Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to claims filed on August 21, 2024. Claims 1-20 are pending and presented for examination.
Authorization for Internet Communication
To expedite prosecution, filing a written authorization for internet communication is recommended. Doing so permits the USPTO to communicate using email to schedule interviews and/or discuss other aspects of the application. Without a written authorization in place, the USPTO cannot respond to email communications. The preferred method of providing authorization is by filing form PTO/SB/439, available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patent/forms/forms. See MPEP § 502.03.
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. It is important that the abstract not exceed 150 words in length since the space provided for the abstract on the computer tape used by the printer is limited. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
Examiner's note: It is recommended to amend the abstract to briefly describe the claimed invention according to the above guidelines.
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 1-5, 7-12 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupte et al “Gupte”, US-PGPub. No. 20160241446 in view of Banerjee et al “Banerjee”, US-PGPub. No. 20120239792.
As per claims 1, 8 and 15, Gupte teaches a method, one or more non-transitory computer-readable media and a system comprising:
one or more processing systems (Paragraph(s) [0069]); and
one or more computer-readable media (Paragraph(s) [0069]) storing instructions which, when executed by the one or more processing systems, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
receiving, by a first cloud environment and from a second cloud environment, a request for a cloud service, the cloud service being selected from among a plurality of cloud services provided by a cloud service provider associated with the first cloud environment (Fig. 1, Paragraph(s) [0013-0014], [0016]; a cloud service manager may manage cloud services in a private cloud, a public cloud or executed as a Software as a service (SaaS) delivery model. Cloud services provided to users over a network may be designed, provisioned, deployed, and managed using a cloud service manager. An entity or individual designs, provisions, deploys, and manages a cloud service that appropriately comprises of a number of services, applications, platforms or infrastructure capabilities deployed, executed, and managed in a cloud environment. These designs may then be offered to user who may order, request, and subscribe to them from a catalog via a market place or via an API call, and then manage the lifecycles of a cloud service deployed based on the designs through the same mechanism. Gupte further discloses service offerings may be generated as instantiations of blueprints. The blueprints may be promoted and aggregated into a number of service offerings and provided to a user requesting the cloud service via the catalog (106) (Paragraph(s) [0035-0036]));
after receiving the request, performing, by the first cloud environment, a set of operations associated with provisioning the cloud service in the second cloud environment, wherein at least one operation of the set of operations comprises establishing network connectivity between a first private cloud of the first cloud environment, a second private cloud of the first cloud environment, and a third private cloud of the second cloud environment (Fig. 1, Paragraph(s) [0050], [0064]; provisioning (block 804) may include calling the child cloud service manager (Fig. 1, 104) that is to provide a service design and resources. In other words, once a service offering has been subscribed to, a number of child cloud service managers that are resource providers (Fig. 3, 307) will be invoked to provision the resource. The service may then be controlled (block 805) via the master cloud service manager (Fig. 1, 103). More specifically, a master cloud service manager (Fig. 1, 103) may include carrying out life cycle management operations for the secondary cloud (Fig. 1, 104). Gupte further discloses managing a number of secondary clouds by a master cloud service manager, including coupling a first cloud (Fig. 1, 101) to a secondary cloud (Fig. 1, 102). The secondary cloud or a number of secondary clouds may be private clouds, offering services to a limited number of people, for example a single organization (Fig. 2, Paragraph(s) [0039]). In addition, Gupte teaches a first resource provider (307 a) may be located in a first secondary cloud (302 a). Similarly, second (307 b), third (307 c), and fourth (307 d) resource providers may be located in a second (302 b), third (302 c), and fourth (302 d) secondary cloud, respectively (Paragraph [0044])); and
after performing the set of operations, provisioning the cloud service in the third private cloud, wherein provisioning the cloud service in the third private cloud enables data pertaining to the cloud service to flow between the third private cloud and at least one of the first private cloud and the second private cloud (Paragraph(s) [0028], [0043-0044], [0064]; managing a number of secondary clouds by a master cloud service manager. For example, a cloud service manager may instantiate, provision, deploy, monitor, handle events, remediate incidents, and manage cloud services offered on a cloud. In some examples, a cloud service manager may orchestrate the use of application programming interfaces (APIs) for managing the lifecycles of the cloud services).
Gupte fails to expressly teach but Banerjee discloses establishing network connectivity prerequisites for network connectivity between the first private cloud and the second private cloud (Paragraph(s) [0011], [0027], [0034]; receiving a request specifying a topology for a first cloud service to be hosted by one of a plurality of data centers which provide computing resources for hosting a plurality of cloud services, including resource requirements and connectivity requirements for the first cloud service).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicants' invention to modify the teaching of Gupte to include the feature of calculating a plurality of connection metrics for each data center including geographical proximity, network proximity, network performance, capability to fulfill a request, and resource availability to support a new cloud service workload, as taught by Banerjee (see Paragraph(s) [0034]) in order to provide more suitable computing resource(s) for the cloud service workload.
As per claims 2, 9 and 16, Gupte teaches wherein the request is initiated in response to a customer device interacting with a portal of the second cloud environment, and wherein the customer device is associated with a customer account corresponding to a cloud service provider associated with the second cloud environment (Fig. 7, Paragraph(s) [0016], [0037], [0058]; receive login to user portal).
As per claims 3, 10 and 17, Gupte teaches wherein the request identifies a type of the cloud service, and wherein provisioning the cloud service connects virtual resources of a subnet of the first private cloud with the second private cloud based at least in-part on the type of the cloud service (Fig. 7, Paragraph(s) [0059]; present user portal).
As per claims 4, 11 and 18, Gupte teaches wherein connecting the virtual resources of the subnet of the first private cloud with the second private cloud causes the subnet of the first private cloud to serve as a private endpoint that maps to a component of the second private cloud (Gupte - Paragraph(s) [0039], [0050], [0064]).
However, Gupte fails to expressly teach but Banerjee discloses to establishing network connectivity between the first private cloud and the second private cloud based on the network connectivity prerequisites (Banerjee - Paragraph(s) [0011], [0027], [0034]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicants' invention to modify the teaching of Gupte to include the feature of calculating a plurality of connection metrics for each data center including geographical proximity, network proximity, network performance, capability to fulfill a request, and resource availability to support a new cloud service workload, as taught by Banerjee (see Paragraph(s) [0034]) in order to provide more suitable computing resource(s) for the cloud service workload.
As per claims 5, 12 and 19, Gupte teaches wherein provisioning the cloud service in the third private cloud comprises causing a virtual machine to be provisioned in the first private cloud (Paragraph(s) [0039], [0050], [0064]).
As per claims 7 and 14, Gupte teaches prior to receiving, by the first cloud environment and from the second cloud environment, the request for the cloud service, integrating the first private cloud with the third private cloud by linking an identifier associated with a component of the first cloud environment to an identifier associated with the third private cloud (Paragraph(s) [0018], [0027], [0039]).
Claims 6, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gupte et al “Gupte”, US-PGPub. No. 20160241446 in view of Banerjee et al “Banerjee”, US-PGPub. No. 20120239792 in further view of Woodworth et al “Woodworth”, US-PGPub. No. 20230216738.
As per claims 6, 13 and 20, while Gupte in view of Banerjee teach wherein establishing the network connectivity prerequisites between a first private cloud and a second private cloud as explained above in claim 1, however, Gupte in view of Banerjee fail to explicitly teach but Woodworth discloses creating a first subnet within the first private cloud, creating a second subnet within the second private cloud, and associating the first subnet with a third subnet within the third private cloud, wherein at least one Internet Protocol address associated with the first subnet and at least one Internet Protocol address associated with the third subnet are within a Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR) range (Fig. 1, Paragraph(s) [0041]; the network 110 may include multiple subnets 111 and 112 where computing devices (e.g., first servers 131 within first subnet 111 and second servers 132 within second subnet 112) may be assigned IP addresses within particular IP address ranges (e.g., classless inter-domain routing or CIDR ranges) corresponding to the subnets).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicants' invention to modify the teachings of Gupte in view of Banerjee to include the feature of using CIDR in network addressing, as taught by Woodworth (see Paragraph(s) [0041], [0050-0051]) because it provides a more efficient use of IP addresses, which prevents waste by allocating blocks of the exact size needed, and reduced routing table sizes, which is achieved by aggregating multiple smaller routes into larger ones, leading to improved network performance, scalability, and simpler network administration.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please refer to form PTO-892 (Notice of Reference Cited) for a list of relevant prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED A WASEL whose telephone number is (571) 272-2669. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (8:00 am – 4:30 pm).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Glenton Burgess can be reached on (571)272-3949. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free)? If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMED A. WASEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights