DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 08/21/2024.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9-12 and 14 have been amended in a preliminary amendment dated 08/21/2024.
Claims 1-14 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 13, and 14: Grammatical/translation error “destination servers that satisfy the use condition…”. Potential corrections:
“destination servers that have satisfied s”;
“destination servers whose s are satisfied”;
“determining one or more distribution destination servers, wherein the use condition of each distribution destination server is satisfied”; etc.
Claims 7, 11, and 12: Grammatical/translation error essentially the same as 1, 13, 14.
Claim 5: The multiple dependency recited in original claim 5 was only partially struck in the 08/21/2024 preliminary amendment. Claim 5 should be amended: “The application distribution apparatus according to claim 1 [[4]], wherein the use condition includes a condition related to a user of a service that is provided by the application.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Any claim not specifically mentioned above, is objected due to its dependency on an objected claim.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-10 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbasi et al. (US 2017/0134520 A1) in view of Jreij et al. (US 2022/0179700 A1).
Claims 1, 13, and 14:
Abbasi discloses the limitations as shown in the following rejections:
managing, for each of a plurality of servers (electronic devices/servers/physical resources), a location…of the server (¶0044, 0050-0053, 0060; FIG. 1) disclosing a hierarchy of software agents that each manage information concerning the servers/devices in its domain including location.
acquiring a distribution request (service placement request) for an application (service/application and/or “component”/”task” thereof), the distribution request including information pertaining to a desired execution area (region zone) (¶0059-0060, 0079, 0140, 0142, 0144, 0161-0162, 0043); “service requests can include requirements about geographical location (¶0059)…the service request 820 can include requirements about allowed or prohibited geographical locations for some or all of the components to be deployed” (¶0140).
selecting, as candidate servers (candidate/feasible placement solutions), servers included in the desired execution area from among the plurality of servers…determining one or more distribution destination servers (selected solution) that satisfy [hardware requirements] from among the candidate servers; and distributing the application to the one or more distribution destination servers (¶0015, 0056, 0065, 0139-0144, 0161-0167)..
Abbasi does not describe any servers associated with a “use condition” restricting what application components can be assigned thereto, and does not specifically disclose managing, for each of a plurality of servers, a…use condition of the server;…determining one or more distribution destination servers that satisfy the use condition.
Jreij, however, discloses analogous methods of controlling the assignment of workloads to hardware devices including (¶0033-0034, 0158-0162, 0170-0173, 0184) managing, for each of a plurality of servers (hardware device), a…use condition (allocation limitation/reservation/criteria) of the server and determining one or more distribution destination servers that satisfy the use condition when selecting a hardware device to be allocated a workload. Exemplary quotation:
“When the reservation system is active, different types of hardware devices may only be allocated for performance of workloads having sufficiently high priority. Allocation of any number and type of hardware devices may be limited to corresponding priority levels…In another example, in some embodiments of the invention, various hardware devices may be reserved for performance of specific workload types” (¶0159-0160).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify Abbasi to employ resource reservation/allocation limits as taught by Jreij to “reduce the likelihood of over-provision for the performance of workloads while still also making it likely that desired workloads will have access to sufficient quantities of computing resources for performance. Accordingly, computer implemented services provided… may be more likely to meet the expectations of the entities requesting the services” (Jreij ¶0123).
Claim 2:
The combination of Abbasi/Jreij discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Jreij further discloses wherein the use condition includes a condition related to time for executing the application. (¶0162-0163, 0183, 0187).
Claim 3 and 6:
The combination of Abbasi/Jreij discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Jreij further discloses wherein the use condition includes a condition related to the application (workload type) and wherein the use condition includes a condition related to urgency (priority) (¶0158-0162, 0170-0173).
Claim 7:
The combination of Abbasi/Jreij discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Jreij further discloses wherein in the distribution process, the at least one processor carries out a changing process for changing a distribution status of the application, for a first distribution destination server that no longer satisfies the use condition among the one or more distribution destination servers to which the application was distributed in at least ¶0153, 0196-0200, 0043-0045) disclosing the workload manager system can partially or entirely cancel and/or time-shift performance (changing a distribution status) of a workload (application) if the information handling system resources (distribution destination server) allocated to the workload are redesignated for workloads of a higher priority and/or a different type (no longer satisfies the use condition).
Claim 8:
The combination of Abbasi/Jreij discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Jreij further discloses wherein the changing process includes a process for stopping (cancelling/time shifting) execution of the application by the first distribution destination server (¶0045, 0153, 0200).
Claim 9:
The combination of Abbasi/Jreij discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Jreij further discloses wherein the changing process includes a process for notifying the first distribution destination server or a terminal (client/“entity that requested the workload”) which is connected to the first distribution destination server of changing the distribution status of the application (¶0029, 0040, 0057, 0200, 0045). Exemplary quotation:
“the clients (40) may send requests to management entities to have the computer implemented services be provided. Consequently, the number and types of workloads to be performed over time may change (¶0029)…performance of the workload may be remediated by, for example, (i) time-shifting performance of the workload to other periods of time during which free and/or reserved resources may be reallocated…notifying an entity that requested the workload be performed (e.g., the entities that submitted the workload request)”
Claim 10:
The combination of Abbasi/Jreij discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Regarding claim 10 reciting that the changing process includes a process for making a query to a user of a terminal that is connected to the first distribution destination server as to whether or not the user is going to continue to use a service provided by the application, Jreij teaches the subject matter in ¶0198-0200: “if it is determined that the reserved resources cannot be freed to meet the future resource needs…performance of the workload is remediated…The performance of the workload may be remediated by, for example…(ii) notifying an entity that requested the workload be performed (e.g., the entities that submitted the workload request) that the workload may be performed at lower or reduced levels of performance” in view of Jreij (¶0029, 0040, 0057, 0099) disclosing workloads are applications executed to provide services to a requesting client/user. Accordingly, Jreij’s notification to the requestor “that the workload may be performed at lower or reduced levels of performance” is equivalent to a query as to whether or not the user is going to continue to use/still wants the application service workload executed with reduced performance.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbasi in view of Jreij in further view of Wagner (US 10,067,801 B1).
Claim 4 and 5:
The combination of Abbasi/Jreij discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. The combination of Abbasi/Jreij does not specifically disclose wherein the use condition includes a condition related to a requester that made the distribution request and/or wherein the use condition includes a condition related to a user of a service that is provided by the application.
Wagner, however, discloses analogous methods of reserving resource sub-pools for allocation based on various uses/constraints wherein the use condition includes a condition (e.g. user identity/account) related to a requester that made the distribution request…wherein the use condition includes a condition (e.g. user identity/account/group, anticipated user needs/workload) related to a user of a service that is provided by the application (col. 4, li. 7-31; col. 11, li. 30-51; col. 19, li. 47-57; col. 20, li. 28-39). Exemplary quotation:
“the warming pool may include a sub-pool of virtual machine instances that are used to execute program codes of only one designated user. Such a sub-pool of virtual machine instances may be implemented on single-tenanted hardware (e.g., physical servers) that is not used for any user other than the designated user” (col. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify Abbasi/Jreij to support user-dependent allocation constraints as taught by Wagner to flexibly increase the range of security and regulatory requirements that can be satisfied when allocating resources thus enlarging the number of user workload/application requests that can be satisfied (Wagner col. 3, li. 31-44).
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abbasi in view of Jreij in further view of Butikofer et al. (US 8,850,434 B1).
Claim 11:
The combination of Abbasi/Jreij discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. The combination of Abbasi/Jreij does not specifically disclose changing, to a second distribution destination server that satisfies the use condition among the plurality of distribution destination servers.
Butikofer, however, discloses analogous methods for controlling the placement (distribution) of VMs (applications) to hypervisor nodes (servers) based on group tags and ACLs (use conditions) associated with the hypervisors (col. 7, li. 60 – col. 8, li. 18; col. 6, col. 27-55). Butikofer further discloses (col. 2, li. 43 – col. 3, li. 17) changing a distribution status (operating state and/or location) of the application, for a first distribution destination server that no longer satisfies the use condition (VM no longer compatible/matches tag or ACL conditions) including migrating the VM to another hypervisor whose group tags/ACL are compatible with the VM (changing, to a second distribution destination server that satisfies the use condition among the plurality of distribution destination servers), Butikofer’s live VM migration inherently carries the user connection state (col. 3, li. 5-17; col.8, li. 52-65) (a connection destination of a terminal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify Abbasi/Jreij to constrain placement of applications to particular nodes/servers servers as taught by Butikofer to reduce administrator overhead while receiving benefits including reduced license costs, resource guarantees, and ensuring regulatory compliance (Butikofer col. 2, li. 38-65; col. 6, li. 34-47; col. 10, li. 47-54).
Claim 12:
The combination of Abbasi/Jreij discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. The combination of Abbasi/Jreij does not specifically disclose changing process includes a process for distributing the application to a third distribution destination server among the candidate servers, the third distribution destination server differing from all of the one or more distribution destination servers and satisfying the use condition.
Butikofer, however, discloses analogous methods for controlling the placement (distribution) of VMs (applications) to hypervisor nodes (servers) based on group tags and ACLs (use conditions) associated with the hypervisors (col. 7, li. 60 – col. 8, li. 18; col. 6, col. 27-55). Butikofer further discloses (col. 2, li. 43 – col. 3, li. 17; col. 8, li. 19-33) changing a distribution status (operating state and/or hosting node) of the application, for a first distribution destination server that no longer satisfies the use condition (VM no longer compatible/matches tag or ACL conditions) including migrating the VM to another hypervisor whose group tags/ACL are compatible with the VM thus distributing the application to a third distribution destination server among the candidate servers, the third distribution destination server differing from all of the one or more distribution destination servers and satisfying the use condition.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to modify Abbasi/Jreij to constrain placement of applications to particular nodes/servers as taught by Butikofer to reduce administrator overhead while receiving benefits including reduced license costs, resource guarantees, and ensuring regulatory compliance (Butikofer col. 2, li. 38-65; col. 6, li. 34-47; col. 10, li. 47-54).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Each of the following is directed to controlling application/host placement: US 20230125765 A1; US 11221887 B2, US 20190286475 A1, US 20190278625 A1.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Paul Mills whose telephone number is 571-270-5482. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 11:00am-8:00pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, April Blair can be reached at 571-270-1014.
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.
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.
/P. M./
Paul Mills
09/15/2026
/APRIL Y BLAIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2196
Prosecution Insights