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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 4A, 4B, and 4C have labels “Sever” which should be “Server.” 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.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under 35 U.S.C. 120 as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 16/911,144, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application.
Regarding claim 3, the prior-filed application discloses “where a fragmented node includes fewer empty nodes than is needed to host a virtual machine, the virtual machine may need to be deployed to a different node, such as an empty node or another fragmented node having enough empty cores” and “the virtual machine rightsizing system 110 determines the action plan and allocation decisions based on fragmentation characteristics of the fragmented nodes 226 on the node cluster 210” (Application No. 16/911,144 at paragraph [0056]); however, claim 3 requires that “the first set of server nodes having a greater fragmentation of resources across the first set of server nodes than the second set of server nodes after carrying out the action plan.”
Nowhere in the prior-filed application is “the first set of server nodes having a greater fragmentation of resources across the first set of server nodes than the second set of server nodes after carrying out the action plan” disclosed.
Accordingly, claim 3 is not entitled to the benefit of the filing date of Application No. 16/911,144 under 35 U.S.C. § 120. Claim 13 corresponds to claim 3; therefore, it is not entitled to the benefit of the filing date for the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 11, 12, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fontoura (US 2019/0163517) and further in view of Dow (US 2017/0220365).
Regarding claim 1, Fontoura teaches: A method, comprising:
providing, to a server device, deployment data for a deployment of a first set of virtual machines on a cloud computing system (¶ 44, “At 210, the resource manager collects data for VM deployments in a cloud computing system”), wherein the first set of virtual machines are implemented on a first set of compute cores on a first set of server nodes of a node cluster of the cloud computing system (¶ 48, “Each cluster 34 includes a plurality of racks (shown in FIGS. 4-5), and each rack includes a plurality of nodes (shown in FIG. 5), which are also called servers, hosts, or machines throughout the present disclosure”) and configured to provide one or more services of a customer subscription (¶ 29, “A virtual machine deployment may be associated with a subscription”);
receiving, from the server device, a goal state of the deployment based on the deployment data (¶ 44, “Predicted resource utilizations are associated with corresponding confidence scores such that predicted rightsized deployments are generated when a confidence score threshold is met”), the goal state including a second set of virtual machines having rightsized specifications based on the deployment data and capable of providing the one or more services of the customer subscription (¶ 45, “At 220, based on the predicted resource utilization and the confidence score meeting the confidence score threshold, the predictive rightsizing controller generates a predicted rightsized deployment configuration for the VM deployment”);
Fontoura does not teach; however, Dow discloses: based on the deployment data, generating an action plan including a set of deployment actions for transitioning a current state of the deployment of the first set of virtual machines to the goal state of the deployment including the second set of virtual machines (¶ 55, “a method 200 is provided to consolidate cloud compute resources, such as VMs 106A-106D onto minimum or reduced number of host servers 102A-102N using a hierarchical multi-objective bin packing process” and ¶ 55, “a method 200 is provided to consolidate cloud compute resources, such as VMs 106A-106D onto minimum or reduced number of host servers 102A-102N using a hierarchical multi-objective bin packing process”), wherein generating the action plan includes determining a second set of compute cores on a second set of server nodes of the node cluster for the goal state of the customer subscription (¶ 49, “the servers 102A-102N are nodes 10 in the cloud computing environment 50. The servers 102A-102N may be arranged in racks 104A-104N”); and
causing the second set of virtual machines to be allocated on the second set of compute cores on the second set of server nodes based on the action plan (¶ 70, “The method 200 then proceeds to block 208 where the VM instances 106A-106D are migrated to their identified servers 102A-102N”), wherein carrying out the action plan results in the first set of server nodes being empty server nodes having empty sets of compute cores (¶ 70, “In the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 4, after the VM instances 106A-106D are migrated, the servers 102K, 102N no longer have VMs operating”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have applied the known technique of based on the deployment data, generating an action plan including a set of deployment actions for transitioning a current state of the deployment of the first set of virtual machines to the goal state of the deployment including the second set of virtual machines, wherein generating the action plan includes determining a second set of compute cores on a second set of server nodes of the node cluster for the goal state of the customer subscription; and causing the second set of virtual machines to be allocated on the second set of compute cores on the second set of server nodes based on the action plan, wherein carrying out the action plan results in the first set of server nodes being empty server nodes having empty sets of compute cores, as taught by Dow, in the same way to the set of virtual machines, as taught by Fontoura. Both inventions are in the field of allocating VMs based on collected data, and combining them would have predictably resulted in “fewer servers 102A-102N operating at close to peak utilization to provide a desired efficiency and cost pricing,” as indicated by Dow (¶ 54).
Regarding claim 2, Dow teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the first set of server nodes includes a greater number of server nodes than the second set of server nodes (¶ 55, “a method 200 is provided to consolidate cloud compute resources, such as VMs 106A-106D onto minimum or reduced number of host servers 102A-102N using a hierarchical multi-objective bin packing process”) resulting in the node cluster having a greater number of empty server nodes than prior to carrying out the action plan (¶ 70, “In the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 4, after the VM instances 106A-106D are migrated, the servers 102K, 102N no longer have VMs operating”).
Claims 11, 12, and 20 recite commensurate subject matter as claims 1 and 2. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 3, 7, 9, 13, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fontoura and Dow, as applied above, and further in view of Conrad (US 2013/0318526).
Regarding claim 3, Fontoura and Dow do not teach; however Conrad discloses: the first set of server nodes includes the greater number of server nodes than the second set of server nodes (¶ 33, “VMs may continue to be moved off this source server without allowing new VMs to be installed”) based on the first set of server nodes having a greater fragmentation of resources across the first set of server nodes than the second set of server nodes after carrying out the action plan (¶ 9, “a defragmentation in which VMs are migrated from source to destination server resources according to the source and destination algorithms at high speeds to thus obtain a defragmented data center arrangement in which the same amount of physical resources present before the migration can have greater available contiguous space for additional virtualized instances at a conclusion of the migration”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have applied the known technique of the first set of server nodes includes the greater number of server nodes than the second set of server nodes based on the first set of server nodes having a greater fragmentation of resources across the first set of server nodes than the second set of server nodes after carrying out the action plan, as taught by Conrad, in the same way to the first set of server nodes, as taught by Fontoura and Dow. Both inventions are in the field of consolidating VMs, and combining them would have predictably resulted in “greater available contiguous space for additional virtualized instances at a conclusion of the migration,” as indicated by Conrad (¶ 9).
Regarding claim 7, Fontoura and Dow do not teach; however Conrad discloses: generating the action plan comprises identifying the set of deployment actions from a plurality of predefined actions (¶ 29, “control passes to block 220 where a VM is identified for migration from a source server to a destination server. In an embodiment, this identification may be according to costs determined according to a source algorithm and a destination algorithm”), the plurality of predefined actions including one or more of: deallocating instances of the first set of virtual machines and reallocating the instances based on the rightsized specifications; or live-migrating instances of the first set of virtual machines from the first set of compute cores to the second set of compute cores based on the rightsized specifications (¶ 10, “embodiments can handle migrations involving tens of thousands of customers and hundreds of thousands of VMs in a relatively small time frame, e.g., within a few weeks, all the while maintaining the resources accessible to customers during the defragmentation process”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have applied the known technique of generating the action plan comprises identifying the set of deployment actions from a plurality of predefined actions, the plurality of predefined actions including one or more of: deallocating instances of the first set of virtual machines and reallocating the instances based on the rightsized specifications; or live-migrating instances of the first set of virtual machines from the first set of compute cores to the second set of compute cores based on the rightsized specifications, as taught by Conrad, in the same way to the first set of server nodes, as taught by Fontoura and Dow. Both inventions are in the field of consolidating VMs, and combining them would have predictably resulted in “greater available contiguous space for additional virtualized instances at a conclusion of the migration,” as indicated by Conrad (¶ 9).
Regarding claim 9, Fontoura and Dow do not teach, however, Conrad discloses: the action plan is determined based on fragmentation characteristics of resources on the node cluster (¶ 31, “If such a large space is needed, control passes to block 255 where the VMs of the current source server may continue to be migrated. More specifically as seen at block 255 such migration may continue without allowing any new VMs to be installed on this source server until an appropriate level of contiguous space is available”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have applied the known technique of the action plan is determined based on fragmentation characteristics of resources on the node cluster, as taught by Conrad, in the same way to the action plan, as taught by Fontoura and Dow. Both inventions are in the field of consolidating VMs, and combining them would have predictably resulted in “greater available contiguous space for additional virtualized instances at a conclusion of the migration,” as indicated by Conrad (¶ 9).
Claims 13, 16, and 18 recite commensurate subject matter as claims 3, 7, and 9. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 4-6 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fontoura and Dow, as applied above, and further in view of Budzinksi (US 2015/0355927).
Regarding claim 4, Fontoura and Dow do not teach; however Budzinksi discloses: virtual machines of a first virtual machine family associated with a first set of virtual machine specifications (¶ 32, “A configuration may indicate a desired number of instances and a desired instance type associated with the instances”), and wherein the second set of virtual machines comprises virtual machines of a second virtual machine family associated with a second set of virtual machine specifications (¶ 89, “suppose the user specifies an instance type x-small. The instance type determined to be the optimal instance type may be an instance type large”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have applied the known technique of virtual machines of a first virtual machine family associated with a first set of virtual machine specifications, and wherein the second set of virtual machines comprises virtual machines of a second virtual machine family associated with a second set of virtual machine specifications, as taught by Budzinksi, in the same way to the first set of virtual machines, as taught by Fontoura and Dow. Both inventions are in the field of re-sizing VMs, and combining them would have predictably resulted in a method wherein “resources may be conserved while ensuring that sufficient resources are allocated for execution of the application,” as indicated by Budzinksi (¶ 90).
Regarding claim 5, Fontoura teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the goal state comprises the second set of virtual machines having the rightsized specifications selected based on a predicted utilization of computing resources by one or more customers associated with the customer subscription (¶ 45, “At 220, based on the predicted resource utilization and the confidence score meeting the confidence score threshold, the predictive rightsizing controller generates a predicted rightsized deployment configuration for the VM deployment”).
Fontoura and Dow do not teach; however Budzinksi discloses: generating the action plan comprises: receiving a user input indicating a request for a quantity of resources that differs from a quantity of resources allocated for the first set of virtual machines (¶ 87, “Input indicating whether the user wishes to proceed with instance resizing according to the optimal instance type may then be received” and “the user may indicate that he or she wishes to proceed with the user-configured instance size or another instance size”); and
modifying the goal state based on a combination of the goal state received from the server device and the received user input (¶ 89, “Upon selection of one of the candidate instance types, instance resizing may be performed according to the selected instance type”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have applied the known technique of generating the action plan comprises: receiving a user input indicating a request for a quantity of resources that differs from a quantity of resources allocated for the first set of virtual machines; and modifying the goal state based on a combination of the goal state received from the server device and the received user input, as taught by Budzinksi, in the same way to the generating the action plan, as taught by Fontoura and Dow. Both inventions are in the field of re-sizing VMs, and combining them would have predictably resulted in a method wherein “resources may be conserved while ensuring that sufficient resources are allocated for execution of the application,” as indicated by Budzinksi (¶ 90).
Regarding claim 6, Fontoura teaches: The method of claim 5, wherein the first set of virtual machines is hosted by a first number of compute cores and the second set of virtual machines is hosted by a second number of compute cores (¶ 27, “The VM deployment can include 10 A4s, where an A4 can be a type of VM having specific resource types (e.g., CPU, memory, disk, network card, etc.). The 10 A4s have a deployment configuration (i.e., identified or allocated resources for resource types of the 10 A4s)”), and wherein the rightsized specifications indicate the second number of compute cores based on a predicted utilization of cloud computing resources of the customer subscription (¶ 33, “The resource engine uses a subscription ID and resource types associated with a VM deployment to make predictions for resource utilization”), the predicted utilization of cloud computing resources being based on the deployment data (¶ 44, “At 214, based on collected data, the prediction engine generates a predicted resource utilization for the virtual machine deployment”).
Claims 14-16 recite commensurate subject matter as claims 4-6. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fontoura and Dow, as applied above, and further in view of Zhang (US 2018/0136960).
Regarding claim 8, Fontoura and Dow do not teach; however Zhang discloses: sequence and timing data for the set of deployment actions (¶ 60, “the CSP will determine an order in which the host machine 120 are taken offline to perform the update and will estimate how long each host machine 120 will be offline for”) such that a transition from the current state of the deployment of the first set of virtual machines to the goal state of the deployment adheres to a fault domain of the deployment throughout the transition between the current state and the goal state (¶ 32, “the CSP may assign VMs 130 across different fault domains (FD) 170 representing distinct (potential) points of failure”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have applied the known technique of sequence and timing data for the set of deployment actions such that a transition from the current state of the deployment of the first set of virtual machines to the goal state of the deployment adheres to a fault domain of the deployment throughout the transition between the current state and the goal state, as taught by Zhang, in the same way to the action plan, as taught by Fontoura and Dow. Both inventions are in the field managing changes in VM deployments, and combining them would have predictably resulted in a method configured to “reduce the inconvenience of cloud service downtime for a customer,” as indicated by Zhang (¶ 34).
Claim 17 recites commensurate subject matter as claim 8. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reason.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fontoura, Dow, and Conrad, as applied above, and further in view of Gupta (US 11,016,816).
Regarding claim 10, Fontoura, Dow, and Conrad do not teach; however Gupta discloses: a target number of empty server nodes within the node cluster (col. 26:35-39, “The criteria may include factors regarding a number of each instance type that should be maintained as being available in the fleet, or a number of empty hosts (e.g., having no slots assigned) that should be maintained as being available”), each empty server node including an empty set of compute cores having no virtual machines deployed thereon (Id., “a number of empty hosts (e.g., having no slots assigned)”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to have applied the known technique of the action plan is further determined based on a target number of empty server nodes within the node cluster, each empty server node including an empty set of compute cores having no virtual machines deployed thereon, as taught by Gupta, in the same way to the action plan, as taught by Fontoura, Dow, and Conrad. Both inventions are in the field of deploying computing resources, and combining them would have predictably resulted in a method wherein “the highest efficiency in terms of computing resource utilization,” as indicated by Gupta (col. 3:14-15).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,026,536. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Patent No. 12,026,536 teaches or at least suggests each and every limitation of the instant application. See claim correspondence below.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,026,536
1. A method, comprising: providing, to a server device, deployment data for a deployment of a first set of virtual machines on a cloud computing system,
A system, comprising: one or more processors; memory in electronic communication with the one or more processors; and instructions stored in memory, the instructions being executable by the one or more processors to: provide, to a server device, deployment data for a deployment of a first set of virtual machines on a cloud computing system,
wherein the first set of virtual machines are implemented on a first set of compute cores on a first set of server nodes of a node cluster of the cloud computing system and configured to provide one or more services of a customer subscription;
wherein the first set of virtual machines are implemented on a first set of compute cores on a first server node and a second set of compute cores on a second server node and configured to provide one or more services of a customer subscription;
receiving, from the server device, a goal state of the deployment based on the deployment data, the goal state including a second set of virtual machines having rightsized specifications based on the deployment data and capable of providing the one or more services of the customer subscription;
receive, from the server device, a goal state of the deployment based on the deployment data, the goal state including a second set of virtual machines having rightsized specifications based on the deployment data and capable of providing the one or more services of the customer subscription;
based on the deployment data, generating an action plan including a set of deployment actions for transitioning a current state of the deployment of the first set of virtual machines to the goal state of the deployment including the second set of virtual machines,
based on the deployment data, generate an action plan including a set of deployment actions for transitioning a current state of the deployment of the first set of virtual machines to the goal state of the deployment including the second set of virtual machines,
wherein generating the action plan includes determining a second set of compute cores on a second set of server nodes of the node cluster for the goal state of the customer subscription; and
wherein generating the action plan includes determining a third set of compute cores on a third server node for the goal state of the customer subscription; and
causing the second set of virtual machines to be allocated on the second set of compute cores on the second set of server nodes based on the action plan,
cause the second set of virtual machines to be allocated on the third set of compute cores on the third server node based on the action plan,
wherein carrying out the action plan results in the first set of server nodes being empty server nodes having empty sets of compute cores.
wherein carrying out the action plan results in the first server node being a first empty server node having a first empty set of compute cores and the second server node being a second empty server node having a second empty set of compute cores.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/760,785 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference application teaches or at least suggests each and every limitation of the instant application. See claim correspondence below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant Application
Reference Application
1. A method, comprising: providing, to a server device, deployment data for a deployment of a first set of virtual machines on a cloud computing system,
1. A method, comprising: receiving deployment data for a customer subscription associated with a deployment of a first set of virtual machines on a node cluster of a cloud computing system
wherein the first set of virtual machines are implemented on a first set of compute cores on a first set of server nodes of a node cluster of the cloud computing system and configured to provide one or more services of a customer subscription;
the first set of virtual machine being implemented on a first set of server nodes of the node cluster and configured to provide one or more services of a customer subscription;
receiving, from the server device, a goal state of the deployment based on the deployment data, the goal state including a second set of virtual machines having rightsized specifications based on the deployment data and capable of providing the one or more services of the customer subscription;
generating a goal state of the customer subscription based on the deployment data, the goal state including a second set of virtual machines having rightsized specifications based on the deployment data and capable of providing the one or more services of the customer subscription
based on the deployment data, generating an action plan including a set of deployment actions for transitioning a current state of the deployment of the first set of virtual machines to the goal state of the deployment including the second set of virtual machines,
based on the deployment data, generate an action plan including a set of deployment actions for transitioning a current state of the deployment of the first set of virtual machines to the goal state of the deployment including the second set of virtual machines,
wherein generating the action plan includes determining a second set of compute cores on a second set of server nodes of the node cluster for the goal state of the customer subscription; and
7. The method of claim 1, wherein generating the goal state comprises identifying the second set of virtual machines from a plurality of pre-configured virtual machines available for deployment on the node cluster.
causing the second set of virtual machines to be allocated on the second set of compute cores on the second set of server nodes based on the action plan,
8. The method of claim 7, wherein the plurality of pre-configured virtual machines comprises a subset of virtual machine types available for deployment on the node cluster based on a determined compatibility of the plurality of pre-configured virtual machines with the first set of virtual machines in hosting the one or more services of the customer subscription.
wherein carrying out the action plan results in the first set of server nodes being empty server nodes having empty sets of compute cores.
3. The method of claim 2, wherein identifying the trigger condition comprises determining that the first set of virtual machines utilizes a number of compute cores that is less than a maximum number of compute cores allocated for the first set of virtual machines.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Assuncao (US 2013/0080619) teaches “Each virtual machine 68 includes an optimization agent 72 providing environment feedback for adjusting the virtual environment 74, 76, 78 for each virtual machine 68 to improve overall system 70 efficiency” (¶ 57), which relates to the disclosed rightsizing a customer’s virtual resource allocation.
Greenwood (US 2019/0158422) teaches “Fragmentation analysis 110 may be implemented to determine capacity fragmentation across resource hosts of a distributed system, so that stranded capacity 132 is not included in actual available capacity 130 for capacity planning purposes 150” (¶ 17), which relates to the disclosed action plan to reduce fragmented placement across hosts.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB D DASCOMB whose telephone number is (571)272-9993. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, Pierre Vital can be reached at (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 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.
/JACOB D DASCOMB/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Prosecution Insights