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
Claim 14 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being informal. Claim 14 omits the word “claim” before the claim number.
Claims 5, 14, and 20 “container image (CIM)” but the examiner believes this should be composite image.
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) 1-3,7-12 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whaley (20110145496) in view of Fong (20210240671).
Regarding claim 1, Whaley teaches A method implemented in a computer system that includes a processor system, comprising: (par. 33, computer includes processor and memory);
identifying read profiling data that corresponds to a first filesystem image (pars. 38, 49, and 60, trace records original-disk startup accesses);
generating a second filesystem image based on the read profiling data, including: (pars. 60-62, creates trace-sorted disk from original);
identifying a plurality of data block sets, each data block set comprising one or more data blocks (pars. 48 and 60, maps accesses to disk blocks);
identifying an ordering of the plurality of data block sets (pars. 61-62, trace specifies physical block order); and
sequentially writing each data block set into the second filesystem image using the ordering of the plurality of data block sets (par. 62, copies blocks into sequential locations).
Fong teaches startup log orders accessed files, simulation records each startup file and startup sequence orders corresponding files in pars. 25, 31, 39-40, 48, and 59.
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Whaley the specific features of the startup files as taught by Fong. The reason is to have a faster startup.
Regarding claim 2, Whaley teaches generating the read profiling data (pars. 49 and 69-71, records startup I/O trace);
Whaley teaches intercepting a plurality of read input/output (I/O) requests generated by the guest context during the startup of the guest context (pars. 47 and 49, intercepts startup I/O requests);
Fong teaches initiating the startup of the guest context (pars. 39 and 59, simulation starts container guest context);
Fong teaches for each read I/O request, identifying a corresponding file within the first filesystem image to which the read I/O request corresponds (pars. 39-40, records each accessed image file); and
Fong teaches identifying the order in which the guest context accessed the plurality of files within the first filesystem image during the startup of the guest context (pars. 31, 39-40, and 48, records startup file-access sequence).
Regarding claim 3, Whaley teaches wherein the read profiling data is generated at a different computer system (par. 50, monitors startup on other computers).
Regarding claim 7, Whaley teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the second filesystem image is part of a filesystem image repository accessible by a plurality of host systems (pars. 28, 31, and 61-62, network storage distributes trace-sorted disk).
Regarding claim 8, Whaley teaches The method of claim 1, wherein the second filesystem image is a virtual machine disk image or a container image (pars. 31, 41, and 60-62, trace-sorted virtual-machine disk image).
Regarding claim 9, Whaley teaches The method of claim 1, wherein first contents of the first filesystem image differ from second contents of the second filesystem image (pars. 61-62, reordered blocks and new page table).
Regarding claim 10, Whaley teaches the second filesystem image (pars. 61-62, creates trace-sorted second disk).
Fong teaches starting a second guest context (pars. 54 and 59, later host starts another container
Regarding claim 11, see the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 12, see the rejection of claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 16, see the rejection of claim 7 above.
Regarding claim 17, see the rejection of claim 8 above.
Regarding claim 18, see the rejection of claim 10 above.
Regarding claim 19, see the rejection of claims 1 and 2.
Claim(s) 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whaley (20110145496) in view of Fong (20210240671) in further view of James (20050033728).
Regarding claim 4, James teaches an average order (pars. 148-152, averages file order across scenarios).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Whaley and Fong an average order calculation to the multiple startup traces available as taught by James. The reason is to reduce sensitivity to variation in a single startup run and predictably provide a representative order for multiple hosts.
Regarding claim 13, see the rejection of claim 4 above.
Claim(s) 5, 14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whaley (20110145496) in view of Fong (20210240671) in further view of Chagani (20220138146).
Regarding claim 5, Whaley and Fong teach the second filesystem image is a container image (Whaley, pars. 60-62; Fong, pars. 39, 48, and 59, trace-sorts startup-profiled container image).
Whaley and Fong do not teach that the image stores filesystem metadata and file data separately.
Chagani teaches stores filesystem metadata and file data separately (pars. 3 and 14, CIM separates metadata and file data).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Whaley and Fong the ability to implement the trace sorted second image as taught by Chagani. The reason is that stored metadata preserves the filesystem names.
Regarding claim 14, see the rejection of claim 5 above.
Regarding claim 20, see the rejection of claim 5 above.
Claim(s) 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Whaley (20110145496) in view of Fong (20210240671) in further view of Chagani (20220138146) in further view of Li et al. (“DADI: Block-Level Image Service for Agile and Elastic Application Deployment”).
Regarding claim 6, Li teaches a plurality of filesystem layers (section 1 and section 3.1, pages 727-730, merged image uses block-based layers).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Whaley, Fong and Chagania sequence of block based filesystem layers as taught by Li. The reason is to allow the system to share an incremental distribution.
Regarding claim 15, see the rejection of claim 6 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Alpern (20080301205) teaches observing a virtual-container startup file-access sequence and recording files on a new medium in access order. Walsh (6202121) teaches launch profiling that identifies file, offset, and amount read and stores the identified portions in contiguous disk clusters.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HADI AKHAVANNIK whose telephone number is (571)272-8622. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 PM Monday to Friday.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-4637. 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.
/HADI AKHAVANNIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights