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 .
2. This Office Action is sent in response to Applicant’s Communication received 5/6/2024 for application number 18/655,393. The Office hereby acknowledges receipt of the following and placed of record in file: Specification, Drawings, Abstract, Oath/Declaration, claims.
3. Claims 1 – 20 are presented for examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 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.
5. Claims 1 – 20 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Independent claim 1 recites a method comprising: receiving, by a workload scheduler, a request to deploy a workload in a private cloud, wherein the request specifies a workflow to be executed to deploy the workload; identifying, by the workload scheduler, a set of pre-deployed configurations based on one or more pre-deployed workloads and an identity of the workflow; recommending, by the workload scheduler, a target configuration from the set of pre-deployed configurations; and deploying, by the workload scheduler, the workload with the target configuration in the private cloud.
The limitations, as drafted, describe a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. The abstract idea limitations are “identifying … a set of pre-deployed configurations based on one or more pre-deployed workloads and an identity of the workflow” and “recommending … a target configuration from the set of pre-deployed configurations” in Prong I step 2A.
Other limitations including “receiving … a request to deploy a workload in a private cloud, wherein the request specifies a workflow to be executed to deploy the workload,” and “deploying … the workload with the target configuration in the private cloud” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Thus, these claims are directing to abstract idea under 35 USC 101.
The additional elements “by a workload scheduler” and “by the workload scheduler” merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, thus is not a practical application under Prong 2.
All of the non-abstract limitations are pre/post-activity solutions for getting/obtaining/manipulating/displaying data without significantly more. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the components in the “by a workload scheduler” step are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of receiving information, executing a function and making a decision) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Additionally, the steps of “receiving … a request to deploy a workload in a private cloud, wherein the request specifies a workflow to be executed to deploy the workload,” and “deploying … the workload with the target configuration in the private cloud” are pre/post-activity solutions as gathering/manipulating data that are insignificant under Prong II step 2A and 2B. See Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (Storing and retrieving information in memory) as noted in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible. Independent claims 10 and 18 are rejected on the same basis as independent claim 1. Additionally, dependent claims 2 – 9, 11 – 17, 19 and 20 are similarly rejected as being directed to an abstract idea since these claims are either further detailing the abstract idea by analyzing/processing the data or the elements are insignificant. More specifically, the dependent claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As per claim 2, “wherein the workload comprises one or more of a virtual machine, a container, or a pod” is an additional element of data gathering which is insignificant extra solution activity.
As per claims 3 and 11, “parsing the request to determine the identity of the workflow, wherein the identity of the workflow comprises: a workflow name; or a workflow Universally Unique Identifier (UIID) of the workflow” which is an additional mental process.
As per claims 4 and 12, “parsing, by the workload scheduler, the request to
identify one or more program files referenced in the workflow; and determining, by the workload scheduler, the identity of the workflow based on the one or more program files” which are additional mental processes.
As per claims 5 and 13, “wherein determining the identity of the workflow comprises calculating a hash of the one or more program files” which is an additional mental process.
As per claims 6, 14 and 19, “wherein identifying the set of pre-deployed configurations comprises: comparing, by the workload scheduler, the identity of the workflow with identities of pre-deployed workloads; and selecting, by the workload scheduler, the one or more pre-deployed workloads from the pre-deployed workloads whose identities match with the identity of the workflow” which is an additional mental process.
As per claims 7 and 20, “selecting, by the workload scheduler, the target configuration from the set of pre-deployed configurations based on an infrastructure group associated with the workload” which is an additional mental process.
As per claims 8 and 20, “selecting, by the workload scheduler, the target configuration from the set of pre-deployed configurations based on a majority of the set of pre-deployed configurations” which is an additional mental process.
As per claims 9 and 20, “selecting, by the workload scheduler, the target configuration from the set of pre-deployed configurations based on a user profile associated with the workload” which is an additional mental process.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
9. Claims 1, 2, 6, 10, 14, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Espy et al. (U.S. Patent 10,152,357) (Espy hereinafter) in view of Radcliffe et al. (U.S. Publication 2025/0068403) (Radcliffe hereinafter).
10. As per claim 1, Espy teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by a workload scheduler, a request to deploy a workload in a private cloud, wherein the request specifies a workflow to be executed to deploy the workload [“Application requests are directed to scheduler 106 from applications (not shown in FIG. 2 for clarity), and may include application workload requirements as well as an application manifest or hints relating to the application request. HERE 102 may be configured so as to receive the application request and provide an enhanced application request to the scheduler 106,” col. 7, lines 41 – 47; “While FIG. 1 shows elements such as HERE 102, applications 104 and scheduler 106 implemented external to IT infrastructure 108 and connected to the IT infrastructure 108 via network 110, embodiments are not limited to this arrangement. In some embodiments, one or more of HERE 102, applications 104 and scheduler 106 may be implemented at least in part internal to the IT infrastructure 108 or on a common processing platform. For example, the system 100 and/or IT infrastructure 108 may be a network of computing devices, a cloud computing platform, one or more data center(s), distributed virtual infrastructure, converged infrastructure, etc,” col. 2, lines 54 – 65; IT infrastructure 108 or on a common processing platform mapped to private cloud];
identifying, by the workload scheduler, a set of pre-deployed configurations
based on one or more pre-deployed workloads and an identity of the workflow; recommending, by the workload scheduler, a target configuration from the set of
pre-deployed configurations [“HERE 102 parses and interprets the application workload requirements and any detailed manifest information, and compares this information to a learned knowledge base repository of configurations based on an existing platform catalog to determine a recommended hardware configuration. The recommended hardware configuration is combined with the original application request to form an enhanced application request sent to scheduler 106,” col. 7, lines 60 – 67].
Espy does not explicitly disclose but Radcliffe discloses deploying, by the
workload scheduler, the workload with the target configuration in the private cloud [“one of the one or more target venues includes a current venue running the application code. Each of the one or more target venues is a software deployment platform such as, but not limited to: a middleware runtime, a container platform, a PaaS (platform as a service) on a private cloud, or a PaaS on a public cloud,” ¶ 0072; “computing system 300, in conjunction with the program instructions, is further configured to transfer, based on the generation of the target venue score for each of the one or more target venues, the application code to one of the one or more target venues. The transferring is advantageous in that the transferring allows modernization of the application architecture to additional target venues and also realigns the application deployment to updated enterprise preferences of target venues based on business priorities,” ¶ 0073].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Espy and Radcliffe available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of selecting hardware configurations for software workloads as disclosed by Espy to include the capability of location optimization for running application code as taught by Radcliffe, thereby facilitating optimal placement for software workloads in a private cloud environment.
11. As per claim 2, Espy and Radcliffe teach the method of claim 1. Espy further teaches wherein the workload comprises one or more of a virtual machine, a container, or a pod [“Other processing platforms may be used to implement portions of the system 100 such as HERE 102 in other embodiments, such as different types of virtualization infrastructure in place of or in addition to virtualization infrastructure comprising virtual machines. Such virtualization infrastructure illustratively includes container-based virtualization infrastructure configured to provide Docker containers or other types of Linux containers (LXCs),” col. 5 line 63 – col. 6, line 4].
12. As per claim 6, Espy and Radcliffe teach the method of claim 1. Espy further teaches wherein identifying the set of pre-deployed configurations comprises: comparing, by the workload scheduler, the identity of the workflow with identities of pre-deployed workloads; and selecting, by the workload scheduler, the one or more pre-deployed workloads from the pre-deployed workloads whose identities match with the identity of the workflow [“HERE 102 parses and interprets the application workload requirements and any detailed manifest information, and compares this information to a learned knowledge base repository of configurations based on an existing platform catalog to determine a recommended hardware configuration. The recommended hardware configuration is combined with the original application request to form an enhanced application request sent to scheduler 106,” col. 7, lines 60 – 67].
13. As per claim 10, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 10 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
14. As per claim 14, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 6. Thus, claim 14 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6 above.
15. As per claim 18, it is a media claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above.
16. As per claim 19, it is a media claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 6. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6 above.
17. Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Espy and Radcliffe in further view of Matoba et al. (U.S. Publication 2010/0010858) (Matoba hereinafter).
18. As per claim 3, Espy and Radcliffe teach the method of claim 1. Espy and Radcliffe do not explicitly disclose but Matoba discloses further parsing the request to determine the identity of the workflow, wherein the identity of the workflow comprises: a workflow name [“In step S104, the flow definition identifying unit 21 reads the workflow name "wf1" contained in the request message 901, retrieves the workflow definition associated with the workflow name, and executes the execution flow determination process (steps S151 to S155),” ¶ 0073]; or
a workflow Universally Unique Identifier (UIID) of the workflow.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Espy, Radcliffe and Matoba available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of selecting hardware configurations for software workloads as disclosed by Espy and Radcliffe to include the capability of workflow identification as taught by Matoba, thereby facilitating accurate workflow execution.
19. As per claim 11, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 3. Thus, claim 11 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3 above.
20. Claims 4, 5, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Espy and Radcliffe in further view of Chandra (U.S. Publication 2022/0198394) (Chandra hereinafter).
21. As per claim 4, Espy and Radcliffe teach the method of claim 1. Espy and Radcliffe do not explicitly disclose but Chandra discloses parsing, by the workload scheduler, the request to identify one or more program files referenced in the workflow; and determining, by the workload scheduler, the identity of the workflow based on the one or more program files [“the auxiliary data field of the electronic message 303 includes a workflow request indicating a secure workflow for providing a service to the user in a secure manner that maintains user data confidentiality. In some embodiments, a workflow identifier 141 of the workflow management service 140 may utilize the auxiliary data field to extract a workflow identifier of the workflow request. Using the data in the auxiliary data field, the workflow identifier 141 may consult a workflow library 123 to identify an associated workflow file. The workflow file may include, e.g., a secure workflow, workflow type data, workflow permissions data, among other workflow data and information for each registered workflow registered with the workflow management service 140 and stored in the workflow library 123. Thus, the workflow identifier 141 can identify and access the particular secure workflow associated with the electronic message 303 and associated workflow request,” ¶ 0110].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Espy, Radcliffe and Chandra available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of selecting hardware configurations for software workloads as disclosed by Espy and Radcliffe to include the capability of workflow integration identification as taught by Chandra, thereby facilitating secure workflow execution.
22. As per claim 5, Espy, Radcliffe and Chandra teach the method of claim 4. Chandra further teaches wherein determining the identity of the workflow comprises calculating a hash of the one or more program files [“upon validating the one-time token 107 of the workflow request 105, the initiating device may be authenticated for accessing the functionality of the requested workflow. Accordingly, in some embodiments, the workflow service 143 may then execute a workflow loader 145 to identify and load the secure workflow from the workflow library 123 that matches the request and/or the cryptographic hash forming the one-time token 107,” ¶ 0118].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Espy, Radcliffe and Chandra available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of selecting hardware configurations for software workloads as disclosed by Espy and Radcliffe to include the capability of workflow integration identification as taught by Chandra, thereby facilitating secure workflow execution.
23. As per claim 12, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 4. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4 above.
24. As per claim 13, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 5. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5 above.
25. Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Espy and Radcliffe in further view of Mun et al. (U.S. Publication 2015/0135163) (Mun hereinafter).
26. As per claim 7, Espy and Radcliffe teach the method of claim 1. Espy and Radcliffe do not explicitly disclose but Mun discloses selecting, by the workload scheduler, the target configuration from the set of pre-deployed configurations based on an infrastructure group associated with the workload [“a display configured to display a plurality of templates corresponding to a developing environment of a development-target application and display an object image rendered with regard to at least one device where an application is driven so that the template and the object image received from the server for providing the cloud service can be selected; and a user input section configured to select a developing environment for an application by selecting one among the plurality of displayed templates, and select a driving environment of an application by selecting one among the displayed object images, and the selected developing environment and driving environment information being transmitted to the server for providing the cloud service is provided,” ¶ 0034; driving/developing environments mapped to infrastructure group (development, test, production)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Espy, Radcliffe and Mun available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of selecting hardware configurations for software workloads as disclosed by Espy and Radcliffe to include the capability of target environment identification as taught by Mun, thereby facilitating execution environment flexibility.
27. As per claim 15, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 7. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 7 above.
28. Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Espy and Radcliffe in further view of Huang (U.S. Publication 2016/0099860) (Huang hereinafter).
29. As per claim 8, Espy and Radcliffe teach the method of claim 1. Espy and Radcliffe do not explicitly disclose but Huang discloses selecting, by the workload scheduler, the target configuration from the set of pre-deployed configurations based on a majority of the set of pre-deployed configurations [“The selection of the target nodes can be performed in order to select representative target nodes, e.g. server hosts or host servers, based on different factors, such as a service they may provide, e.g. a video service, a messaging service, a browsing service, or a gaming service, and/or access frequencies, e.g. the top most frequently accessed target nodes,” ¶ 0153; most frequently accessed target nodes mapped to majority of pre-deployed configurations].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Espy, Radcliffe and Huang available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of selecting hardware configurations for software workloads as disclosed by Espy and Radcliffe to include the capability of target environment identification based on frequency of use as taught by Huang, thereby facilitating efficient execution environment usage.
30. As per claim 16, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 8. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 8 above.
31. Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Espy and Radcliffe in further view of Vin et al. (U.S. Publication 2013/0046965) (Vin hereinafter).
32. As per claim 9, Espy and Radcliffe teach the method of claim 1. Espy and Radcliffe do not explicitly disclose but Mun discloses selecting, by the workload scheduler, the target configuration from the set of pre-deployed configurations based on a user profile associated with the workload [“FIG. 2 along with FIG. 3, further depicts the logical steps that are adopted to arrive at the appropriate target operating environment approach solution. The detailed two step process is followed: a) for a given host (for e.g., desktop), all target applications deployed on that host are looked up and all the operating environment options that satisfy the user characteristics are identified. This is decided by looking at how many user characteristics out of total user characteristics are matched for that application and only selecting operating environment target options for which this match exceeds a configurable threshold. This list of matched operating environment options is then passes to step2-b) out of the operating environment options that satisfy the user characteristics, all the operating environment options which satisfy the enterprise characteristics are identified,” ¶ 0065; user characteristics mapped to user profile]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Espy, Radcliffe and Vin available before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of selecting hardware configurations for software workloads as disclosed by Espy and Radcliffe to include the capability of target environment identification based on user characteristics as taught by Huang, thereby facilitating efficient execution environment usage.
33. As per claim 17, it is a system claim having similar limitations as cited in claim 9. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 9 above.
34. Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Espy and Radcliffe in further view of Mun, Huang and Vin.
35. As per claim 20, it is a media claim having similar limitations as cited in claims 7, 8 and 9. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claims 7, 8 and 9 above.
Conclusion
36. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C WOOD whose telephone number is (571)272-5285. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 4:30 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, Chat C Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/WILLIAM C WOOD/Examiner, Art Unit 2193
/Chat C Do/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights