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 .
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. 12,101,257 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims are directed to monitoring usage of an enterprise edge and offloading client traffic to a virtual machine deployed in the cloud when capacity exceeds a threshold. Below is a table showing the correspondence between instant Claims 1-12 and 18 and Claims 1-12 and 18 of the conflicting Patent, with differences underlined.
Claim No.
instant application
(18/786,114)
Conflicting Patent
(US 12,101,257 B2)
Claim No.
1
A method comprising:
A method comprising:
…
1
running a first workload hosted on a cloud-computing network that is remote from an enterprise edge network, wherein the first workload is a facsimile of a workload on devices of the enterprise edge network;
a second workload that is a facsimile of the first workload, the second workload hosted on a cloud computing network that is remote from the enterprise edge network.
Note: examiner is mapping “first workload” of the instant application to “second workload” of the Conflicting Patent
1
determining that a capacity associated with the first workload meets or exceeds a threshold capacity;
The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that a capacity associated with the second workload meets or exceeds the threshold capacity; and
9
based at least in part on the capacity meeting or exceeding the threshold capacity, spinning up a second workload hosted on the cloud-computing network, the second workload being a facsimile of the first workload; and
based at least in part on the capacity meeting or exceeding the threshold capacity, spinning up a third workload on resources of the cloud computing network, the third workload being a facsimile of at least one of the first workload or the second workload.
9
based at least in part on the capacity meeting or exceeding the threshold capacity, redirecting a client device to establish a connection with the second workload hosted on the cloud-computing network.
redirecting, by an orchestration system associated with the enterprise edge network, the client device to establish the connection with a second workload that is a facsimile of the first workload, the second workload hosted on a cloud computing network that is remote from the enterprise edge network.
1
2
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
2
determining that the capacity associated with the first workload is less than the threshold capacity; and
determining that the capacity associated with the first workload is less than the threshold capacity; and
based at least in part on the capacity being less than the threshold capacity, causing the connection to be established between the client device and the first workload.
based at least in part on the capacity being less than the threshold capacity, causing the connection to be established between the client device and the first workload.
3
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
3
determining that the capacity associated with the first workload is less than the threshold capacity; and based at least in part on the capacity being less than the threshold capacity,
determining that the capacity associated with the first workload is less than the threshold capacity; and based at least in part on the capacity being less than the threshold capacity,
causing new connections to be established between client devices and the first workload while maintaining the connection between the client device and the second workload hosted on the cloud-computing network.
causing new connections to be established between client devices and the first workload while maintaining the connection between the client device and the second workload hosted on the cloud computing network.
4
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
4
obtaining, by an orchestration system associated with the enterprise edge network, configuration data indicating a configuration associated with the first workload; and
obtaining, by the orchestration system, configuration data indicating a configuration associated with the first workload; and
based at least in part on the capacity meeting or exceeding the threshold capacity, spinning up, by the orchestration system, the second workload on resources of the cloud-computing network,
based at least in part on the capacity meeting or exceeding the threshold capacity, spinning up, by the orchestration system, the second workload on resources of the cloud computing network,
wherein the configuration associated with the first workload is replicated by the orchestration system in the second workload based at least in part on the configuration data.
wherein the configuration associated with the first workload is replicated by the orchestration system in the second workload based at least in part on the configuration data.
5
The method of claim 4, wherein the configuration data is indicative of a networking policy associated with the first workload.
The method of claim 4, wherein the configuration data is indicative of a networking policy associated with the first workload.
5
6
The method of claim 1, wherein the connection is at least one of a virtual private network (VPN) connection, a Zero Trust Networking (ZTN) connection, a reverse proxy connection, or a forward proxy connection, and
The method of claim 1, wherein the connection is at least one of a virtual private network (VPN) connection, a Zero Trust Networking (ZTN) connection, a reverse proxy connection, or a forward proxy connection, and
6
wherein the first workload and the second workload are associated with a security function.
wherein the first workload and the second workload are associated with a security function.
7
The method of claim 1, further comprising receiving, at the enterprise edge network and from the second workload hosted on the cloud-computing network, a portion of traffic sent by the client device over the connection.
The method of claim 1, further comprising receiving, at the enterprise edge network and from the second workload hosted on the cloud-computing network, a portion of traffic sent by the client device over the connection.
7
8
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
8
prior to determining that the capacity associated with the first workload meets or exceeds the threshold capacity, establishing another connection between another client device and the first workload; and
prior to determining that the capacity associated with the first workload meets or exceeds the threshold capacity, establishing another connection between another client device and the first workload; and
based at least in part on the determining that the capacity associated with the first workload meets or exceeds the threshold capacity, migrating the other connection such that the other connection is between the other client device and the second workload hosted on the cloud-computing network.
based at least in part on the determining that the capacity associated with the first workload meets or exceeds the threshold capacity, migrating the other connection such that the other connection is between the other client device and the second workload hosted on the cloud-computing network.
9
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
The method of claim 1, further comprising:
9
determining that a capacity associated with the second workload meets or exceeds the threshold capacity; and
determining that a capacity associated with the second workload meets or exceeds the threshold capacity; and
based at least in part on the capacity meeting or exceeding the threshold capacity, spinning up a third workload on resources of the cloud-computing network, the third workload being a facsimile of at least one of the first workload or the second workload.
based at least in part on the capacity meeting or exceeding the threshold capacity, spinning up a third workload on resources of the cloud computing network, the third workload being a facsimile of at least one of the first workload or the second workload.
10
The method of claim 1, wherein determining that the capacity meets or exceeds the threshold capacity comprises:
The method of claim 1, wherein determining that the capacity meets or exceeds the threshold capacity comprises:
10
receiving, at a monitor of the cloud-computing network, utilization data indicating a utilization history associated with the first workload;
receiving, at a monitor of the cloud-computing network, utilization data indicating a utilization history associated with the first workload;
receiving, at the monitor, capacity data indicating the capacity associated with the first workload; and
receiving, at the monitor, capacity data indicating the capacity associated with the first workload; and
determining, by the monitor and based at least in part on the utilization data and the capacity data, that the capacity meets or exceeds the threshold capacity.
determining, by the monitor and based at least in part on the utilization data and the capacity data, that the capacity meets or exceeds the threshold capacity.
11
The method of claim 10, wherein the monitor determines that the capacity meets or exceeds the threshold capacity at least partially using machine-learning techniques.
The method of claim 10, wherein the monitor determines that the capacity meets or exceeds the threshold capacity at least partially using machine-learning techniques.
11
12
A system comprising: one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
A system comprising:
one or more processors; and
one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
12
running a first secure access node hosted on a cloud-computing network that is remote from an enterprise edge network, wherein the first secure access node is a facsimile of a secure access node on devices of the enterprise edge network;
causing a facsimile of the secure access node to be hosted on resources of a cloud-computing network that is remote from the enterprise edge network; and
determining that a capacity associated with the first secure access node meets or exceeds a threshold capacity;
determining that a capacity associated with a secure access node of an enterprise edge network meets or exceeds a threshold capacity;
based at least in part on the capacity meeting or exceeding the threshold capacity, spinning up a second secure access node hosted on the cloud-computing network, the second secure access node being a facsimile of the first secure access node; and
based at least in part on the capacity meeting or exceeding the threshold capacity, causing a facsimile of the secure access node to be hosted on resources of a cloud-computing network that is remote from the enterprise edge network; and
at least one of:
based at least in part on the capacity meeting or exceeding the threshold capacity, redirecting a client device to establish a connection with the second secure access node hosted on the cloud-computing network.
redirecting, by an orchestration system associated with the enterprise edge network, a connection request received from a first client device such that a first connection is established between the first client device and the facsimile of the secure access node; or
migrating, by the orchestration system associated with the enterprise edge network, an existing connection between a second client device and the secure access node such that a second connection is established between the second client device and the facsimile of the secure access node.
18
One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
18
running a first secure access node hosted on a cloud-computing network that is remote from an enterprise edge network, wherein the first secure access node is a facsimile of a secure access node on devices of the enterprise edge network;
based at least in part on the capacity meeting or exceeding the threshold capacity, causing a facsimile of the secure access node to be hosted on resources of a cloud-computing network that is remote from the enterprise edge network; and
determining that a capacity associated with the first secure access node meets or exceeds a threshold capacity;
determining that a capacity associated with a secure access node of an enterprise edge network meets or exceeds a threshold capacity;
based at least in part on the capacity meeting or exceeding the threshold capacity, spinning up a second secure access node hosted on the cloud-computing network, the second secure access node being a facsimile of the first secure access node; and
based at least in part on the capacity meeting or exceeding the threshold capacity, causing a facsimile of the secure access node to be hosted on resources of a cloud-computing network that is remote from the enterprise edge network; and
at least one of:
based at least in part on the capacity meeting or exceeding the threshold capacity, redirecting a client device to establish a connection with the second secure access node hosted on the cloud-computing network.
redirecting, by an orchestration system associated with the enterprise edge network, a connection request received from a first client device such that a first connection is established between the first client device and the facsimile of the secure access node; or
migrating, by the orchestration system associated with the enterprise edge network, an existing connection between a second client device and the secure access node such that a second connection is established between the second client device and the facsimile of the secure access node.
The instant Claims 13-17 and 19-20 can be respectively mapped to Claims 13-17 and 19-20 of the conflicting Patent and are rejected based on the overlap.
As indicated above, the subject matter claimed in the instant application is fully disclosed in the conflicting Patent and is covered by the conflicting Patent. The instant application and the conflicting Patent are claiming common subject matter, and the difference in limitation(s) are merely differences in wording. Therefore, Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness type double patenting in light of the conflicting Patent Claims 1-20.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7-9, 12, 15-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vinberg (US 2007/0006218 A1) in view of Vasudevan (US 2016/0191623 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Vinberg discloses the below limitation(s): running a first workload hosted on a cloud-computing network that is remote from an enterprise edge network (Vinberg Fig 3 physical deployment of workload(s)),
determining that a capacity associated with the first workload meets or exceeds a threshold capacity ([0064] monitoring system may determine that the number of incoming requests is exceeding the capacity of the VMs; see also [0030] wherein a threshold of available physical memory (i.e. a capacity) is disclosed);
based at least in part on the capacity meeting or exceeding the threshold capacity, spinning up a second workload hosted on the cloud-computing network, the second workload being a facsimile of the first workload ([0064] monitoring device may send an event to deploy another instance of that workload; see also [0067] and [0090] which teach migration of a workload from one computing device to another); and
based at least in part on the capacity meeting or exceeding the threshold capacity, redirecting a client device to establish a connection with the second workload hosted on the cloud-computing network ([0091] moving a VM from one device to another due to capacity).
Vinberg does not disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the first workload is a facsimile of a workload on devices of the enterprise edge network;
In the same field of endeavor of offloading of workloads from the edge to the cloud based on capacity, Vasudevan does disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the first workload is a facsimile of a workload on devices of the enterprise edge network (Vasudevan Fig 1 S106 and associated [0031] replication can include the process of moving workload data (e.g. VM's, etc.) from a user-side platform (e.g. enterprise edge) to a cloud-computing platform);
based at least in part on the capacity meeting or exceeding the threshold capacity, spinning up a second workload hosted on the cloud-computing network, the second workload being a facsimile of the first workload (Fig 1 S110 and associated [0033] once a VM is replicated in the cloud, workload assets can be "powered on" (i.e. "spinning up") and any changes to the user-side workload asset can be updated in the cloud-computing platform side workload asset (i.e. creating a cloud facsimile)); and
based at least in part on the capacity meeting or exceeding the threshold capacity, redirecting a client device to establish a connection with the second workload hosted on the cloud-computing network (Fig 1 S106 and associated [0031] replication can include the process of moving workload data (e.g. VM's, etc.) from a user-side platform (e.g. enterprise edge) to a cloud-computing platform).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teaching of Vinberg to include replicating a workload (i.e. creating a facsimile) in the cloud when capacity at the edge exceeds a threshold as taught by Vasudevan. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to dynamically offload workloads to the cloud when local resources do not have capacity to perform said workload(s) while maintaining continuity of service for the client. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Vinberg and Vasudevan to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 4, Vinberg and Vasudevan disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 1.
Vinberg does not disclose the below limitation(s): obtaining, by an orchestration system associated with the enterprise edge network, configuration data indicating a configuration associated with the first workload; and
based at least in part on the capacity meeting or exceeding the threshold capacity, spinning up, by the orchestration system, the second workload on resources of the cloud-computing network,
wherein the configuration associated with the first workload is replicated by the orchestration system in the second workload based at least in part on the configuration data.
In the same field of endeavor of offloading of workloads from the edge to the cloud based on capacity, Vasudevan does disclose the below limitation(s): obtaining, by an orchestration system associated with the enterprise edge network, configuration data indicating a configuration associated with the first workload (Vasudevan Fig 1 S102 and associated [0030] configuration of entities (i.e. workloads) can be discovered and stored in a CMDB in step 104); and
based at least in part on the capacity meeting or exceeding the threshold capacity, spinning up, by the orchestration system, the second workload on resources of the cloud-computing network (Fig 1 S110 and associated [0033] once a VM is replicated in the cloud, workload assets can be "powered on" (i.e. "spinning up") and any changes to the user-side workload asset can be updated in the cloud-computing platform side workload asset (i.e. creating a cloud facsimile)),
wherein the configuration associated with the first workload is replicated by the orchestration system in the second workload based at least in part on the configuration data (Fig 1 S102-S106 and [0030]-[0031] system can use the stored configuration of entities to perform a replication process to create a cloud facsimile of the entity based on the configuration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned method/system to include replicating a first workload by using stored configuration information as taught by Vasudevan. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to store configuration information so that a facsimile workload can be created based on said configuration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Vinberg and Vasudevan to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 5, Vinberg and Vasudevan disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 4.
Vinberg does not disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the configuration data is indicative of a networking policy associated with the first workload.
In the same field of endeavor of offloading of workloads from the edge to the cloud based on capacity, Vasudevan does disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the configuration data is indicative of a networking policy associated with the first workload (Vasudevan Fig 1 S110 and associated [0033] workload asset in the cloud can be powered on and brought online (e.g. assigned network IP addresses, assigned security policies, etc.) based on stored configuration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned method/system to include configuring a workload with a networking policy as taught by Vasudevan. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to give a network policy in order to enable offloading of workloads to the cloud without compromising security. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Vinberg and Vasudevan to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 7, Vinberg and Vasudevan disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 1.
Vinberg further discloses the below limitation(s): receiving, at the enterprise edge network and from the second workload hosted on the cloud-computing network, a portion of traffic sent by the client device over the connection (Vinberg [0064] system may send an event indicating another instance of that workload should be deployed to help carry the load, wherein "help carry the load" is interpreted as a portion of traffic).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned method/system to include offloading a portion of traffic to a workload in the cloud as taught by Vinberg. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to reduce the usage of local resources by relying on a scalable cloud. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Vinberg and Vasudevan to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 8, Vinberg and Vasudevan disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 1.
Vinberg further discloses the below limitation(s): prior to determining that the capacity associated with the first workload meets or exceeds the threshold capacity, establishing another connection between another client device and the first workload (Vinberg [0078] teaches communicating a request or query to a virtual system management component as to whether it would be possible to create a VM for migration, which requires a connection between client and the workload); and
based at least in part on the determining that the capacity associated with the first workload meets or exceeds the threshold capacity, migrating the other connection such that the other connection is between the other client device and the second workload hosted on the cloud-computing network ([0064] monitoring device may send an event to deploy another instance of that workload; see also [0067] and [0090] which teach migration of a workload from one computing device to another).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned method/system to include migrating client services to the cloud as taught by Vinberg. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to reduce reliance on local resources in favor of scalable cloud resources. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Vinberg and Vasudevan to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 9, Vinberg and Vasudevan disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 1.
Vinberg further discloses the below limitation(s): determining that a capacity associated with the second workload meets or exceeds the threshold capacity (Vinberg [0064] monitoring system may determine that the number of incoming requests is exceeding the capacity of the VMs; see also [0030] wherein a threshold of available physical memory (i.e. a capacity) is disclosed); and
based at least in part on the capacity meeting or exceeding the threshold capacity, spinning up a third workload on resources of the cloud-computing network, the third workload being a facsimile of at least one of the first workload or the second workload ([0064] monitoring device may send an event to deploy another instance of that workload; see also [0067] and [0090] which teach migration of a workload from one computing device to another).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned method/system to include creating cloud workload(s) to meet capacity needs as taught by Vinberg. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to reduce reliance on local resources in favor of scalable cloud resources. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Vinberg and Vasudevan to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 12, Vinberg discloses the below limitation(s): one or more processors; and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions (Vinberg Fig 6 processing unit 604 and system memory 606) that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
running a first secure access node hosted on a cloud-computing network that is remote from an enterprise edge network (Fig 3 physical deployment of workload(s)),
determining that a capacity associated with the first secure access node meets or exceeds a threshold capacity ([0064] monitoring system may determine that the number of incoming requests is exceeding the capacity of the VMs; see also [0030] wherein a threshold of available physical memory (i.e. a capacity) is disclosed);
based at least in part on the capacity meeting or exceeding the threshold capacity, spinning up a second secure access node hosted on the cloud-computing network, the second secure access node being a facsimile of the first secure access node ([0064] monitoring device may send an event to deploy another instance of that workload; see also [0067] and [0090] which teach migration of a workload from one computing device to another); and
based at least in part on the capacity meeting or exceeding the threshold capacity, redirecting a client device to establish a connection with the second secure access node hosted on the cloud-computing network ([0091] moving a VM from one device to another due to capacity).
Vinberg does not disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the first secure access node is a facsimile of a secure access node on devices of the enterprise edge network;
In the same field of endeavor of offloading of workloads from the edge to the cloud based on capacity, Vasudevan does disclose the below limitation(s): running a first secure access node hosted on a cloud-computing network that is remote from an enterprise edge network (Vasudevan Fig 1 S106 and associated [0032]-[0032] teaches security of cloud-hosted workloads, which is interpreted as reading on "secure access node"),
wherein the first secure access node is a facsimile of a secure access node on devices of the enterprise edge network (Fig 1 S106 and associated [0031] replication can include the process of moving workload data (e.g. VM's, etc.) from a user-side platform (e.g. enterprise edge) to a cloud-computing platform);
based at least in part on the capacity meeting or exceeding the threshold capacity, spinning up a second secure access node hosted on the cloud-computing network, the second secure access node being a facsimile of the first secure access node (Fig 1 S110 and associated [0033] once a VM is replicated in the cloud, workload assets can be "powered on" (i.e. "spinning up") and any changes to the user-side workload asset can be updated in the cloud-computing platform side workload asset (i.e. creating a cloud facsimile)); and
based at least in part on the capacity meeting or exceeding the threshold capacity, redirecting a client device to establish a connection with the second secure access node hosted on the cloud-computing network (Fig 1 S106 and associated [0031] replication can include the process of moving workload data (e.g. VM's, etc.) from a user-side platform (e.g. enterprise edge) to a cloud-computing platform).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teaching of Vinberg to include replicating a workload (i.e. creating a facsimile) in the cloud when capacity at the edge exceeds a threshold as taught by Vasudevan. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to dynamically offload workloads to the cloud when local resources do not have capacity to perform said workload(s) while maintaining continuity of service for the client. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Vinberg and Vasudevan to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 15, Vinberg and Vasudevan disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 12.
Vinberg does not disclose the below limitation(s): obtaining, by an orchestration system associated with the enterprise edge network, configuration data indicating a configuration associated with the first secure access node; and
based at least in part on the capacity meeting or exceeding the threshold capacity, spinning up, by the orchestration system, the second secure access node on resources of the cloud-computing network,
wherein the configuration associated with the first secure access node is replicated by the orchestration system in the second secure access node based at least in part on the configuration data.
In the same field of endeavor of offloading of workloads from the edge to the cloud based on capacity, Vasudevan does disclose the below limitation(s): obtaining, by an orchestration system associated with the enterprise edge network, configuration data indicating a configuration associated with the first secure access node (Vasudevan Fig 1 S102 and associated [0030] configuration of entities (i.e. workloads) can be discovered and stored in a CMDB in step 104); and
based at least in part on the capacity meeting or exceeding the threshold capacity, spinning up, by the orchestration system, the second secure access node on resources of the cloud-computing network (Fig 1 S110 and associated [0033] once a VM is replicated in the cloud, workload assets can be "powered on" (i.e. "spinning up") and any changes to the user-side workload asset can be updated in the cloud-computing platform side workload asset (i.e. creating a cloud facsimile)),
wherein the configuration associated with the first secure access node is replicated by the orchestration system in the second secure access node based at least in part on the configuration data (Fig 1 S102-S106 and [0030]-[0031] system can use the stored configuration of entities to perform a replication process to create a cloud facsimile of the entity based on the configuration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned method/system to include replicating a first workload by using stored configuration information as taught by Vasudevan. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to store configuration information so that a facsimile workload can be created based on said configuration. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Vinberg and Vasudevan to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 16, Vinberg and Vasudevan disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 15.
Vinberg does not disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the configuration data is indicative of a networking policy associated with the first secure access node.
In the same field of endeavor of offloading of workloads from the edge to the cloud based on capacity, Vasudevan does disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the configuration data is indicative of a networking policy associated with the first secure access node (Vasudevan Fig 1 S110 and associated [0033] workload asset in the cloud can be powered on and brought online (e.g. assigned network IP addresses, assigned security policies, etc.) based on stored configuration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned method/system to include configuring a workload with a networking policy as taught by Vasudevan. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to give a network policy in order to enable offloading of workloads to the cloud without compromising security. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Vinberg and Vasudevan to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 18, Vinberg discloses the below limitation(s):One or more non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed, cause one or more processors (Vinberg Fig 6 processing unit 604 and system memory 606) to perform operations comprising:
running a first secure access node hosted on a cloud-computing network that is remote from an enterprise edge network (Fig 3 physical deployment of workload(s)),
determining that a capacity associated with the first secure access node meets or exceeds a threshold capacity ([0064] monitoring system may determine that the number of incoming requests is exceeding the capacity of the VMs; see also [0030] wherein a threshold of available physical memory (i.e. a capacity) is disclosed);
based at least in part on the capacity meeting or exceeding the threshold capacity, spinning up a second secure access node hosted on the cloud-computing network, the second secure access node being a facsimile of the first secure access node ([0064] monitoring device may send an event to deploy another instance of that workload; see also [0067] and [0090] which teach migration of a workload from one computing device to another); and
based at least in part on the capacity meeting or exceeding the threshold capacity, redirecting a client device to establish a connection with the second secure access node hosted on the cloud-computing network ([0091] moving a VM from one device to another due to capacity).
Vinberg does not disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the first secure access node is a facsimile of a secure access node on devices of the enterprise edge network;
In the same field of endeavor of offloading of workloads from the edge to the cloud based on capacity, Vasudevan does disclose the below limitation(s): running a first secure access node hosted on a cloud-computing network that is remote from an enterprise edge network (Vasudevan Fig 1 S106 and associated [0032]-[0032] teaches security of cloud-hosted workloads, which is interpreted as reading on "secure access node"),
wherein the first secure access node is a facsimile of a secure access node on devices of the enterprise edge network (Fig 1 S106 and associated [0031] replication can include the process of moving workload data (e.g. VM's, etc.) from a user-side platform (e.g. enterprise edge) to a cloud-computing platform);
based at least in part on the capacity meeting or exceeding the threshold capacity, spinning up a second secure access node hosted on the cloud-computing network, the second secure access node being a facsimile of the first secure access node (Fig 1 S110 and associated [0033] once a VM is replicated in the cloud, workload assets can be "powered on" (i.e. "spinning up") and any changes to the user-side workload asset can be updated in the cloud-computing platform side workload asset (i.e. creating a cloud facsimile)); and
based at least in part on the capacity meeting or exceeding the threshold capacity, redirecting a client device to establish a connection with the second secure access node hosted on the cloud-computing network (Fig 1 S106 and associated [0031] replication can include the process of moving workload data (e.g. VM's, etc.) from a user-side platform (e.g. enterprise edge) to a cloud-computing platform).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the teaching of Vinberg to include replicating a workload (i.e. creating a facsimile) in the cloud when capacity at the edge exceeds a threshold as taught by Vasudevan. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to dynamically offload workloads to the cloud when local resources do not have capacity to perform said workload(s) while maintaining continuity of service for the client. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Vinberg and Vasudevan to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Claim(s) 2-3, 10-11, 13-14 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vinberg in view of Vasudevan and further in view of Christenson (US 2016/0034294 A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Vinberg and Vasudevan disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 1.
Vinberg further discloses the below limitation(s): based at least in part on the capacity being less than the threshold capacity, causing the connection to be established between the client device and the first workload (Vinberg [0064] monitoring device may send an event to deploy another instance of that workload; see also [0067] and [0090] which teach migration of a workload from one computing device to another).
Vinberg and Vasudevan do not disclose the below limitation(s): determining that the capacity associated with the first workload is less than the threshold capacity;
In the same field of endeavor of offloading of workloads from the edge to the cloud based on capacity, Christenson does disclose the below limitation(s): determining that the capacity associated with the first workload is less than the threshold capacity (Christenson [0020] discloses a cloned virtual machine deploy scheme that teaches if resources used are below a certain threshold (e.g. 15% networking capacity), then the copying segments may occur in the background, which is interpreted as creating a facsimile of a workload when networking capacity is below a threshold);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned method/system to include monitoring capacity and deploying VMs when capacity is below a threshold as taught by Christenson. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to offload to the cloud when local resources are insufficient to serve the client. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Vinberg, Vasudevan and Christenson to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 3, Vinberg and Vasudevan disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 1.
Vinberg further discloses the below limitation(s): based at least in part on the capacity being less than the threshold capacity, causing new connections to be established between client devices and the first workload while maintaining the connection between the client device and the second workload hosted on the cloud-computing network (Vinberg [0064] monitoring system may determine that the number of incoming requests is exceeding the capacity of the VMs and may send an event to deploy another instance of that workload; [0091] moving a VM from one device to another due to capacity).
Vinberg and Vasudevan do not disclose the below limitation(s): determining that the capacity associated with the first workload is less than the threshold capacity;
In the same field of endeavor of offloading of workloads from the edge to the cloud based on capacity, Christenson does disclose the below limitation(s): determining that the capacity associated with the first workload is less than the threshold capacity (Christenson [0020] discloses a cloned virtual machine deploy scheme that teaches if resources used are below a certain threshold (e.g. 15% networking capacity), then the copying segments may occur in the background, which is interpreted as creating a facsimile of a workload when networking capacity is below a threshold);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned method/system to include monitoring capacity and deploying VMs when capacity is below a threshold as taught by Christenson. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to offload to the cloud when local resources are insufficient to serve the client. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Vinberg, Vasudevan and Christenson to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 10, Vinberg and Vasudevan disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 1.
Vinberg further discloses the below limitation(s): receiving, at the monitor, capacity data indicating the capacity associated with the determining, by the monitor and based at least in part on the utilization data and the capacity data, that the capacity meets or exceeds the threshold capacity. first workload (Vinberg [0064] monitoring system may determine that the number of incoming requests is exceeding the aggregate capacity of the devices/VMs, which examiner is interpreting as requiring the monitor to have knowledge of workload capacity); and
determining, by the monitor and based at least in part on the utilization data and the capacity data, that the capacity meets or exceeds the threshold capacity ([0064] monitoring system may determine that the number of incoming requests is exceeding the capacity of the VMs).
Vinberg and Vasudevan do not disclose the below limitation(s): receiving, at a monitor of the cloud-computing network, utilization data indicating a utilization history associated with the first workload;
In the same field of endeavor of offloading of workloads from the edge to the cloud based on capacity, Christenson does disclose the below limitation(s): receiving, at a monitor of the cloud-computing network, utilization data indicating a utilization history associated with the first workload (Christenson Fig 9F and associated [0089]-[0091] teach a hypervisor determining deployment of virtual machines based on a deployment history file, and specifically [0091] hypervisor determines a deployment pattern from the history file to determine the virtual memory segments of master image (i.e. utilization history));
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned method/system to include using historical data to determine a utilization history as taught by Christenson. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to use historical data to set a capacity threshold on a per-network basis. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Vinberg, Vasudevan and Christenson to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 11, Vinberg, Vasudevan and Christenson disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 10.
Vinberg does not disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the monitor determines that the capacity meets or exceeds the threshold capacity at least partially using machine-learning techniques.
In the same field of endeavor of offloading of workloads from the edge to the cloud based on capacity, Vasudevan does disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the monitor determines that the capacity meets or exceeds the threshold capacity at least partially using machine-learning techniques (Vasudevan [0034] the orchestration process (which comprises the monitor) can be customized and automated, wherein automation is interpreted as "machine-learning techniques").
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned method/system to include automating the monitoring as taught by Vasudevan. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to automate the monitoring to enable dynamic VM deployment with reduced delay. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Vinberg, Vasudevan and Christenson to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 13, Vinberg and Vasudevan disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 12.
Vinberg further discloses the below limitation(s): based at least in part on the capacity being less than the threshold capacity, causing the connection to be established between the client device and the first secure access node (Vinberg [0064] monitoring device may send an event to deploy another instance of that workload; see also [0067] and [0090] which teach migration of a workload from one computing device to another).
Vinberg and Vasudevan do not disclose the below limitation(s): determining that the capacity associated with the first secure access node is less than the threshold capacity; and
In the same field of endeavor of offloading of workloads from the edge to the cloud based on capacity, Christenson does disclose the below limitation(s): determining that the capacity associated with the first secure access node is less than the threshold capacity (Christenson [0020] discloses a cloned virtual machine deploy scheme that teaches if resources used are below a certain threshold (e.g. 15% networking capacity), then the copying segments may occur in the background, which is interpreted as creating a facsimile of a workload when networking capacity is below a threshold);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned method/system to include monitoring capacity and deploying VMs when capacity is below a threshold as taught by Christenson. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to offload to the cloud when local resources are insufficient to serve the client. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Vinberg, Vasudevan and Christenson to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 14, Vinberg and Vasudevan disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 12.
Vinberg further discloses the below limitation(s): based at least in part on the capacity being less than the threshold capacity, causing new connections to be established between client devices and the first secure access node while maintaining the connection between the client device and the second secure access node hosted on the cloud-computing network (Vinberg [0064] monitoring system may determine that the number of incoming requests is exceeding the capacity of the VMs and may send an event to deploy another instance of that workload; [0091] moving a VM from one device to another due to capacity).
Vinberg and Vasudevan do not disclose the below limitation(s): determining that the capacity associated with the first secure access node is less than the threshold capacity; and
In the same field of endeavor of offloading of workloads from the edge to the cloud based on capacity, Christenson does disclose the below limitation(s): determining that the capacity associated with the first secure access node is less than the threshold capacity (Christenson [0020] discloses a cloned virtual machine deploy scheme that teaches if resources used are below a certain threshold (e.g. 15% networking capacity), then the copying segments may occur in the background, which is interpreted as creating a facsimile of a workload when networking capacity is below a threshold);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned method/system to include monitoring capacity and deploying VMs when capacity is below a threshold as taught by Christenson. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to offload to the cloud when local resources are insufficient to serve the client. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Vinberg, Vasudevan and Christenson to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 19, Vinberg and Vasudevan disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 18.
Vinberg further discloses the below limitation(s): based at least in part on the capacity being less than the threshold capacity, causing the connection to be established between the client device and the first secure access node (Vinberg [0064] monitoring device may send an event to deploy another instance of that workload; see also [0067] and [0090] which teach migration of a workload from one computing device to another).
Vinberg and Vasudevan do not disclose the below limitation(s): determining that the capacity associated with the first secure access node is less than the threshold capacity; and
In the same field of endeavor of offloading of workloads from the edge to the cloud based on capacity, Christenson does disclose the below limitation(s): determining that the capacity associated with the first secure access node is less than the threshold capacity (Christenson [0020] discloses a cloned virtual machine deploy scheme that teaches if resources used are below a certain threshold (e.g. 15% networking capacity), then the copying segments may occur in the background, which is interpreted as creating a facsimile of a workload when networking capacity is below a threshold);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned method/system to include monitoring capacity and deploying VMs when capacity is below a threshold as taught by Christenson. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to offload to the cloud when local resources are insufficient to serve the client. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Vinberg, Vasudevan and Christenson to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 20, Vinberg and Vasudevan disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 18.
Vinberg further discloses the below limitation(s): based at least in part on the capacity being less than the threshold capacity, causing new connections to be established between client devices and the first secure access node while maintaining the connection between the client device and the second secure access node hosted on the cloud-computing network (Vinberg [0064] monitoring system may determine that the number of incoming requests is exceeding the capacity of the VMs and may send an event to deploy another instance of that workload; [0091] moving a VM from one device to another due to capacity).
Vinberg and Vasudevan do not disclose the below limitation(s): determining that the capacity associated with the first secure access node is less than the threshold capacity; and
In the same field of endeavor of offloading of workloads from the edge to the cloud based on capacity, Christenson does disclose the below limitation(s): determining that the capacity associated with the first secure access node is less than the threshold capacity (Christenson [0020] discloses a cloned virtual machine deploy scheme that teaches if resources used are below a certain threshold (e.g. 15% networking capacity), then the copying segments may occur in the background, which is interpreted as creating a facsimile of a workload when networking capacity is below a threshold);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned method/system to include monitoring capacity and deploying VMs when capacity is below a threshold as taught by Christenson. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to offload to the cloud when local resources are insufficient to serve the client. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Vinberg, Vasudevan and Christenson to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Claim(s) 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vinberg in view of Vasudevan and further in view of Shankar (US 2022/0327003 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Vinberg and Vasudevan disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 1.
Vinberg and Vasudevan do not disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the connection is at least one of a virtual private network (VPN) connection, a Zero Trust Networking (ZTN) connection, a reverse proxy connection, or a forward proxy connection, and
wherein the first secure access node and the second secure access node are associated with a security function.
In the same field of endeavor of offloading of workloads from the edge to the cloud based on capacity, Shankar does disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the connection is at least one of a virtual private network (VPN) connection, a Zero Trust Networking (ZTN) connection, a reverse proxy connection, or a forward proxy connection (Shankar [0087] teaches workloads hosted at an edge, wherein the edge devices are connected over a VPN), and
wherein the first secure access node and the second secure access node are associated with a security function ([0032] edge computing may be used for remote computing requiring elevated security; [0051] service may be encrypted (e.g. with MACsec) and may execute in secure environments).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned method/system to include using a VPN, ZTN, or proxy connection to connect a client with a workload hosted on the cloud as taught by Shankar. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to provide security for the client’s workload when executed off premises. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Vinberg, Vasudevan and Shankar to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding Claim 17, Vinberg and Vasudevan disclose the limitation(s) of Claim 12.
Vinberg and Vasudevan do not disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the connection is at least one of a virtual private network (VPN) connection, a Zero Trust Networking (ZTN) connection, a reverse proxy connection, or a forward proxy connection, and
wherein the first secure access node and the second secure access node are associated with a security function.
In the same field of endeavor of offloading of workloads from the edge to the cloud based on capacity, Shankar does disclose the below limitation(s): wherein the connection is at least one of a virtual private network (VPN) connection, a Zero Trust Networking (ZTN) connection, a reverse proxy connection, or a forward proxy connection (Shankar [0087] teaches workloads hosted at an edge, wherein the edge devices are connected over a VPN), and
wherein the first secure access node and the second secure access node are associated with a security function ([0032] edge computing may be used for remote computing requiring elevated security; [0051] service may be encrypted (e.g. with MACsec) and may execute in secure environments).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the aforementioned method/system to include using a VPN, ZTN, or proxy connection to connect a client with a workload hosted on the cloud as taught by Shankar. The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to provide security for the client’s workload when executed off premises. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Vinberg, Vasudevan and Shankar to obtain the invention, as specified in the instant claim.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAWN D MILLER whose telephone number is (571)272-8599. The examiner can normally be reached M-TR 8-5.
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, Charles C Jiang can be reached at (571) 270-7191. 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.
/SHAWN D MILLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights