DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to application filed on 10/24/2024.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Priority is claimed to provisional application 63/659495 (filed on 6/13/2024).
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
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, 2, 5 – 10, 13 – 17 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shepherd et al (US 20220012080, hereinafter Shepherd), in view of Joshi et al (US 20180288129, hereinafter Joshi), and further in view of Krishnamurthy et al (US 20180295036, hereinafter Krishnamurthy).
As per claim 1, Shepherd discloses: A method for virtual datacenter deployment, comprising:
initializing, at a physical datacenter, a virtual private cloud executing one or more containers; (Shepherd figure 1 and [0021]: “host cluster 118 is enabled as a “supervisor cluster,” described further herein, and thus VMs executing on each host 120 include pod VMs 130 and native VMs 140. A pod VM 130 is a virtual machine that includes a kernel and container engine that supports execution of containers, as well as an agent (referred to as a pod VM agent) that cooperates with a controller of an orchestration control plane 115 executing in hypervisor 150 (referred to as a pod VM controller).”)
deploying, to a particular container in the virtual private cloud, a datacenter agent for managing a virtual datacenter executing within the particular container; (Shepherd [0024]: “Virtualization management server 116 installs additional agents 152 in hypervisor 150 to add host 120 to supervisor cluster 101. Supervisor cluster 101 integrates an orchestration control plane 115 with host cluster 118. In embodiments, orchestration control plane 115 includes software components that support a container orchestrator, such as Kubernetes, to deploy and manage applications on host cluster 118… In supervisor cluster 101, hosts 120 become nodes of a Kubernetes cluster and pod VMs 130 executing on hosts 120 implement Kubernetes pods. Orchestration control plane 115 includes supervisor Kubernetes master 104 and agents 152 executing in virtualization layer (e.g., hypervisors 150). Supervisor Kubernetes master 104 includes control plane components of Kubernetes, as well as custom controllers, custom plugins, scheduler extender, and the like that extend Kubernetes to interface with virtualization management server 116 and the virtualization layer. For purposes of clarity, supervisor Kubernetes master 104 is shown as a separate logical entity. For practical implementations, supervisor Kubernetes master 104 is implemented as one or more VM(s) 130/140 in host cluster 118.”)
Shepherd did not explicitly disclose:
receiving, from the datacenter agent, a first request for service configuration data defining one or more services provided by the virtual datacenter;
responsive to the first request, providing the service configuration data to the datacenter agent to configure the one or more services provided by the virtual datacenter;
receiving, from the datacenter agent, a second request for application configuration data defining one or more applications executing within the virtual datacenter;
and responsive to the second request, providing the application configuration data to the datacenter agent to configure the one or more applications executing within the virtual datacenter.
However, Joshi teaches:
receiving, from the datacenter agent, a first request for service configuration data defining one or more services provided by the virtual datacenter; responsive to the first request, providing the service configuration data to the datacenter agent to configure the one or more services provided by the virtual datacenter; (Joshi [0055])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Joshi into that of Shephard in order to receive, from the datacenter agent, a first request for service configuration data defining one or more services provided by the virtual datacenter; responsive to the first request, providing the service configuration data to the datacenter agent to configure the one or more services provided by the virtual datacenter. Joshi [0055] has provided a motivation in support of the combination by teaching “the container manager 20 may facilitate discovery of other services within a multi-container application, for instance, indicating to one service executing in one container where and how to communicate with another service executing in other containers, like indicating to a web server service an Internet Protocol address of a database management service used by the web server service to formulate a response to a webpage request”. Such combination would improve the management capabilities of the virtual computing system and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
Krishnamurthy teaches:
receiving, from the datacenter agent, a second request for application configuration data defining one or more applications executing within the virtual datacenter; and responsive to the second request, providing the application configuration data to the datacenter agent to configure the one or more applications executing within the virtual datacenter. (Krishnamurthy [0149]: “the discovery engine 2120 directs the context engine 2110 to build an inventory of the applications installed on the VMs 114 and to periodically refresh this inventory. The discovery engine 2120 can direct the context engine 2110 at the request of the management plane and/or based on operational configurations that the management or control plane specifies for the discovery engine 2120. In some examples, in response to the request from the discovery engine 2120, the context engine 2110 instructs each GI agent 2150 on each VM 114 to discover installed processes on the machine, as well as all running processes and services.”)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Krishnamurthy into that of Shephard and Joshi in order to receive, from the datacenter agent, a second request for application configuration data defining one or more applications executing within the virtual datacenter; and responsive to the second request, providing the application configuration data to the datacenter agent to configure the one or more applications executing within the virtual datacenter. Krishnamurthy [00151] has provided a motivation in support of the combination by teaching “By collecting the contextual information (e.g., information from the discovery and context engines and/or information from other context sources), the management plane 230 can provide a user interface to the network/compute administrators to visualize the compute and network resources in the datacenter.”. Such combination would improve the management capabilities of the virtual computing system and is therefore rejected under 35 USC 103.
As per claim 2, the combination of Shepherd, Joshi and Krishnamurthy further teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the physical datacenter is one of a cloud provider or an on-premises datacenter. (Krishnamurthy [0027])
As per claim 5, the combination of Shepherd, Joshi and Krishnamurthy further teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more services are provided by the virtual datacenter to the one or more applications executing within the virtual datacenter. (Krishnamurthy [0040] – [0041])
As per claim 6, the combination of Shepherd, Joshi and Krishnamurthy further teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the physical datacenter comprises a cloud management platform, and initializing the virtual private cloud at the physical datacenter comprises: retrieving infrastructure configuration data from an infrastructure code repository, the infrastructure configuration data defining the virtual private cloud; and providing the infrastructure configuration data to the cloud management platform to configure the virtual private cloud. (Shepherd [0024])
As per claim 7, the combination of Shepherd, Joshi and Krishnamurthy further teach:
The method of claim 6, wherein the virtual private cloud comprises a container management platform, the infrastructure configuration data comprises container configuration data, and deploying the datacenter agent to the particular container comprises providing the container configuration data to the container management platform. (Shepherd [0024])
As per claim 8, the combination of Shepherd, Joshi and Krishnamurthy further teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein providing the service configuration data to the datacenter agent comprises retrieving the service configuration data from a services code repository. (Krishnamurthy [0150])
As per claim 10, the combination of Shepherd, Joshi and Krishnamurthy further teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein providing the application configuration data to the datacenter agent comprises retrieving the application configuration data from an application code repository. (Krishnamurthy [0150])
As per claim 10, it is the non-transitory computer-readable medium variant of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 13, it is the non-transitory computer-readable medium variant of claim 6 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 14, it is the non-transitory computer-readable medium variant of claim 7 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 15, it is the non-transitory computer-readable medium variant of claim 8 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 16, it is the non-transitory computer-readable medium variant of claim 9 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 17, it is the system variant of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 20, it is the system variant of claim 6 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 11, 12, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Shepherd, Joshi and Krishnamurthy, and further in view of Cai et al (US 20210152659, hereinafter Cai).
As per claim 3, the combination of Shepherd, Joshi and Krishnamurthy did not teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the service configuration data configures the virtual datacenter by performing at least one service operation from a plurality of service operations, the plurality of service operations comprising deploying a particular service, initializing the particular service, scheduling the particular service, modifying the particular service, and deleting the particular service.
However, Cai teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the service configuration data configures the virtual datacenter by performing at least one service operation from a plurality of service operations, the plurality of service operations comprising deploying a particular service, initializing the particular service, scheduling the particular service, modifying the particular service, and deleting the particular service. (Cai [0024])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Cai into that of Shephard, Joshi and Krishnamurthy in order to have the service configuration data configures the virtual datacenter by performing at least one service operation from a plurality of service operations, the plurality of service operations comprising deploying a particular service, initializing the particular service, scheduling the particular service, modifying the particular service, and deleting the particular service. Cai [0024] has shown the claimed limitations are merely commonly known and used lifecycle management functions for providing services, applicants 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 4, the combination of Shepherd, Joshi and Krishnamurthy did not teach:
The method of claim 1, wherein the application configuration data configures the virtual datacenter by performing at least one application operation from a plurality of application operations, the plurality of application operations comprising deploying a particular application, initializing the particular application, scheduling the particular application, modifying the particular application, and deleting the particular application.
However, Cai teaches:
The method of claim 1, wherein the application configuration data configures the virtual datacenter by performing at least one application operation from a plurality of application operations, the plurality of application operations comprising deploying a particular application, initializing the particular application, scheduling the particular application, modifying the particular application, and deleting the particular application. (Cai [0024])
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Cai into that of Shephard, Joshi and Krishnamurthy in order to have the application configuration data configures the virtual datacenter by performing at least one application operation from a plurality of application operations, the plurality of application operations comprising deploying a particular application, initializing the particular application, scheduling the particular application, modifying the particular application, and deleting the particular application. Cai [0024] has shown the claimed limitations are merely commonly known and used lifecycle management functions for providing services, applicants 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 11, it is the non-transitory computer-readable medium variant of claim 3 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 12, it is the non-transitory computer-readable medium variant of claim 4 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 18, it is the system variant of claim 3 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
As per claim 19, it is the system variant of claim 4 and is therefore rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Haque et al (USPAT 10437621) teaches “receiving, from a virtual machine, a request to create a proxy agent configured to monitor an application executing on the virtual machine, wherein the proxy agent is associated with the virtual machine and wherein the virtual machine is unable to host the proxy agent. The method also includes creating the proxy agent based on the request to create the proxy agent. The method further includes receiving monitoring data for the application executing on the virtual machine via the proxy agent. The method further includes transmitting a status of the application or the monitoring data to a server.”;
Church et al (US 20180359218) teaches “a method for securing network traffic flow in a multi-service containerized application, including: obtaining, with one or more processors, a composition record defining a multi-service containerized application; analyzing, with one or more processors, the composition record to look for one or both of network traffic patterns and network traffic flow; adding, with one or more processors, to the composition record a configured firewall container definition of a network traffic enforcement container that upon execution of the multi-service containerized application is communicatively coupled between a first container and a second container of the multi-service containerized application, wherein the first container and the second container are configured to communicate with each other across a first virtualized network; and converting, with one or more processors, the first virtualized network between the first container and the second container into a second virtualized network and a third virtualized network.”;
Helsley (US 20180285165) teaches “An initialization service of an operating system is stared, where the operating system is hosted at least in part on a first logical partition (LPAR) of a first mainframe system and automates orchestration of a data analytics appliance on the first mainframe system. Automated orchestration of the data analytics appliance includes: starting a container system check service to determine whether resources are provided in the mainframe system to support a container manager; launching, upon completion of the container system check service, the container manager; starting an appliance manager to install a plurality of microservices on a plurality of containers provided by the container manager, where the plurality of microservices are interconnected to provide the data analytics appliance; and receiving data from another second mainframe system for processing by the data analytics appliance.”.
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
