DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to application filed on 9/6/2024.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Priority is claimed as CON of 17/356258 (USPAT 12086649, filed on 6/23/2021), which claims priority to provisional application 63/187636.
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. 12086649. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Instant application
USPAT 12086649
Clai 1: A method comprising:
generating, by a cloud-based rebalancing system, using a fleet model that simulates execution of a plurality of workloads on a fleet of storage systems, one or more workload migration scenarios to address one or more workload imbalances among the plurality of workloads;
simulating, by the cloud-based rebalancing system, based on the fleet model, a behavior of the fleet of storage systems in the one or more workload migration scenarios to determine one or more considerations for migrating a workload of the plurality of workloads within the fleet of storage systems;
and presenting, by the cloud-based rebalancing system, a simulation of the fleet after application of at least one rebalancing proposal that implements the one or more workload migration scenarios.
Claim 1: A method comprising:
accessing, by a cloud-based rebalancing system, a fleet of storage systems to generate a fleet model that simulates the fleet of storage systems and a plurality of workloads executing on the fleet, the fleet model including mapping information of the plurality of workloads;
generating, by a cloud-based rebalancing system, a plurality of workload migration scenarios to address a detected workload imbalance among a plurality of workloads in a fleet of storage systems, wherein the plurality of workload migration scenarios describe impacts to workloads and a plurality of storage systems of the fleet of storage systems;
simulating, by the cloud-based rebalancing system, based on the fleet model, a behavior of the fleet of storage systems in one or more workload migration scenarios to determine a plurality of workload migration factors that describe considerations for migrating a workload of the plurality of workloads within the fleet of storage systems;
and presenting, by the cloud-based rebalancing system, a simulation of the fleet after application of at least one rebalancing proposal based on the plurality of workload migration factors for each workload migration scenario.
Claims 2 - 10
Claims 2 - 10
Claim 11 is the apparatus variant of claim 1
Claim 11
Claims 12 - 19
Claims 12 - 19
Claim 20 is the CRM variant of claim 1
Claim 20
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 – 3, 5 – 8, 10 – 13, 15 – 18 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermenier (US 20200174830), in view of Bai et al (US 20160094477, hereinafter Bai), in view of Kruus (US 20130232310).
As per claim 1, Hermenier discloses: A method comprising:
generating, by a cloud-based rebalancing system, one or more workload migration scenarios to address one or more workload imbalances among the plurality of workloads; (Hermenier [0056]: “the migration server 140 monitors node usage for nodes (e.g., the nodes 120a, 120b, and 210a-210d) in a given system (e.g., the system 100 or the system shown in FIGS. 2A and 2B). Monitoring of node usage may be performed under a suitable load-balancing algorithm to reduce hotspots. For example, the migration server 140 may be in communication with each of the nodes in the system to receive usage data (e.g., CPU usage, memory usage, and the like) to determine whether a particular node is a hotspot”; [0058]: “responsive to determining that the node usage exceeds the threshold (320:YES), the migration server 140 determines a migration plan to offload the hotspot nodes at 330. The migration plan (e.g., as shown in FIGS. 2A and 2B) may include migrating at least a VM from a first origin node (e.g., a hotspot node) to a first candidate destination node over a network (e.g., the network 110) and/or migrating a file storage from a second origin node (e.g., a hotspot node) to a second candidate destination node. The migration plan may identify VM(s) and/or file storage(s) to be migrated and a candidate destination node for each of the VM(s) and/or file storage(s) to be migrated. In some examples, the migration plan can be determined based on a load-balancing algorithm”.)
[determining], by the cloud-based rebalancing system, based on the fleet model, a behavior of the fleet of storage systems in the one or more workload migration scenarios to determine one or more considerations for migrating a workload of the plurality of workloads within the fleet of storage systems; and presenting, by the cloud-based rebalancing system, a simulation of the fleet after application of at least one rebalancing proposal that implements the one or more workload migration scenarios. (Hermenier [0030]: “the migration server 140 may determine a migration plan, which includes migrating at least one of the VMs 122a, 124a, 122b, and 124b and/or migrating at least one of the file storages 126a-128a for a given migration. The migration plan designates, for example, which of the VMs 122a, 124a, 122b, and 124b and the file storages 126a and 128a is to be migrated and which node is a candidate destination node. The migration server 140 is further configured to determine a network migration cost for the migration plan in the manner described. Based on the network migration cost, the migration server 140 determines whether to execute the migration plan”; [0015]: “The implementations described herein factor the relative network usage with respect to the file storages of the VM in determining whether a particular migration plan (including migrating at least a VM and/or migrating at least a file storage) should be executed. In some examples, multiple migration plans can be determined (e.g., based on suitable load balancing algorithms), and the one having the lowest network migration cost is selected. The network migration cost includes at least the relative network usage as described. As such, the implementations disclosed herein provide various improvements over conventional systems, including optimizing efficiency of virtual migration of a VM or a file storage by reducing network traffic related to I/O management, lowering storage I/O latency for VMs, improving I/O rate capabilities for sequential I/O, and so on”.)
Hermenier did not explicitly disclose:
using a fleet model that simulates execution of a plurality of workloads on a fleet of storage systems,
wherein the determining step comprises simulating, based on the fleet model;
However, Bai teaches:
using a fleet model that simulates execution of a plurality of workloads on a fleet of storage systems, (Bai [0005]: “A method of resource provisioning planning, in one aspect, may comprise receiving source site data. The source site data may comprise parameters associated with a source site. The source site may comprise information technology infrastructure of an enterprise. The information technology infrastructure may comprise at least a plurality of servers and a plurality of applications. The method may also comprise discovering network dependencies between the plurality of servers of the source site. The method may also comprise identifying one or more server misconfigurations. The method may also comprise determining potential server consolidation. The method may also comprise determining a target platform for migrating the plurality of servers. The method may further comprise mapping each of the plurality of servers to a virtual machine of a plurality of virtual machines subject to resource constraints of the servers and the virtual machines. The method may further comprise clustering the virtual machines based on network dependencies of the servers mapped to the virtual machines. The method may further comprise determining whether an existing target server can fit a candidate cluster. Responsive to determining that the existing target server can fit the candidate cluster, the method may also comprise placing the candidate cluster on the existing target server. Responsive to determining that the existing target server cannot fit the candidate cluster, the method may further comprise selecting a new target server to fit the candidate cluster with minimum cost. The method may also comprise repeating the determining, one or more of the placing and the selecting, for a next candidate cluster”.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Bai into that of Hermenier in order to access, by a cloud-based rebalancing system, a fleet of storage systems to generate a fleet model that includes mapping information of a plurality of workloads executing on the fleet. Bai has shown that the claimed limitation are merely commonly known and used steps in migration planning and it would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to see the load balancing scheme of Hermenier can easily be applied to other cloud systems as well. Applicant have merely claimed the combination of known parts in the field to achieve predictable results and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
Kruus teaches:
wherein the determining step comprises simulating, based on the fleet model; (Kruus [0111])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Kruus into that of Hermenier and Bai in order to have the determining step comprises simulating, based on the fleet model. One of ordinary skill in the art can easily see that the migration server may improve its efficiency by determining the migration plan with aid of simulation and modelling tool, and such combination would enhance the overall appeals of all references and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 2, the combination of Hermenier, Bai and Kruus further teach:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: selecting one of the at least one rebalancing proposals based on a rebalancing proposal selection policy; and migrating the workload based on the selected rebalancing proposal. (Hermenier [0063]: “At 350, the migration server 140 selects to execute the migration plan based on the network migration cost. In some examples, the migration server 140 selects to execute the migration plan in response to determining that the network migration cost is below a predetermined threshold. In some examples, the migration server 140 selects to execute the migration plan in response to determining that the migration plan has the least network migration cost among the network migration costs for all other proposed migration plans”.)
As per claim 3, the combination of Hermenier, Bai and Kruus further teach:
The method of claim 1, further comprising: crawling, by the cloud-based rebalancing system, the plurality of workloads within the fleet of storage systems to generate a fleet model, wherein determining the plurality of movement vectors for each workload migration scenario comprises determining, based on the fleet model, the plurality of movement vectors for each workload migration scenario. (Bai [0005])
As per claim 5, the combination of Hermenier, Bai and Kruus further teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of movement vectors comprises impacts caused by migrating the workload from a first storage system in a first physical location to a second storage system in a second physical location. (Hermenier [0058]: “responsive to determining that the node usage exceeds the threshold (320:YES), the migration server 140 determines a migration plan to offload the hotspot nodes at 330. The migration plan (e.g., as shown in FIGS. 2A and 2B) may include migrating at least a VM from a first origin node (e.g., a hotspot node) to a first candidate destination node over a network (e.g., the network 110) and/or migrating a file storage from a second origin node (e.g., a hotspot node) to a second candidate destination node. The migration plan may identify VM(s) and/or file storage(s) to be migrated and a candidate destination node for each of the VM(s) and/or file storage(s) to be migrated. In some examples, the migration plan can be determined based on a load-balancing algorithm”.)
As per claim 6, the combination of Hermenier, Bai and Kruus further teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of movement vectors comprises impacts caused by migrating the workload based on data requests targeting the workload. (Hermenier [0015]: “The implementations described herein factor the relative network usage with respect to the file storages of the VM in determining whether a particular migration plan (including migrating at least a VM and/or migrating at least a file storage) should be executed. In some examples, multiple migration plans can be determined (e.g., based on suitable load balancing algorithms), and the one having the lowest network migration cost is selected. The network migration cost includes at least the relative network usage as described. As such, the implementations disclosed herein provide various improvements over conventional systems, including optimizing efficiency of virtual migration of a VM or a file storage by reducing network traffic related to I/O management, lowering storage I/O latency for VMs, improving I/O rate capabilities for sequential I/O, and so on”.)
As per claim 7, the combination of Hermenier, Bai and Kruus further teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of movement vectors comprises impacts caused by migrating the workload to a new storage system added to the fleet of storage systems. (Bai [0089])
As per claim 8, the combination of Hermenier, Bai and Kruus further teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of movement vectors comprises impacts on other workloads of the plurality of workloads caused by migrating the workload. (Bai [0005])
As per claim 10, the combination of Hermenier, Bai and Kruus further teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the workload imbalance is detected by the cloud-based rebalancing system accessing the fleet of storage systems via an edge management service coupled to the fleet of storage systems. (Hermenier figure 1 and [0056].)
As per claim 11, it is the apparatus variant of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 12, it is the apparatus variant of claim 2 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 13, it is the apparatus variant of claim 3 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it is the apparatus variant of claim 5 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 16, it is the apparatus variant of claim 6 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 17, it is the apparatus variant of claim 7 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 18, it is the apparatus variant of claim 8 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 20, it is the computer readable medium variant of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermenier, Bai and Kruus, and further in view of Gopalan et al (US 20150324236, hereinafter Gopalan).
As per claim 4, the combination of Hermenier, Bai and Kruus did not teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of movement vectors comprises impacts caused by migrating the workload based on the deduplication rate of a dataset of the workload.
However, Gopalan teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of movement vectors comprises impacts caused by migrating the workload based on the deduplication rate of a dataset of the workload. (Gopalan [0088] – [0089])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Gopalan into that of Hermenier, Bai and Kruus in order to have the plurality of movement vectors comprises impacts caused by migrating the workload based on the deduplication rate of a dataset of the workload. Gopalan [0088] – [0089] has shown the claimed limitation is commonly known factor for migration, applicant have thus merely claimed the combination of known parts in the field to achieve predictable results and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 14, it is the apparatus variant of claim 4 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hermenier, Bai and Kruus, and further in view of Sahay et al (US 20200028935, hereinafter Sahay).
As per claim 9, the combination of Hermenier, Bai and Kruus did not teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein at least one rebalancing proposal comprises adding a storage system to the fleet of storage systems based on prior storage system deployment in the fleet of storage systems.
However, Sahay teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein at least one rebalancing proposal comprises adding a storage system to the fleet of storage systems based on prior storage system deployment in the fleet of storage systems. (Sahay [0087] – [0089])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Sahay into that of Hermenier, Bai and Kruus in order to have the at least one rebalancing proposal comprises adding a storage system to the fleet of storage systems based on prior storage system deployment in the fleet of storage systems. Hermenier [0030] teaches variety of rebalancing plans for different situation while Sahay has shown that the claimed limitation is a commonly known scenario for load balancing. Applicant have thus merely claimed the combination of known parts in the field to achieve predictable results and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 19, it is the apparatus variant of claim 9 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES M SWIFT whose telephone number is (571)270-7756. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9:30 AM - 7PM.
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, April Blair can be reached at 5712701014. 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.
/CHARLES M SWIFT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2196
Prosecution Insights