DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 – 12 and 15 – 18 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 13 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jigalur et al (2024/0012693).
Regarding claim 1, Jigalur teaches a method, comprising: obtaining an indication of a workload [see workload A in para (0016)] and an indication of an event [see “receive a request to migrate migrate workload A from source cluster 102 to destination cluster 104”];
mapping the event to a first container in a plurality of containers [the event (migrate workload) is mapped to destination cluster 104 (para 0017); it is noted that cluster comprises Kebernetes container;]
wherein each container in the plurality of containers is configured for a different processor architecture [see clusters 102 and 104 and associated containers run on entirely different computing infrastructure platforms (para 0009; 0010];
and wherein the first container is configured for a first processor architecture [see para 0009 and 0010]; and performing, by a first processing device configured with the first processor architecture, the workload by way of the first container [workload is migrated to destination cluster 104 (para 0017; 00180].
Regarding claim 13, Jigarlur teaches a system, comprising:
a memory [see image repository in fig 2] ; and
a first processing device configured with a first processor architecture, the first processing device operatively coupled to the memory to [see processor arch of destination cluster (fig 2 element)]:
obtain an indication of a workload and an indication of an event [see rejection of claim 1];
map the event to a first container in a plurality of containers, wherein each container in the plurality of containers is configured for a different processor architecture, and wherein the first container is configured for the first processor architecture; and perform the workload by way of the first container [see rejection of claim 1].
(Alternatively, the memory and first processing device could part of destination cluster 104).
Claim 19 is the non-transitory medium version of claims 1 and 13 and is rejected for the reasoning provided above.
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(s) 1, 2,13, 14 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamel el al (US 2020/0004651) in view of Vu et al (US 2022/0385962).
Regarding claim 1, Hamel teaches a method, comprising: obtaining an indication of a workload [para 0044: workload is met by queries; see para 0075 – 0076: it is noted applicant’s spec defines workload “reporting data to another computing device” [para0022]; query is data reported to a container; alternatively workload can be detecting the amount of storage volume and transferring the storage volume to standby container] and an indication of an event [para 0009& 30031: system detects failure of a first primary container or primary host that fails]; mapping the event to a first container in a plurality of containers [para 0035 – 0036 and 0075 – 0076: failed container is mapped to standby to container];
and wherein the first container is configured for a first processor architecture; and performing, by a first processing device configured with the first processor architecture, the workload by way of the first container [segment hosts has is a computer with a container (para 0022); computer meets first processor].
Although Hamel teaches that different contains have different volumes and are allocated differing shares of central processing share of utilization, Hamel fails to teach wherein each container in the plurality of containers is configured for a different processor architecture.
In analogous art, Vu teaches software container types may execute on different processor types [see para 0023]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Hamel based on the teachings of VU to include wherein each container in the plurality of containers is configured for a different processor architecture for a the benefit of system of containers that can manage and accommodate various processing capabilities depending on a particular software profile [see Vu para 0023].
Regarding claim 13, Hamel teaches a system, comprising: a memory; and
a first processing device configured with a first processor architecture, the first processing device operatively coupled to the memory to [see master host 210 with data store 212 or segment host with storage volume in Fig 2] :
obtain an indication of a workload and an indication of an event;
map the event to a first container in a plurality of containers, wherein each container in the plurality of containers is configured for a different processor architecture, and wherein the first container is configured for the first processor architecture; and perform the workload by way of the first container [since claim 13 is a system version of method claim 1, the same rejection applies].
Claim 19 is the non-transitory medium version of claims 1 and 13 and is rejected for the reasoning provided above.
Regarding claims 2, 14 and 20, the combination of Hamel and Vu fails to teach a method, system and non-transitory medium where the event comprises at least one of: a battery level of a battery of a device; a temperature level of the device; a partial hardware failure of the device; or a computational load of the workload.
Official Notice is taken that detecting an event of battery level of the device, temperature level of the device, a partial hardware failure of the device and computational workload of device are all well known and conventional methods of determining the heath, status and/or capability a device which can be used to determine if a replacement device is required. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the invention was filed to modify the combination of Hamel in view of Vu to include the claimed limitations to ensure the device are functioning correctly and if not than to replace the device a required to ensure the system continues for run in a seamless manor.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VIVEK SRIVASTAVA whose telephone number is (571)272-7304. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a – 5:30p.
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.
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.
/VIVEK SRIVASTAVA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights