nodes have been identified, the workload execution manager can determine which of the eligible nodes satisfy an OS version threshold associated with the workload (e.g., the newest version of the OS, a particular version of the OS, etc.). A node that satisfies the OS version threshold can be selected as a target node for the workload. Please note that the node satisfying the OS version threshold with nodes that are identified with the appropriate resources to execute the workload corresponds to Applicant’s first deployment request being for a target version number of the first resource. As Parulkar from Holzman-Parulkar states that the cloud resource may include VMs, and Kaul discloses OS versions, a person of ordinary skill in the art would identify the version of a node as corresponding to the version number of the first resource.);
wherein the state of the cloud environment comprises a current version number of the first resource already deployed in the first cloud partition ([0028] workload execution manager 142 can determine which of the eligible nodes satisfy an OS version threshold using the OS preferences associated with the workload. Please note that determining which eligible nodes satisfy an OS version threshold corresponds to Applicant’s state of the cloud environment comprising a current version number of the first resource already deployed in the first cloud partition, as the nodes have already been deployed and the state is checked by checking which nodes satisfy the OS version threshold, i.e., where their current version number is the state.);
wherein evaluating the first deployment request against the state of the cloud environment comprises determining if the target version number differs from the current version number by less than a threshold value ([0040] the OS version preference can specify an OS version that has a minimum threshold or a maximum threshold. In these instances, the OS version preference can indicate that the target node should have a version that is greater than a particular version, a version that is less than a particular version, or some combination thereof. Please note that the target node having a version that is between a minimum and maximum version threshold corresponds to Applicant’s evaluating the first deployment request against the state of the cloud environment comprising determining if the target version number differs from the current version number by less than a threshold value, as bounds may be set for the threshold to have a difference less than the threshold value between the maximum and minimum.).
Holzman-Parulkar and Kaul are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of managing cloud computing request processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Holzman-Parulkar to incorporate the teachings of Kaul to modify the system as described in Claim 1 to have the first deployment request be for a target version number of the first resource, have the state of the cloud environment comprise a current version number of the first resource already deployed in the first cloud partition, and have evaluating the first deployment request against the state of the cloud environment comprise determining if the target version number differs from the current version number by less than a threshold value, allowing for increased resource availability and reduced service disruption, as described in Kaul.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Aydelott et al. (US 20180095778 A1) discloses deployment in a cloud server service based on a request, having requirements requiring the cloud server service provider functionality, the method being performed by a central computing system, allocating resources, and observing the state of deployments (see [003-005, 0025, 0039-0040]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARAZ T AKBARI whose telephone number is (571)272-4166. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9:30am-7:30pm ET.
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, April Blair can be reached at (571)270-1014. 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.
/FARAZ T AKBARI/ Examiner, Art Unit 2196
/APRIL Y BLAIR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2196
Prosecution Insights