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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-18, 26, and 31 are pending. Claims 19-25 and 27-30 are canceled by Applicant.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs and/or columns and lines in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims 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 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. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06.
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.
Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application
Applicant is encouraged to file an Authorization for Internet Communications in a Patent Application form (http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) along with the response to this office action to facilitate and expedite future communication between Applicant and the examiner. If the form is submitted then Applicant is requested to provide a contact email address in the signature block at the conclusion of the official reply.
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 1-18, 26, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: The claim is a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter:
Claim 1. A method of managing plural cloud virtualisation layers in a communication network, the method comprising.
Step 2A Prong One: The claim recites an abstract idea because it includes limitations that can be considered mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind or via pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea:
determining, based on the input parameters, that execution of the application on the host resource requires plural cloud virtualisation layers (abstract idea mental process);
assigning the application to a virtualisation layer component based on the input parameters (abstract idea mental process).
Step 2A Prong Two: The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is recited but for generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. data storage, processor, memory, computer readable medium, etc.) which do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea amounting to simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer using generic computing hardware and/or software (e.g. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the recited generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea:
receiving, from a tenant (generic computing components), a service request to execute an application on a host resource, wherein the service request comprises input parameters (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of receiving data/information);
responsive to determining that execution requires plural cloud virtualisation layers, generating a layout of virtualisation layer components for the plural cloud virtualisation layers (generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of displaying/presenting/outputting data/information).
Step 2B: The claim includes limitations which can be considered extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) insufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional limitations only perform at least one of collecting, gathering, displaying, generating, modifying, updating, storing, retrieving, sending, and receiving data/information data which are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)II. The claim further includes limitations that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they merely recite the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). Therefore, the claim, and its limitations when considered separately and in combination, is directed to patent ineligible subject matter:
receiving, from a tenant, a service request to execute an application on a host resource, wherein the service request comprises input parameters (extra-solution activity of receiving data/information);
responsive to determining that execution requires plural cloud virtualisation layers, generating a layout of virtualisation layer components for the plural cloud virtualisation layers (extra-solution activity of displaying/presenting/outputting data/information).
Claim 2. The method according to claim 1, wherein: the input parameters define virtualisation requirements comprising at least one of: required resource constraints, required redundancy level, and required decomposition type, and the layout of virtualisation layer components is generated by creating clusters of virtualisation layer components for respective cloud virtualisation layers according to at least one of: the required resource constraints, the required redundancy level, and the required decomposition type (extra-solution activity of receiving data/information).
Claim 3. The method according to claim 2, wherein the method further comprises:
receiving, from an infrastructure manager (generic computing components), context parameters, wherein the context parameters define virtualisation requirements comprising at least one of: host resource constraints, dependencies between cloud virtualisation layers, and host resource topology (extra-solution activity of receiving data/information), and wherein:
determining that assignment of the application to the host resource requires plural cloud virtualisation layers is determined based on the input parameters and the context parameters (abstract idea mental process),
the layout of virtualisation layer components is generated by creating clusters of virtualisation layer components for respective cloud virtualisation layers according to at least one of: the required resource constraints, the required redundancy level, the required decomposition type, the host resource constraints, the dependencies between cloud virtualisation layers, and the host resource topology (extra-solution activity of displaying/presenting/outputting data/information), and
the application is assigned to a virtualisation layer component based on the input parameters and the context parameters (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 4. The method according to claim 2, wherein the required resource constraints comprise: latency rules, geolocation rules, affinity rules, anti-affinity rules, multi-tenant rules, capacity rules, and link bandwidth utilisation rules (extra-solution activity of receiving data/information).
Claim 5. The method according to claim 2, wherein virtualisation layer components are recursively generated for respective clusters of virtualisation layer components until the maximum number of virtualisation requirements is satisfied (extra-solution activity of generating data/information).
Claim 6. The method according to claim 2, wherein the application is assigned to one or more virtualisation layer components based on the virtualisation requirements (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 7. The method according to claim 3, wherein: the context parameters further define the virtualisation requirement of existing host resource topology, the existing host resource topology indicating an existing cluster of virtualisation layer components on the host resource (extra-solution activity of receiving data/information).
Claim 8. The method according to claim 7, wherein the method further comprises: selecting the existing cluster of virtualisation components to be used in generating the layout of virtualisation layer components (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 9. The method according to claim 7, wherein the method further comprises: updating the existing cluster of virtualisation components (extra-solution activity of modifying/updating data/information) and selecting the updated cluster of virtualisation components to be used in generating the layout of virtualisation layer components (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 10. The method according to claim 7, wherein the method further comprises: creating new virtualisation components to be used in addition to the existing cluster of virtualisation layer components in generating the layout of virtualisation layer component (extra-solution activity of generating data/information).
Claim 11. The method according to claim 1, wherein generating the layout of virtualisation layer components for the plural cloud virtualisation layers further comprises: decommissioning one of the plural cloud virtualisation layers (extra-solution activity of modifying/updating data/information).
Claim 12. The method according to claim 2, wherein the method further comprises:
identifying a plurality of host resource candidates to perform execution of the application,
processing the plurality of host resource candidates to determine a satisfaction rate for each host resource candidate, the satisfaction rate indicating the proportion of virtualisation requirements satisfied by respective host resource candidates (abstract idea mental process),
ranking the plurality of host resource candidates based on the determined satisfaction rates (abstract idea mental process), and
selecting the host resource candidate with the highest satisfaction rate as the host resource candidate to perform execution of the application (abstract idea mental process).
Claim 13. The method according to claim 1, wherein the method further comprises:
executing the application on the host resource in the assigned virtualisation layer component (extra-solution activity of merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea).
Claim 14. The method according to claim 1, wherein the host resource is a virtual host resource, and the method further comprises: converting a physical host resource to the virtual host resource (extra-solution activity of modifying/updating data/information).
Claim 15. The method according to claim 1, wherein the plural cloud virtualisation layers comprise at least one of an OpenStack virtualisation layer and a Kubernetes virtualisation layer (extra-solution activity of displaying/presenting/outputting data/information).
As per claim 16, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 17, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 18, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 26, it has similar limitations as claim 11 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 31, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
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.
Claims 1, 13, 16, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston et al. (US 2016/0094483) (hereinafter Johnston) in view of Scattolin et al. (US 2019/0177877) (hereinafter Scattolin).
As per claim 1, Johnston primarily teaches the invention as claimed including a method of managing plural cloud virtualisation layers in a communication network ([0050] multi-cloud hosting management solution associated with core service components), the method comprising:
receiving, from a tenant, a service request to execute an application on a host resource, wherein the service request comprises input parameters ([0052] messaging broker for facilitating communication for requesting information related to resources/services for executing an application and [0095] environment descriptor record within the environment descriptor file is a representation of what is required to be configured in a remote cloud tenant or physical hosts for successful execution of the application in the tenant environment);
determining, based on the input parameters, that execution of the application on the host resource requires plural cloud virtualisation layers ([0011]-[0012]; [0035]; [0046] descriptor record is specific for the cloud service environment and provides details of environmental resources or services required for executing the application on the cloud service);
assigning the application to a virtualisation layer component based on the input parameters ([0043] and [0134] deploying application to the cloud virtual environment based on the environment descriptor file).
Johnston does not explicitly teach responsive to determining that execution requires plural cloud virtualisation layers, generating a layout of virtualisation layer components for the plural cloud virtualisation layers.
However, Scattolin teaches responsive to determining that execution requires plural cloud virtualisation layers, generating a layout of virtualisation layer components for the plural cloud virtualisation layers (fig. 2 and [0028] a map interface for creating or editing a map including a graphical layout of cloud resources of a cloud application).
Scattolin and Johnston are both concerned with cloud computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnston in view of Scattolin because it would provide a way to facilitate the location of resource icons representing specific cloud resources within a map utilizing a search module that highlights those resource icons in the map. One or more search criteria input into a search field within the graphical user interface of a map interface described herein is received and defines at least one quality of interest to be searched for. The search module highlights one or more of the resource icons representing resources that satisfy the received search criteria. Highlighting such resource icons relative to the resource icons representing other cloud resources that do not satisfy the received search criteria improves the ability of the map to be efficiently searched. Accordingly, this can mitigate the complexity of table-based systems to configure a cloud application by converting graphical programming operations into a configuration of a cloud application. The system can also sense and display current status information about cloud application, or individual cloud resources therein, within the graphical user interface that includes the map to locate specific resources of interest within the cloud application to improve the efficiency of locating individual resources or groups of instances within a map for an expansive cloud application.
As per claim 13, Johnston further teaches wherein the method further comprises: executing the application on the host resource in the assigned virtualisation layer component (abstract).
As per claim 16, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
As per claim 31, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 2, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston in view of Scattolin in view of Rosoff et al. (US 2021/0311792) (hereinafter Rosoff).
As per claim 2, Johnston in view of Scattolin do not explicitly teach the input parameters define virtualisation requirements comprising at least one of: required resource constraints, required redundancy level, and required decomposition type, and the layout of virtualisation layer components is generated by creating clusters of virtualisation layer components for respective cloud virtualisation layers according to at least one of: the required resource constraints, the required redundancy level, and the required decomposition type.
However, Rosoff teaches teach the input parameters define virtualisation requirements comprising at least one of: required resource constraints, required redundancy level, and required decomposition type, and the layout of virtualisation layer components is generated by creating clusters of virtualisation layer components for respective cloud virtualisation layers according to at least one of: the required resource constraints, the required redundancy level, and the required decomposition type (abstract a cluster of hosts managed by a virtualization management server, the hosts including a virtualization layer executing on hardware platforms for receiving a specification for a namespace at the virtualization management server, the specification defining resource constraints and authorization constraints for the namespace; preparing an environment within the virtualized computing system for the namespace in response to the specification, the environment including: a resource pool implementing at least a portion of the resource constraints as reservations and limits of resources in the virtualized computing system; and a user access policy implementing the authorization constraints within the virtualized computing system for the namespace).
Rosoff and Johnston are both concerned with cloud computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnston in view of Scattolin in view of Rosoff because it would provide a way to simplify management of modern applications by grouping all objects of the application workloads together within a namespace for the supervisor cluster referred to as a “supervisor namespace.” The supervisor namespace is a shared abstraction between application developers e.g., users and infrastructure managers e.g., admins. An admin creates “supervisor namespaces” within the supervisor cluster control plane, which provide resource-constrained and authorization-constrained units of multi-tenancy. Users deploy their applications within the scope of the supervisor namespaces and subject to their constraints. In this manner, the user guarantees that all the resources they deploy as part of their application are contained within the same supervisor namespace.
As per claim 15, Rosoff teaches wherein the plural cloud virtualisation layers comprise at least one of an OpenStack virtualisation layer and a Kubernetes virtualisation layer ([0017] Kubernetes control plane).
As per claim 17, it has similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 3, 6, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston in view of Scattolin in view of Rosoff in view of Chen (US 2018/0157472).
As per claim 3, Rosoff teaches the layout of virtualisation layer components is generated by creating clusters of virtualisation layer components for respective cloud virtualisation layers according to at least one of: the required resource constraints, the required redundancy level, the required decomposition type, the host resource constraints, the dependencies between cloud virtualisation layers, and the host resource topology (abstract a cluster of hosts managed by a virtualization management server, the hosts including a virtualization layer executing on hardware platforms for receiving a specification for a namespace at the virtualization management server, the specification defining resource constraints and authorization constraints for the namespace; preparing an environment within the virtualized computing system for the namespace in response to the specification, the environment including: a resource pool implementing at least a portion of the resource constraints as reservations and limits of resources in the virtualized computing system; and a user access policy implementing the authorization constraints within the virtualized computing system for the namespace).
Johnston in view of Scattolin in view of Rosoff do not explicitly teach receiving, from an infrastructure manager, context parameters, wherein the context parameters define virtualisation requirements comprising at least one of: host resource constraints, dependencies between cloud virtualisation layers, and host resource topology, and wherein: determining that assignment of the application to the host resource requires plural cloud virtualisation layers is determined based on the input parameters and the context parameters, and the application is assigned to a virtualisation layer component based on the input parameters and the context parameters.
However, Chen teaches receiving, from an infrastructure manager, context parameters, wherein the context parameters define virtualisation requirements comprising at least one of: host resource constraints, dependencies between cloud virtualisation layers, and host resource topology ([0018] topology generator using blueprint for defining hardware infrastructure), and wherein: determining that assignment of the application to the host resource requires plural cloud virtualisation layers is determined based on the input parameters and the context parameters, and the application is assigned to a virtualisation layer component based on the input parameters and the context parameters ([0056] application manager may generate a deployment plan based on a blueprint associated with the application. Specifically, the blueprint may define how to perform the deployment operation in the cloud environment, and may include a topology of virtual computing resources in the cloud environment, a plurality of application components associated with the application and assigned to the virtual computing resources, and dependencies among the application components).
Chen and Johnston are both concerned with cloud computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnston in view of Scattolin in view of Rosoff in view of Chen because it would provide for configuration of a customized application lifecycle for the deployment of a specific application. The customized application deployment lifecycle may be in the form of a state machine, which may include a set of customized application states for the deployment of an application, as well as a corresponding set of permissible operations that can be performed when the application is in each of the customized application states. In other words, the state machine may include a series of customized application states associated with the blueprint, a set of customized deployment operations, and relationships among the customized application states and the customized deployment operations.
As per claim 6, Johnston in view of Scattolin in view of Rosoff do not explicitly teach wherein the application is assigned to one or more virtualisation layer components based on the virtualisation requirements.
However, Chen teaches wherein the application is assigned to one or more virtualisation layer components based on the virtualisation requirements ([0056] application manager may generate a deployment plan based on a blueprint associated with the application. Specifically, the blueprint may define how to perform the deployment operation in the cloud environment, and may include a topology of virtual computing resources in the cloud environment, a plurality of application components associated with the application and assigned to the virtual computing resources, and dependencies among the application components).
Chen and Johnston are both concerned with cloud computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnston in view of Scattolin in view of Rosoff in view of Chen because it would provide for configuration of a customized application lifecycle for the deployment of a specific application. The customized application deployment lifecycle may be in the form of a state machine, which may include a set of customized application states for the deployment of an application, as well as a corresponding set of permissible operations that can be performed when the application is in each of the customized application states. In other words, the state machine may include a series of customized application states associated with the blueprint, a set of customized deployment operations, and relationships among the customized application states and the customized deployment operations.
As per claim 18, it has similar limitations as claim 3 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston in view of Scattolin in view of Rosoff in view of Chen in view of Liu (US 2018/0018197).
As per claim 7, Johnston in view of Scattolin in view of Rosoff in view of Chen do not explicitly teach the context parameters further define the virtualisation requirement of existing host resource topology, the existing host resource topology indicating an existing cluster of virtualisation layer components on the host resource.
However, Liu teaches the context parameters further define the virtualisation requirement of existing host resource topology, the existing host resource topology indicating an existing cluster of virtualisation layer components on the host resource ([0003] in a cloud environment, resource allocation/mapping refers to that a requirement application for a virtual resource is made, and physical resource scheduling and allocation are performed, according to existing topology conditions of a physical resource and a resource pool, on the virtual resource needed by a virtual machine, and then the virtual resource is deployed according to a result of the resource scheduling).
Liu and Johnston are both concerned with cloud computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnston in view of Scattolin in view of Rosoff in view of Chen in view of Liu because it would enable at least two physical processor resources, the physical memory, and the physical IO device that are allocated to the virtual machine to be located on the same processor node, which reduces a data transmission delay between the virtual processor, the vMEM, and the vIO of the virtual machine, thereby reducing consumption of a physical processor and improving performance of the virtual machine.
As per claim 8, Scattolin teaches selecting the existing cluster of virtualisation components to be used in generating the layout of virtualisation layer components ([0025] receive selections of resource icons based on user input into the client terminal to generate and edit maps. The map module also receives user input transmitted by the client terminal specifying relationships between the selected resource icons within a map or specifying other parameters associated with the selected resource icons. In response to receiving such user input, the map module modifies the map to add a new resource icon to the map, or add a graphical representation e.g., lines of the relationships between resource icons).
As per claim 9, Scattolin teaches updating the existing cluster of virtualisation components and selecting the updated cluster of virtualisation components to be used in generating the layout of virtualisation layer components ([0014] graphically update the appearance of the map by inserting a selected resource icon, drawing a connection line, etc., within the map and [0032] parameters can be updated by accessing the map stored by the map repository, selecting the resource icon to be updated, and changing the parameters that were previously entered).
As per claim 10, Scattolin teaches creating new virtualisation components to be used in addition to the existing cluster of virtualisation layer components in generating the layout of virtualisation layer component ([0012]-[0013] creation of a new graphical representation of a cloud resource in the map).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston in view of Scattolin in view of Rosoff in view of Udupi et al. (US 10,205,677) (hereinafter Udupi).
As per claim 4, Johnston in view of Scattolin in view of Rosoff do not explicitly teach wherein the required resource constraints comprise: latency rules, geolocation rules, affinity rules, anti-affinity rules, multi-tenant rules, capacity rules, and link bandwidth utilisation rules.
However, Udupi teaches wherein the required resource constraints comprise: latency rules (col. 8, ll. 25-27 latency metrics), geolocation rules (col. 12, ll. 35-40 geo-location based policies), affinity rules (col. 3, ll. 1-3 affinity rules), anti-affinity rules (col. 3, ll. 1-3 anti-affinity rules), multi-tenant rules (col. 12, ll. 35-40 tenant specific requirements), capacity rules (col. 3, ll. 16-21 capacity requirements), and link bandwidth utilisation rules (col. 8, ll. 27-30 network utilization).
Udupi and Johnston are both concerned with cloud computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnston in view of Scattolin in view of Rosoff in view of Udupi because it would provide for cloud resource placement optimization. A resources monitor monitors state information associated with cloud resources and physical hosts in the federated cloud having a plurality of clouds managed by a plurality of cloud providers. A rebalance trigger triggers a rebalancing request to initiate cloud resource placement optimization based on one or more conditions. A cloud resource placement optimizer determines an optimized placement of cloud resources on physical hosts across the plurality of clouds in the federated cloud based on (1) costs including migration costs, (2) the state information, and (3) constraints, wherein each physical host is identified in the constraints-driven optimization solver by an identifier of a respective cloud provider and an identifier of the physical host.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston in view of Scattolin in view of Rosoff in view of Gero et al. (US 2022/0188164) (hereinafter Gero).
As per claim 5, Johnston in view of Scattolin in view of Rosoff do not explicitly teach wherein virtualisation layer components are recursively generated for respective clusters of virtualisation layer components until the maximum number of virtualisation requirements is satisfied.
However, Gero teaches wherein virtualisation layer components are recursively generated for respective clusters of virtualisation layer components until the maximum number of virtualisation requirements is satisfied ([0055] a new optimization cycle for cloud computing deployment modification is triggered periodically, automatically in case a measurement yields that a performance threshold is exceeded, by a user/developer of the serverless application, or by a cloud provider. In some variants, the optimization cycles may run iteratively by deploying and measuring a series of generated cloud computing deployment versions of the serverless application until one or more requirements e.g., the performance threshold are met or after a predefined number of cycles.
Gero and Johnston are both concerned with cloud computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnston in view of Scattolin in view of Rosoff in view of Gero because it would provide a way for cloud computing deployment to be determined using an equation solver algorithm. Additionally, or in the alternative, the apparatus may be configured to derive, on the basis of a true subset of the application functions, an intermediate cloud computing deployment as a partial solution that fulfills the at least one requirement. Each cloud computing platform type may have a dedicated cost model and the requirement may define that the deployment costs of the serverless application are to be optimized e.g., minimized.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston in view of Scattolin in view of Rosoff in view of Archer et al. (US 2012/0185867) (hereinafter Archer).
As per claim 12, Johnston in view of Scattolin in view of Rosoff do not explicitly teach identifying a plurality of host resource candidates to perform execution of the application, processing the plurality of host resource candidates to determine a satisfaction rate for each host resource candidate, the satisfaction rate indicating the proportion of virtualisation requirements satisfied by respective host resource candidates, ranking the plurality of host resource candidates based on the determined satisfaction rates, and selecting the host resource candidate with the highest satisfaction rate as the host resource candidate to perform execution of the application.
However, Archer teaches identifying a plurality of host resource candidates to perform execution of the application, processing the plurality of host resource candidates to determine a satisfaction rate for each host resource candidate, the satisfaction rate indicating the proportion of virtualisation requirements satisfied by respective host resource candidates, ranking the plurality of host resource candidates based on the determined satisfaction rates, and selecting the host resource candidate with the highest satisfaction rate as the host resource candidate to perform execution of the application (fig. 7 and [0080] selecting a set of nodes having attributes that meet the specific resource requirements and arranged to meet the required geometry also includes assigning to each candidate set of nodes a score, the score being a representation of the degree to which the attributes of the nodes of the candidate set meet the resource requirements of the workload and the geometry requirements of the workload. Each score may be calculated in a variety of ways. For example, each score may be calculated as a percentage of the specific resource requirements that are satisfied by a particular candidate set of nodes, as a weighted score in which particular resource requirements of high importance are given a higher value than particular resource requirements of high importance, and so on. Selecting a set of nodes having attributes that meet the specific resource requirements and arranged to meet the required geometry may therefore include selecting the set of nodes having the best score).
Archer and Johnston are both concerned with executing tasks/workloads computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnston in view of Scattolin in view of Rosoff in view of Archer because it would provide a way of optimizing the deployment of workload in a distributed computing system such that one execution node may be able to execute particular workloads in a more efficient manner than another execution node because of the differences between the two execution nodes. Computing workloads may therefore be more efficiently executed by scheduling and assigning the workloads in a way to better utilize the resources in a particular system.
Claims 11 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston in view of Scattolin in view of Lawler (US 2016/0019076).
As per claim 11, Johnston in view of Scattolin do not explicitly teach wherein generating the layout of virtualisation layer components for the plural cloud virtualisation layers further comprises: decommissioning one of the plural cloud virtualisation layers.
However, Lawler teaches wherein generating the layout of virtualisation layer components for the plural cloud virtualisation layers further comprises: decommissioning one of the plural cloud virtualisation layers ([0011] and [0037] decommissioning virtual resources).
Lawler and Johnston are both concerned with cloud computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnston in view of Scattolin in view of Lawler because it would allow a virtual agent to encode into the event, a unique signature that identifies the origin of the instance of the associated virtual machine. In this manner, provenance information of transactions, e.g., transactions associated with a business process, invoked methods, return calls, or other activities of interest, can be logged in such a manner that provenance information of associated virtual machine is preserved. This configuration may provide convenience for ensuring that the provenance data is complete and secure.
As per claim 26, it has similar limitations as claim 11 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnston in view of Scattolin in view of Nakamura (US 2017/0004002).
As per claim 14, Johnston in view of Scattolin do not explicitly teach wherein the host resource is a virtual host resource, and the method further comprises: converting a physical host resource to the virtual host resource.
However, Nakamura teaches wherein the host resource is a virtual host resource, and the method further comprises: converting a physical host resource to the virtual host resource ([0039] host VMM converts physical resources of the physical machine to virtual resources).
Nakamura and Johnston are both concerned with task management in computing environments and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Johnston in view of Scattolin in view of Nakamura because it would provide a way for processing to be performed by one logical CPU or virtual CPU before the number of allocated physical CPUs is increased to be performed by two logical CPUs or virtual CPUs, so that the load is reduced.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure:
Aithal et al. (US 10,719,369) disclose network interfaces for containers running on a virtual machine instance in a distributed computing environment.
Aoki et al. (US 2022/0035681) disclose creating a blueprint associated with virtual layer configuration information.
Kalinoski (US 2005/0197877) disclose candidate resources that satisfy the scheduling constraints are ordered by priority from greatest degree of satisfaction to least degree of satisfaction, such as from least to greatest cost.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam Lee whose telephone number is (571) 270-3369. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH 8AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the above noted Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Vital, can be reached at the following telephone number: (571) 272-4215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/Adam Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198 August 25, 2026
Prosecution Insights