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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 08/26/2024 has been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites “create the corrected migration plan in which a workload for which the execution site is to be migrated is selected from workloads that are executed at the target site”. This appears to be self-contradictory, as the phrase “workloads that are executed at the target site” suggests that the workload is already present at the target site and thus does not need to be migrated from the execution site. The claim will be interpreted to recite “create the corrected migration plan in which a workload for which the execution site is to be migrated is selected from workloads that are executed at the execution site”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20110282982 A1 to Jain in light of US 20130123995 A1 to Saito et al. (herein "Saito").
Regarding claim 1, Jain teaches a site management apparatus for managing a plurality of sites capable of executing a workload for performing calculation processing,
the site management apparatus comprising a processor and a memory (Paragraph 138 “computer”), wherein
the memory is configured to store:
electric power management information indicating, for each of the sites, a forecast value of a target amount that is at least one of a supply amount, which is an amount of electric power from renewable energy to be supplied to the site (Paragraph 32 “The hosting sites 102 are managed according to data that includes realtime energy parameters, availability of renewable and non-renewable energy sources”, Paragraph 33 “A prediction model can be employed…availability of different energy sources such as solar and wind as used in the framework”), or a demand amount, which is an amount of electric power to be consumed at the site; and
load-related information indicating, for each workload, an electric power consumption amount that is an amount of electric power to be consumed by the workload (Paragraph 29 “power footprint per instance”), an execution site that is the site executing the workload (Paragraph 22 “These decisions are then actuated to migrate application instances from the current placement to the optimal placement” where the current location of the application instances is clearly known), and an estimated migration time that is an estimate of a migration time required to migrate the execution site to another site (Paragraph 75 “latency costs incurred in migrating the instances”), and
the processor is configured to: migrate the execution site of each workload in accordance with a migration plan for migrating the execution site of each workload created using the electric power management information (Paragraph 27 “An application placement component 122 automatically relocates application instances based on changes in the energy parameters, the availability of the energy sources”);
Jain does not teach: acquire error information indicating a deviation amount that is a magnitude of deviation between a first forecast value that is the forecast value indicated by electric power management information used to create the migration plan and a second forecast value of the target amount that is predicted after the first forecast value, and a deviation occurrence time point at which the deviation occurs; and
create a corrected migration plan, in which the migration plan is corrected, based on the error information and the load-related information.
However, Saito teaches acquire error information indicating a deviation amount that is a magnitude of deviation (Paragraph 46 “differential amount of power”) between a first forecast value that is the forecast value indicated by electric power management information amount that is predicted after the first forecast value (Paragraph 45 “The prediction performed after the first power demand prediction will be referred to as a second power demand prediction”), and a deviation occurrence time point at which the deviation occurs (Paragraph 8 “and a second predicted amount of power demand….prediction of power demand of the power consumer on the date and time in the future” where the deviation occurrence time point is the time associated with the second prediction); and
create a corrected power plan, in which the power plan is corrected, based on the error information and the load-related information (Paragraph 46 “demands are issued to the consumers to reduce the amount of power demand on the trading object day by an amount equal to the differential amount of power”).
While Saito does not specifically teach creating a corrected migration plan for workloads, it is the examiner’s interpretation that workloads represented as power demands are not substantially different from any power demand in general.
Both Jain and Saito are analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of managing electrical loads. While Jain teaches migrating workloads based on factors such as power, it does not teach migrating workloads based on a deviation amount in predicted power specifically. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the site management apparatus of Jain with the system of Saito in order to further enhance the migrations of Jain by using the predictions and deviation to reduce wasted power by adjusting power in advance (Paragraph 150 “In addition, a waste of electricity can be decreased by reducing the amount of power demand”).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Jain and Saito teaches the site management apparatus according to claim 1.
Jain also teaches wherein the processor is configured to create the
While Jain does not specifically teach creating a corrected migration plan or having the estimated migration time that is shorter than a time from a current time point to the deviation time point, Saito teaches the corrected migration plan taking into account electric power consumption loads and the deviation amount (see claim 1 analysis), as well as the current time point deviation occurrence time point (see claim 1 analysis). Additionally, it is the examiner’s interpretation that “a time from a current time point to the deviation occurrence time point” merely describes a kind of migration time constraint, which is not substantially different from any other time constraint wherein the migration must take place within a specified timeframe.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Jain and Saito teaches the site management apparatus according to claim 6.
Saito also teaches wherein the processor is configured to create the corrected power plan in which a power load is adjusted such that a sum of electric power consumption amounts of the adjusted loads a difference between the first predicted amount of power demand and the second predicted amount of power demand”).
While Saito does not specifically teach creating a corrected migration plan for workloads where the execution site is migrated, Jain teaches the migration plan for workloads where the execution site is migrated (see claim 1 analysis). Similarly to claim 1, it is the examiner’s interpretation that when described in terms of electrical power consumption, a workload is not substantially different from any power load in general.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Jain and Saito teaches the site management apparatus of claim 1.
Jain also teaches wherein the processor is configured to receive information indicating a target site that is the site for which the workload is to be migrated (Paragraph 32 “The application placement component 122 automatically relocates application instances between hosting sites based on the power optimization decisions” where the system must indicate target sites for the migration to take place), and to create the
Saito teaches creating the corrected migration plan (see claim 1 analysis).
Regarding claim 10, Jain teaches a site management method using a site management apparatus for managing a plurality of sites capable of executing a workload for performing calculation processing,
the site management apparatus including a processor and a memory (Paragraph 138 “computer”),
the method comprising:
the memory storing electric power management information indicating, for each of the sites, a forecast value of a target amount that is at least one of a supply amount, which is an amount of electric power from renewable energy to be supplied to the site (Paragraph 32 “The hosting sites 102 are managed according to data that includes realtime energy parameters, availability of renewable and non-renewable energy sources”, Paragraph 33 “A prediction model can be employed…availability of different energy sources such as solar and wind as used in the framework”) or a demand amount, which is an amount of electric power to be consumed at the site, and
load-related information indicating, for each workload, an electric power consumption amount that is an amount of electric power to be consumed by the workload (Paragraph 29 “power footprint per instance”), an execution site that is the site that executes the workload (Paragraph 22 “These decisions are then actuated to migrate application instances from the current placement to the optimal placement” where the current location of the application instances is clearly known), and an estimated migration time that is an estimate of a migration time required to migrate the execution site to another site (Paragraph 75 “latency costs incurred in migrating the instances”); and
by the processor migrating the execution site of each workload in accordance with a migration plan for migrating the execution site of the workload created using the electric power management information (Paragraph 27 “An application placement component 122 automatically relocates application instances based on changes in the energy parameters, the availability of the energy sources”).
Jain does not teach acquiring error information indicating a deviation amount that is a magnitude of deviation between a first forecast value that is the forecast value indicated by electric power management information used to create the migration plan and a second forecast value of the target amount that is predicted after the first forecast value, and a deviation occurrence time point at which the deviation occurs, and
creating a corrected migration plan in which the migration plan is corrected based on the error information and the load-related information.
However, Saito teaches acquiring error information indicating a deviation amount that is a magnitude of deviation (Paragraph 46 “differential amount of power”) between a first forecast value that is the forecast value indicated by electric power management information
creating a corrected power plan in which the power plan is corrected based on the error information and the load-related information (Paragraph 46 “demands are issued to the consumers to reduce the amount of power demand on the trading object day by an amount equal to the differential amount of power”).
While Saito does not specifically teach creating a corrected migration plan for workloads, it is the examiner’s interpretation that workloads represented as power demands are not substantially different from any power demand in general.
Both Jain and Saito are analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of managing electrical loads. While Jain teaches migrating workloads based on factors such as power, it does not teach migrating workloads based on a deviation amount in predicted power specifically. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the site management apparatus of Jain with the system of Saito in order to further enhance the migrations of Jain by using the predictions and deviation to reduce wasted power by adjusting power in advance (Paragraph 150 “In addition, a waste of electricity can be decreased by reducing the amount of power demand”).
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain in light of Saito, further in light of US 20100325634 A1 to Ichikawa et al. (herein "Ichikawa").
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Jain and Saito teaches the site management apparatus according to claim 1.
The combination of Jain and Saito does not teach wherein the load-related information further indicates, for each workload, a migration type that is a change method for changing the execution site permitted for the workload.
However, Ichikawa teaches wherein the load-related information further indicates, for each workload, a migration type that is a change method for changing the execution site permitted for the workload (Paragraph 3 “The migration means each have different stop time, execution speed and necessary resources”).
Both Jain and Ichikawa are analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of managing data migrations. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the system of Jain with the system of Ichikawa to improve the availability of the system and perform a migration more efficiently (Paragraph 95 “Consequently, migration of the virtual server can be performed more efficiently as compared with the embodiment”).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Jain, Saito, and Ichikawa teaches the site management apparatus according to claim 2.
Jain also teaches wherein the load-related information further indicates the execution site capable of executing the workload (Paragraph 38 “application instance information related to at least one of CPU usage and memory footprint size per instance”, Paragraph 80 “footprint of each instance can be included in the hosting capacity constraint”, Paragraph 104 “migrating instances from affected locations to other locations while meeting the constraints on hosting capacity” where the system is aware of execution sites capable of executing a workload based on footprint and hosting capacity).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain in light of Saito, further in light of Ichikawa, further in light of Data migration basics: A comprehensive guide by McEvily (herein "McEvily"), further in light of Dynamic Transparent General Purpose Process Migration For Linux by Zarrabi (herein "Zarrabi").
The combination of Jain, Saito, and Ichikawa teaches the site management apparatus according to claim 2.
The combination of Jain, Saito, and Ichikawa does not teach wherein the migration type includes data copy that copies data to be used in the workload from a migration source to a migration target of the execution site when the execution site is migrated, switch access path that does not copy the data to be used in the workload, and synchronization target migration that migrates the execution site to a site, to which data used by the workload is synchronously copied.
However, McEvily teaches wherein the migration type includes data copy that copies data to be used in the workload from a migration source to a migration target of the execution site when the execution site is migrated (page 7 “The Big Bang approach involves moving all data in a single operation from the current environment to the target environment”), and synchronization target migration that migrates the execution site to a site, to which data used by the workload is synchronously copied (page 7 “The phased migration approach is a trickle-down technique….approach enables the old system to remain operation and run parallel with the migration”).
Both Jain and McEvily are analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of managing data migrations. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the system of Jain with the migration types of McEvily. Such a combination would merely be combining prior art elements (system for managing data migrations, defined migration types) according to known ,methods to yield predictable results, where the predictable result would be a system for managing data migrations taking into account distinct strategies or types for a data migration.
The combination of Jain, Saito, Ichikawa and McEvily does not teach the switch access path that does not copy the data to be used in the workload.
However, Zarrabi teaches the switch access path that does not copy the data to be used in the workload (page 21 “The process state could remain on the source machine and the destination machine would forward the request for operation back to the source machine” where it is apparent that the data/process state is not copied to the destination machine).
Both Jain and Zarrabi are analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of managing data migrations. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the system of Jain with the switch access path of Zarrabi. Such a combination would merely be combining prior art elements (system for managing data migrations, switch access path type migration) according to known methods to yield predictable results, where the predictable result would be a system for managing data migrations that can take into account or use a switch access path type migration.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain in light of Saito, further in light of Ichikawa, further in light of US 20170235500 A1 to Reddy CH et al. (herein "Reddy").
The combination of Jain, Saito, and Ichikawa teaches the site management apparatus according to claim 2.
Ichikawa also teaches wherein the processor is configured to calculate the estimated migration time based on the migration type (Paragraph 6 “calculating the migration time required of the virtual server by the migration means”).
Ichikawa does not teach wherein the processor is configured to calculate the estimated migration time based on a type of storage that stores data at the site.
However, Reddy teaches calculating the estimated migration time based on a type of storage that stores data at the site (abstract “storage object”, Paragraph 71 “Based on the number and type of objects that are involved in the migration, the transition tool estimates the time it takes for the export and import phases”).
Both Jain and Reddy are analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of managing data migrations. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the system of Jain with the migration time calculation of Reddy. Such a combination would merely be combining prior art elements (system for managing data migrations, calculating estimated migration time based on storage type) according to known methods to yield predictable results, where the predictable result would be a system for managing data migrations that can take into account types of storage when calculating migration times.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain in light of Saito, further in light of Ichikawa, further in light of McEvily, further in light of Zarrabi, further in light of US 20230254127 A1 to Bernat et al. (herein "Bernat").
The combination of Jain, Saito, Ichikawa, McEvily, and Zarrabi teaches the site management apparatus according to claim 4.
The combination of Jain, Saito, Ichikawa, McEvily, and Zarrabi does not teach wherein the processor is configured to create the corrected migration plan in which, for the workloads of which migration type is the switch access path, a workload for which the execution site is to be migrated is selected from workloads that satisfy a predetermined performance requirement after migration, based on an electric power consumption amount of each of the workloads and the deviation amount.
However, Bernat teaches wherein the processor is configured to create the
While Bernat does not specifically teach creating a corrected migration plan using the switch access path or taking into account the electric power consumption of each workload and the deviation amount, Saito teaches creating the corrected migration plan taking into account electric power consumption and the deviation amount (see claim 1 analysis). Zarrabi teaches the switch access path migration type (see claim 4 analysis).
Both Jain and Bernat are analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the field of managing data migrations. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the system of Jain with the system of Bernat. Such a combination would merely be combining prior art elements (system for managing data migrations, system where data migration cannot degrade system performance) according to known methods to yield predictable results, where the predictable result would be a system for managing data migrations that can prevent a data migration from occurring if the performance after migration falls below a certain threshold.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM XIANG ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-1276. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8:30 AM - 5 PM).
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 5712722748. 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.
/W.X.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 2117
/ROBERT E FENNEMA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights