Detailed Action
This action is in response to application filed on 02/20/2024 which claims benefit to PCT/CN2022/127774 filed on 10/26/2022 which claims foreign priority to Chines application 202111679753.6 filed on 12/31/2021.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure Statement (IDS) submitted on 01/28/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawing figures 1, 4-5 includes text that is blurry and/or not legible. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an acquisition module configured for acquiring… a first mitigation module configured for migrating… an second mitigation module configure for performing live migration… an acquisition submodule configured for acquiring” (claim 7-8).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. See, at least figures 2, 5-6, and 0029-0034, and 0065-0066
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 15-20 recite “one or more machine-readable media”. The specification of present application fails to provide a deliberate and limiting definition for “machine-readable media”. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, “machine-readable media” can fairly be construed signal per se.
Thus, the recited “machine-readable media” is not a "process", a "machine", a "manufacture", or "composition of matter", as defined in 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim 1-4, 7-12, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huilgol et al. (US 20220091872 A1, referred hereinafter as D1), and further in view of Arroyo et al. (US 20180293143 A1, referred hereinafter as D2) in view of Kuris et al. (US 20230137273 A1, referred hereinafter as D3).
As per claim 1, D1 discloses,
A method for… a virtualized device, comprising, (D1, abstract).
acquiring configuration information of a virtualized device and status data of a data queue from [a host], (D1, 0007, 0084, 0107-0110, figure 14A-15 and accompanying text discloses acquiring/transferring configuration information of a virtualized device/function and status data of a data queue from first host).
migrating the configuration information of the virtualized device and the status data of the data queue to a new virtualized device… , and performing a live migration on the virtual machine, such that the virtual machine communicates with the new virtualized device, (D1, 0038, 0107-0110, figure 14A-19 and accompanying text discloses acquiring/transferring configuration information of a virtualized device/function and status data of a data queue including VM and VF images from first host to second host and resuming execution of VF and VM which reads on migrating the configuration information of the virtualized device/VF and the status data of the data queue (e.g. image) to a new virtualized device/VF and initiating new VF based on the image… , and performing a live migration on the virtual machine, such that the virtual machine communicates with the new virtualized device (e.g. VM never sees connection to VF drop due to migration).).
D1 discloses virtual machine; however, D1 fails to expressly disclose –fault recovery of a virtualized device… [acquiring from data] a virtualized device synchronization module… upon detection of a fault, by a [hypervisor/vm], of the virtualized device in a physical device.
D2 (0028-0031, figure 3) discloses fault recovery of a virtualized device/function… acquiring from data a virtualized device synchronization module/memory location and/or active virtual function… upon detection of a fault, by a hypervisor/vm, of the virtualized device in a physical device/PCIe.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include teachings of D2 as noted above. This would have obvious with predictable results of detecting error/fault of a virtual function and performing failover of a virtual function thus reducing impact of failures as disclosed by D2.
As noted above, D1 discloses migrating VM/VF/configuration data which is inherently done by invoking a preset physical function driver; nevertheless, for sake of completeness, D3 (0018, 0024) explicitly discloses [migrating] by invoking a preset physical function driver.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include teachings of D3 as noted above. This would have obvious with predictable results of migrating data/function/environment vis executing a driver component as disclosed by D3 (abstract, 0018).
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
comprises: acquiring the configuration information of the virtualized device and the status data of the data queue, (D1, 0007, 0084, 0107-0110, figure 14A-15 and accompanying text discloses acquiring/transferring configuration information of a virtualized device/function and status data of a data queue from first host).
D1 discloses virtual machine; however, D1 fails to expressly disclose - by invoking the virtualized device synchronization module via a virtualized device migration module, upon detection of the fault, by the [hypervisor/virtual machine], of the virtualized device in the physical device.
D2 (0028-0031, figure 3) discloses fault recovery of a virtualized device/function including by invoking/retrieving data from the virtualized device synchronization module/memory/function via a virtualized device migration module/hypervisor, and upon detection of the fault, by the hypervisor/virtual machine, of the virtualized device in the physical device.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include teachings of D2 as noted above. This would have obvious with predictable results of detecting error/fault of a virtual function and performing failover of a virtual function thus reducing impact of failures as disclosed by D2.
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
further comprising: storing the configuration information of the virtualized device and the status data of the data queue, when the virtual machine establishes a connection with the virtualized device in the physical device, (D1, 0038, 0107-0110, figure 14A-19 and accompanying text discloses acquiring/transferring configuration information of a virtualized device/function and status data of a data queue including VM and VF images from first host to second host and resuming execution of VF and VM that communication with each other which requires storing the configuration information of the virtualized device and the status data of the data queue, when the virtual machine establishes a connection with the virtualized device in the physical device (e.g. PCIe)).
As pr claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 further incorporated, D1 discloses
comprises: storing the configuration information of the virtualized device… , when the virtual machine establishes the connection with the virtualized device in the physical device, (D1, 0038, 0107-0110, figure 14A-19 and accompanying text discloses acquiring/transferring configuration information of a virtualized device/function and status data of a data queue including VM and VF images from first host to second host and resuming execution of VF and VM that communication with each other which requires storing the configuration information of the virtualized device and the status data of the data queue, when the virtual machine establishes a connection with the virtualized device in the physical device (e.g. PCIe)).
D1 fails to expressly disclose – [strong] by the virtualized device synchronization module.
D2 (0028-0031, figure 3) discloses configuration data by the virtualized device synchronization module/memory/function.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include teachings of D2 as noted above. This would have obvious with predictable results of detecting error/fault of a virtual function and performing failover of a virtual function thus reducing impact of failures as disclosed by D2.
As per claims 7-12, 15-18:
Claims 7-12, and 15-18 are apparatus, device, and medium claims corresponding to method claims 1-4 and are of substantially same scope.
Accordingly, claims 7-12, and 15-18 are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claims 1-4.
Claims 5, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huilgol et al. (US 20220091872 A1, referred hereinafter as D1), and further in view of Arroyo et al. (US 20180293143 A1, referred hereinafter as D2) in view of Kuris et al. (US 20230137273 A1, referred hereinafter as D3) in view of Griffith et al. (US 20040049699 A1, referred hereinafter as D4).
As per claim 5, the rejection claim 1 further incorporated, D1 discloses,
further comprising:… [acquiring] the configuration information of the virtualized device and… storing the status data of the data queue…, [based on] one or more communications between the virtual machine and the virtualized device (D1, 0038, 0107-0110, figure 14A-19 and accompanying text discloses acquiring/transferring/storing configuration information of a virtualized device/function and status data of a data queue including VM and VF images from first host to second host and resuming execution of VF and VM that are in communication with each other which requires acquiring/storing the configuration information of the virtualized device and the status data of the data queue, when the virtual machine establishes a connection with the virtualized device in the physical device (e.g. PCIe)).
D1 fails expressly disclose –storing… by the virtualized device synchronization module…
D2 (0028-0031, figure 3) discloses storing… by the virtualized device synchronization module/memory.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include teachings of D2 as noted above. This would have obvious with predictable results of detecting error/fault of a virtual function and performing failover of a virtual function thus reducing impact of failures as disclosed by D2.
D1 discloses communications between the virtual machine and the virtualized device; however, D1 fails expressly disclose – synchronously updating/storing … during one or more communications between [first and second unit/device/function].
D4 (0008-0013) discloses monitoring and storing data related to communication including synchronously and/or in real-time updating/storing in database to keep databases synchronized while/during one or more communications between first and second units/devices/functions.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include teachings of D2 as noted above. This would have obvious with predictable results of detecting unauthorized communications/packets/data and taking remedial steps as disclosed by D4.
As per claims 13, and 19:
Claims 13 and 19 are device, and medium claims corresponding to method claim 5 and are of substantially same scope.
Accordingly, claims 13, and 19 are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claim 5.
Claims 6, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huilgol et al. (US 20220091872 A1, referred hereinafter as D1), and further in view of Arroyo et al. (US 20180293143 A1, referred hereinafter as D2) in view of Kuris et al. (US 20230137273 A1, referred hereinafter as D3) in view of Huang et al. (US 20190310908 A1, referred hereinafter as D5).
As per claim 6:
The rejection of claim 1 further incorporated.
D1 fails to expressly disclose - further comprising: configuring a preset error reporting function of the physical device to stop sending out an error report.
D5 (0008, 0019, fig 2) discloses configuring a preset error reporting function of the physical device to stop sending out an error report (e.g. disable error reporting).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, as disclosed in D1, to include teachings of D5 as noted above. This would have obvious with predictable results of controlling error reporting function as disclosed by D5 (0005-0006).
As per claims 14, and 20:
Claims 14 and 20 are device, and medium claims corresponding to method claim 6 and are of substantially same scope.
Accordingly, claims 14, and 20 are rejected under the same rational as set forth for claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
LIVE MIGRATION OF PARAVIRTUAL REMOTE DIRECT MEMORY ACCESS (PVRDMA) VIRTUAL MACHINES VIA HARDWARE-ASSISTED QUEUE PAIR SUSPEND/RESUME AND QUERY/RECREATE OPERATIONS
DOCUMENT ID
US 20230281031 A1
DATE PUBLISHED
2023-09-07
Abstract
Techniques for live migrating a paravirtual remote direct memory access (PVRDMA) virtual machine (VM) from a source host system to a destination host system are provided. In one set of embodiments, during a switchover phase of the live migration process, a source hypervisor of the source host system can (1) invoke a first application programming interface (API) exposed by a source host channel adapter (HCA) of the source host system for suspending operation of a physical queue pair residing on the source HCA and created by the PVRDMA VM, and (2) invoke a second API exposed by the source HCA for querying a queue pair state of the physical queue pair, where the queue pair state includes an internal runtime state pertaining to one or more in-flight work request elements (WQEs). The source hypervisor can then transmit the queried queue pair state to the destination host system.
HOT-PLUGGING OF VIRTUAL FUNCTIONS IN A VIRTUALIZED ENVIRONMENT
DOCUMENT ID
US 20180052701 A1
DATE PUBLISHED
2018-02-22
Abstract
Implementations of the disclosure provide for hot-plugging of virtual functions in a virtualized environment. In one implementation, a computer system comprising a memory to store parameters of virtual functions and a processing device, operatively coupled to the memory is provided. A determination that a virtual machine has no available virtual functions associated with a specified network. A logical network device associated with the specified network is identified. A determination is made that a number of virtual functions associated with the logical network device is below a threshold number of virtual functions. In response, a new virtual function associated with the logical network device is created. Thereupon, a virtual device of the virtual machine is associated with the new virtual function.
VIRTUAL MACHINE MIGRATION TO SR-IOV CAPABLE HYPERVISORS
DOCUMENT ID
US 20160239328 A1
DATE PUBLISHED
2016-08-18
Abstract
A virtualization manager receives a request to migrate a virtual machine from a source hypervisor to a destination hypervisor supporting virtual function capability. Responsive to determining that an availability status indicates that a virtual function is available for use on the destination hypervisor by the virtual machine, the virtualization manager migrates the virtual machine from the source hypervisor to the destination hypervisor. Responsive to determining that the virtual machine has been migrated to the destination hypervisor successfully, the virtualization manager connects the identified virtual function to the virtual machine.
LIVE MIGRATION OF VIRTUALIZED SYSTEMS
DOCUMENT ID
US 20150088586 A1
DATE PUBLISHED
2015-03-26
Abstract
Methods, apparatus, software, and system architectures for supporting virtualized system migrations and scaling. Under aspects of a method, data is automatically collected and aggregated at multiple levels by a plurality of agents for each of multiple data centers. The data includes data relating to virtual machine utilization, data relating to electrical utilization costs, data relating to data center utilization, and data relating to triggers events. The data is processed to determine whether to migrate virtual servers from a first data center to a second data center. The software architecture includes a plurality of modules including a controller, data center profile, transition triggers, power cost profile, and virtual machine package module. The agents are implemented in an agent hierarchy and configured to collect data themselves and/or aggregate data from other agents and provide an API to facilitate access to collected data and agent services.
See form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAFA A AMIN whose telephone number is (571)270-3181. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Young, can be reached on 571-270-3180. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/MUSTAFA A AMIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights