DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application.
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 .
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.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0022609 A1), in view of Thompson et al. (Patent No. US 9,170,852 B2) in view of Premnadh et al. (Pub. No. US 2024/0168814 A1).
As to claim 1, Smith discloses a computer implemented method for updating a node in an orchestration platform, the computer implemented method comprising:
receiving, by a processor set, a patch of a disruptive update for the node wherein the node is a control plane node that is configured to run workloads (Smith [0071] lines 1-4, [0072] lines 10-14, [0077] lines 1-14 and [0327] lines 4-18; which show the receiving of an update that can be a disruptive update for a node for running workloads)
generating, by the processor set, a copy for the node in the orchestration platform (Smith [0109] lines 1-7, [0111] lines 1-7, [0112] lines 1-15 and [0113] lines 1-7; that shows as part of the update associated with nodes and workflow in an orchestration system/platform being able to migrate with the use of a clone/replication of the provisioned resource/node, viewed as showing that a clone/copy of the node is generated/created);
allocating, by the processor set, the workloads for the node to the copy for the node (Smith [0111] lines 1-7, [0112] lines 1-15 and [0113] lines 1-7; which shows the migration/allocation of the currently executing workload to the newly provisioned/cloned/copy node).
Smith does not specifically disclose the specifics of the node in the orchestration platform, wherein the node is a control plane node that is configured to run workloads; updating, by the processor set, the node using the patch of the disruptive update, wherein the workloads are running on the copy for the node when the node is updating; and allocating, by the processor set, the workloads from the copy for the node back to the node upon finishing the disruptive update.
However, Thompson discloses updating, by the processor set, the node using the patch of the disruptive update, wherein the workloads are running on the copy for the node when the node is updating (Thompson Col. 3 line 20-26 and Col. 5 lines 28-48; which shows the updating the node that have had its workload moved to other nodes to continue running services/workload); and
allocating, by the processor set, the workloads from the copy for the node back to the node upon finishing the disruptive update (Thompson Col. 3 line 20-26, Col. 5 lines 42- Col. 6 line 2; that show that once the node is update the workloads that were updated to the other node can be allocated/moved back to the updated node to resume running on the updated node, where the specifics of the other node being a copy node seen disclosed in the teachings of Smith above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Thompson showing the specifics of moving workloads back to updated node after node updating into the applying of a disruptive node update of Smith for the purpose of improving the efficiency of resource usage, as taught by Thompson Col. 11 lines 31-36
Smith as modified by Thompson do not specifically disclose the specifics of the node in the orchestration platform, wherein the node is a control plane node that is configured to run workloads.
However, Premnadh discloses the specifics of the node being the node in the orchestration platform, wherein the node is a control plane node that is configured to run workloads (Premnadh [0026] lines 1-18; which shows a node in cluster nodes acting as orchestrators of a workload is selected to become a root node that is able to manage, execute and distribute workloads to other cluster nodes, thus acting as control plane node that is configured to run workloads as part of an orchestration platform).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Premnadh showing the specifics of node configured to act as control plane node and run workloads, into the nodes running workloads of Smith as modified by Thompson for the purpose of increasing the adaptability of nodes in a workload cluster so that nodes can be both root/control plane nodes and worker nodes, as taught by Premnadh [0028] lines 1-18.
As to claim 8, Smith discloses a computer system comprising: a processor set (Smith [0327] lines 3-18);
a set of one or more computer-readable storage media (Smith [0320] lines 1-17); and
program instructions, collectively stored in the set of one or more storage media, for causing the processor set to perform the following computer operations (Smith [0320] lines 1-17 and [0327] lines 3-18):
The remaining limitation of the claim are comparable to claim 1 above and rejected under the same reasoning.
As to claim 15, Smith discloses a computer program product for updating a node in an orchestration platform, the computer program product comprising: a set of one or more computer-readable storage media (Smith [0320] lines 1-17);
program instructions, collectively stored in the set of one or more storage media, cause a processor set to perform the following computer operations (Smith [0320] lines 1-17 and [0327] lines 3-18):
The remaining limitation of the claim are comparable to claim 1 above and rejected under the same reasoning.
Claims 2, 4, 9, 11, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, Thompson and Premnadh as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of Cawlfield et al. (Pub. No. US 2013/0160007 A1).
As to claims 2, 9 and 16 Smith discloses placing, by the processor set, the copy for the node into the logical partition (Smith [0111] lines 1-7 and [0112] lines 1-15; which shows the specifics of placing/provisions the new/clone/copy of node into a local logical partition).
Smith as modified by Thompson and Premnadh do not specifically disclose determining, by the processor set, whether a logical partition has sufficient computing resources to store the copy for the node, wherein the node is located in the logical partition; and in response to determining that the logical partition has sufficient computing resources to store the copy for the node, placing, by the processor set, the copy for the node into the logical partition.
However, Cawlfield discloses determining, by the processor set, whether a logical partition has sufficient computing resources to store the copy for the node, wherein the node is located in the logical partition(Cawlfield [0029] lines 15-19, [0032] lines 1-7, [0035] lines 1-13, [0049] lines 1-10, [0050] lines 1-14 and [0102] lines 7-22; which shows being able to determine in a logical partition has enough locally available resources to satisfy the reservation request, where the logical partition includes hardware software and firmware resources currently configured in the logical partition, viewed as including a current node resources on a logical partition, where it is viewed that determining if the logical partition has sufficient computing resources to store the copy of the node is a type of reservation request for that operations, where the specifics of generating/performing the copy of the node are seen disclosed in the teachings of Smith above); and
in response to determining that the logical partition has sufficient computing resources to store the copy for the node, placing, by the processor set, the copy for the node into the logical partition(Cawlfield [0102] lines 7-24; which shows in response to determining there are available resources available for the request return and grant the resources associated with the request, that in light of the teachings of Smith above showing the specifics of the performing the copy of the node in the logical partition work can together be viewed as showing in response to determining that the logical partition has sufficient computing resources to store the copy for the node, placing, by the processor set, the copy for the node into the logical partition).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Cawlfield showing the specifics of determine that a logical partition has enough resources available for a specifics request into the generation of a copy of a node request of Smith as modified by Thompson and Premnadh for the purpose of improve request handling though resource management, as taught by Cawlfield [0005] lines 1-7.
As to claims 4, 11 and 18 Smith as modified by Thompson and Premnadh do not specifically disclose, however, Cawlfield discloses in response to determining that the logical partition does not have sufficient computing resources to store the copy for the node, reconfiguring, by the processor set, the logical partition to increase available computing resources in the logical partition; and placing, by the processor set, the copy for the node into the logical partition (Cawlfield [0029] lines 15-19, [0032] lines 1-7, [0035] lines 1-13, [0049] lines 1-10, [0050] lines 1-14, [0102] lines 7-22 [0103] lines 1-12 and [0107] lines 1-18; which shows in response to determine that there are not enough local resources at the logical partition for the request/operation checking other logical partitions if they have available resources that can be migrated or if the other logical partitions themselves can be migrated to free up resources for the logical partition to use, viewed as reconfigured to use by increasing available computing resources for it to use/access and performing the associated operation that requested/uses those resources, that in light of the teachings of Smith above showing the placing the clone of the node in the logical partition can be viewed together as showing in response to determining that the logical partition does not have sufficient computing resources to store the copy for the node, reconfiguring, by the processor set, the logical partition to increase available computing resources in the logical partition; and placing, by the processor set, the copy for the node into the logical partition).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Cawlfield showing the specifics of determine that a logical partition has enough resources available for a specifics request into the generation of a copy of a node request of Smith as modified by Thompson and Premnadh for the purpose of improve request handling though resource management, as taught by Cawlfield [0005] lines 1-7.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, Thompson, Premnadh and Cawlfield as applied to claims 2, 9 and 16 above, and further in view of Cao et al. (Pub. No. US 2015/0128135 A1).
As to claims 3, 10 and 17 Smith as modified by Thompson, Premnadh and Cawlfield do not specifically disclose in response to determining that the logical partition does not have sufficient computing resources to store the copy for the node, identifying, by the processor set, a second logical partition for placing the copy for the node, wherein the second logical partition has lowest latency for the copy for the node to run the workloads.
However, Cao discloses in response to determining that the logical partition does not have sufficient computing resources to store the copy for the node, identifying, by the processor set, a second logical partition for placing the copy for the node, wherein the second logical partition has lowest latency for the copy for the node to run the workloads (Cao [0022] lines 1-14 [0030] lines 1-14 and [0069] lines 1-11; which shows being able to determine when there are not sufficient enough resources for the template in the logical/virtual machine, viewed as logical partition and when that happens being able to determine a logical/virtual machine with sufficient resources for the template element, where a template element can be processing or stream operators that perform a set of actions, where the specific selection/insertion point for the template is also based on optimal option that can include specific network latency, where optimal latency is viewed as lowest/least latency, where the specifics of the operation being associated with a copy for the node to run the workloads is seen in the specific teachings of Smith above and thus together can be viewed as showing in response to determining that the logical partition does not have sufficient computing resources to store the copy for the node, identifying, by the processor set, a second logical partition for placing the copy for the node, wherein the second logical partition has lowest latency for the copy for the node to run the workloads).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Cao showing the assigning processes to host based on resource availability and cost into the resource determination availability for a host processing element of a request of Smith as modified by Thompson, Premnadh and Cawlfield for the purpose of determining optimal assignment of the requested element in a distributed environment as taught by Cao [0022] lines 1-14.
Claims 5-6, 12-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, Thompson and Premnadh as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of Huang et al. (Pub. No. US 2018/0332105 A1)
As to claims 5, 12 and 19 Smith as modified by Thompson and Premnadh do not specifically disclose attaching, by the processor set, a network interface to the copy for the node, wherein the network interface comprises an internet protocol (IP) address and a medium access control (MAC) address that can be assigned to the copy for the node.
However, Huang discloses attaching, by the processor set, a network interface to the copy for the node, wherein the network interface comprises an internet protocol (IP) address and a medium access control (MAC) address that can be assigned to the copy for the node (Huang [0230] lines 12-21, [0231] lines 14-22 and [0243] lines 9-11; which shows for a node/virtual machine created being able to associate, viewed as being attached, that virtual machine/node with a created virtual network interface card include ip address and mac address assigned to them and thus assigned to the associated node/virtual machine created).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Huang showing the specifics of associating network interface information with created virtual machine elements into the creation of a copy of a node of Smith as modified by Thompson and Premnadh for the purpose of increasing the adaptability of the created virtual machine so can connect with specifically specified elements as taught by Huang [0230] lines 12-21.
As to claims 6 and 13 Smith as modified by Thompson and Premnadh do not specifically disclose, however, Huang discloses adding, by the processor set, the internet protocol (IP) address and the medium access control (MAC) address that can be assigned to the copy for the node to a network load balancer for the orchestration platform (Huang [0230] lines 12-21, [0231] lines 14-22 and [0243] lines 9-11; which shows that the virtual network interface card that is created that include IP address and MAC address and can be assigned/connected/tied to a specific load balancing virtual machine, viewed as the load balancer for the orchestration platform);
assigning, by the processor set, the internet protocol (IP) address and the medium access control (MAC) address to the copy for the node (Huang [0230] lines 12-21, [0231] lines 14-22 and [0243] lines 9-11; which shows that the created virtual network interface card that includes IP address and MAC address can also be for a specific virtual machine and thus by attaching/assigning/connecting the virtual network interface card to the virtual machine viewed as assigning the IP address and MAC address to a created VM node, that in light of the teachings of Smith above showing the creating/cloning a node copy can be viewed together as showing assigning, by the processor set, the internet protocol (IP) address and the medium access control (MAC) address to the copy for the node); and
routing, by the processor set using the network load balancer, the workloads from the node to the copy for the node (Huang [0148] lines 1-7, [0244] lines 1-2, [0245] lines 1-15, [0246] lines 1-4 and [0260] lines 1-7; which shows being able to forward/route/send by a first node service packet/workload from the first node to the load balancer which is able to determine and forward/route the received service packet to a target second virtual machine/node for processing the service packet/workload, that in light of the teachings of Smith and Thompson above showing the specifics of the copy/clone of the node as the target/destination of the migrated/moved workflow and thus together can be viewed as showing routing, by the processor set using the network load balancer, the workloads from the node to the copy for the node ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Huang showing the specifics of associating network interface information with created virtual machine elements into the creation of a copy of a node of Smith as modified by Thompson and Premnadh for the purpose of increasing the adaptability of the created virtual machine so can connect with specifically specified elements as taught by Huang [0230] lines 12-21.
Claims 7, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, Thompson and Premnadh as applied to claims 1, 8 and 15 above, and further in view of Umesh et al. (Pub. No. US 2025/0094202 A1)
As to claims 7, 14 and 20 Smith does not specifically disclose, however, Thompson discloses setting, by the processor set, the copy for the node to be unavailable for running new workloads (Thompson Col. 5 lines 49- Col. 6 line 2, Col. 8 lines 5-13; which shows as part of the updating process of the nodes node state information related to the update can be set/written, where when the node is updated it can resuming running workloads, thus in update completed state, but when not in that state and in its updating state it is seen as not being able to run workloads and thus the associated state while updating can be viewed as an indication of the node is unavailable for running workloads, viewed as including new workloads when in an updating/migrating state, where the specifics of a node being a clone/copy of a node is seen in the teachings of Smith above and together would be viewed as showing setting, by the processor set, the copy for the node to be unavailable for running new workloads).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Thompson showing the specifics of moving workloads back to updated node after node updating into the applying of a disruptive node update of Smith for the purpose of improving the efficiency of resource usage, as taught by Thompson Col. 11 lines 31-36
Smith as modified by Thompson and Premnadh do not specifically disclose wherein allocating, by the processor set, the workloads from the copy for the node back to the node upon finishing the disruptive update comprises: connecting, by the processor set, the node and the copy for the node to form a two node cluster; terminating, by the processor set, the workloads running on the copy for the node in a sequential manner, wherein the workloads are restarted on the node according to sequence for the sequential manner after the workloads are terminated on the copy for the node; deleting, by the processor set, the copy for the node after all workloads running on the copy for the node are terminated.
However, Umesh discloses wherein allocating, by the processor set, the workloads from the copy for the node back to the node upon finishing the disruptive update comprises: connecting, by the processor set, the node and the copy for the node to form a two node cluster (Umesh [0006] lines 1-11; which shows as part of upgrading nodes/host in a cluster being able to add/connect a node/host that has already been updated to a cluster, thus in light of the teachings of Smith above showing the specifics of the copy node can be viewed together as showing connecting, by the processor set, the node and the copy for the node to form a two node cluster);
terminating, by the processor set, the workloads running on the copy for the node in a sequential manner, wherein the workloads are restarted on the node according to sequence for the sequential manner after the workloads are terminated on the copy for the node (Umesh [0032] lines 1-7; which shows the migration of VMs, viewed as type of workload, in a sequential manner from source to target with critical then non-critical elements are moved and run in that sequence/order, where the migration is the moving and thus viewed as a type of deletion/termination of the workload/VM from the host/node, that in light of Smith above disclosing the specifics of a clone/copy node/host for running workload can together be viewed as disclosing terminating, by the processor set, the workloads running on the copy for the node in a sequential manner, wherein the workloads are restarted on the node according to sequence for the sequential manner after the workloads are terminated on the copy for the node); and
deleting, by the processor set, the copy for the node after all workloads running on the copy for the node are terminated (Umesh [0044] lines 1-9 and [0045] lines 1-6; which shows as part of migration and updating of resources a host/node that is un updated can be removed/deleted after all the VMs/workload are moved/deleted, that in light of the teachings of Smith above discussing the specifics of the copy/clone node/host running workload can together be viewed as showing deleting, by the processor set, the copy for the node after all workloads running on the copy for the node are terminated ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to incorporate the teachings of Umesh showing the specifics of removing host elements from a cluster associated with updating elements into the updating elements of a cluster of Smith as modified by Thompson and Premnadh for the purpose of resource management by freeing up resources that are not being used for other uses, as taught by Umesh [0045] lines 1-6.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADFORD F WHEATON whose telephone number is (571)270-1779. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Chat Do can be reached at 571-272-3721. 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.
/BRADFORD F WHEATON/Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights