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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the communication filed on 7/9/26.
All objections and rejections not set forth below have been withdrawn.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the features noted below must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered:
The drawings fails to disclose the features of receiving a workload migration indication and “…determin[ing], based on the workload migration indication, which portion of the workload to transfer…” and “…transfer[ing], in response to the workload migration indication, keys for the encrypted data to a destination cloudlet from the source cloudlet …”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
The specification fails to disclose the features of a configured circuit and method to “…determine, based on the workload migration indication, which portion of the workload to transfer…”. Specifically, the while the applicant’s specification does appear to teach receiving an indication to migrate a workload (e.g. Specification, par. 1049), the applicant does not appear to teach that the determination of which portion of the workload to migrate is based upon migration indication. Rather, the applicant appears to teach that the determination of which portions of data to migrate is based upon computed data metrics (e.g. Specification, par. 1009 – 1012).
The specification fails to disclose the features of a configured circuit and method to “…transfer, in response to the workload migration indication, keys for the encrypted data to a destination cloudlet from the source cloudlet …”. Specifically, the while the applicant’s specification does appear to teach receiving an workload migration indication to migrate a workload (e.g. Specification, par. 1049), the applicant does not appear to teach transferring keys in response to the workload migration indication.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 16, the specification fails to disclose the features of a configured circuit and method to “…determine, based on the workload migration indication, which portion of the workload to transfer…”. Specifically, the while the applicant’s specification does appear to teach receiving an indication to migrate a workload, the applicant does not appear to teach that the determination of which portion of the workload to migrate is based upon migration indication. Rather, the applicant appears to teach that the determination of which portions of data to migrate is based upon computed data metrics (e.g. Specification, par. 1009 – 1012).
Furthermore, the specification fails to disclose the features of a configured circuit and method to “…transfer, in response to the workload migration indication, keys for the encrypted data to a destination cloudlet from the source cloudlet …”. Specifically, the while the applicant’s specification does appear to teach receiving an workload migration indication to migrate a workload (e.g. Specification, par. 1049), the applicant does not appear to teach transferring keys in response to the workload migration indication.
Depending claims are rejected by virtue of dependency.
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.
Claims 1 – 20 are 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.
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 16, the recitation “…determine, based on the workload migration indication, which portion of the workload to transfer, based on applying a least on metric …” renders the scope of the claims indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear as to what is the actual basis (i.e. the migration indication or the metric application) used for determining a portion of the workload to transfer. The applicant’s disclosure fails to teach the concept of determining a migration portion based upon a migration indication and based upon an application of a data metric. The claim language is inconsistent with applicant’s disclosure, rendering the scope of the claims uncertain.
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 16, the recitation “…transfer, in response to the workload migration indication, keys for the encrypted data to a destination cloudlet from the source cloudlet …” renders the scope of the claims indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear as to how and why keys are transferred in response to a workload migration indication. The applicant’s disclosure fails to teach the concept of transferring keys based upon a workload migration indication, but rather that a workload is transferred based upon a workload migration indication (e.g. Specification, par. 1049). The claim language is inconsistent with applicant’s disclosure, rendering the scope of the claims uncertain.
Depending claims are rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ha et a. (Ha), “Adaptive VM Handoff Across Cloudlets”, in view of Rozas et al. (Rozas), US 2018/0004683 A1.
Regarding claim 1, as best determined in view of the above noted deficiencies of clarity, Ha discloses:
An edge computing system (e.g. Ha, pg. 1:Introduction, par. 1; fig. 4), comprising:
communication circuitry configured to receive and transmit communications with a plurality of edge computing nodes (e.g. Ha, fig. 4; pg. 1:section 1, par. 1, 2; pg. 6, 7: sections 4 and 4.1; pg. 15:section 5 – herein circuitry is disclosed for transmitting data between edge computing elements of a cellular network, i.e. cloudlets);
and processing circuitry configured to:
receive a workload migration indication for a workload processed at a source cloudlet (e.g. Ha, pg. 7, sect. 4.1, par. 3; pg. 15, sect. 5.1, par. 1 – live migration mechanism to issue command);
determine, based on the workload migration indication, which portion of the workload to transfer, based on applying at least one metric used to migrate a first portion of compute operations of the workload and retain a second portion of the compute operations of the workload at the source cloudlet (e.g. Ha, sect. 4.1 – migration command; Ha, sect. 4.2; sect. 4.4; sect. 4.4.1; sect. 4.4.2 – analyzation of data volume or size metrics and delta encoding; deduplication and iterative transfer, i.e. partial transfer, for first, second, third blocks, i.e. “first, second, third, etc.” portions of the VM workload; e.g. Ha, sect. 4.2; sect. 4.6 – deduplication and iterative transfer retains first portions of workload at one cloudlet while moving second portions to another cloudlet);
…
and transmit, in response to the workload migration indication, the … data over a shared communication channel to the destination cloudlet (e.g. Ha, Abstract; pg. 1, Introduction, par. 1, 2; pg. 4, 5, sect. 3.2, par. 1, 2; sect. 4.1).
Ha discloses the migration of a VM workload from one cloudlet to another cloudlet. However, Ha does not appear to explicitly teach security features, such as encrypting the VM data.
However, like Ha, Rozas also teaches the migration of VM workloads (e.g. Rozas, Abstract; fig. 2; par. 42). Furthermore, Rozas teaches that VM workload data should be encrypted for the purpose of increased security (e.g. Rozas, par. 33, 34, 47) and furthermore that, for the purposes of migration, the encryption keys should be transferred to the migration destination (e.g. Rozas, par. 40, 52). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the data encryption and key migration teachings of Rozas within the system of Ha because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the teachings that data encryption and key migration provides confidentiality and security to a user’s data (e.g. Rozas, Abstract; par. 33, 34).
Thus, the combination enables a system wherein “…encrypted data…” of the VM workload is transmitted from a source cloudlet to the destination cloudlet, and furthermore:
… perform data encryption, to create encrypted data in a local data store for the portion of the workload to transfer (e.g. Ha, sect. 3.2; sect. 4.1; Rozas, par. 48);
transfer, in response to the workload migration indication, keys for the encrypted data to a destination cloudlet from the source cloudlet … (e.g. Ha, sect. 3.2; sect. 4.1; Rozas, par. 40, 48).
Regarding claim 2, the combination enables:
wherein the encrypted data is transferred to working memory from the local data store in an encrypted state (e.g. Ha, fig. 3; sect. 3.2; Rozas, par. 47 – 50).
Regarding claim 3, the combination enables:
wherein the source cloudlet uses a total memory encryption circuitry to decrypt the encrypted data when the data is transferred to a processor from the working memory (e.g. Ha, fig. 3; sect. 3.2; Rozas, par. 34, 47 – 50).
Regarding claim 4, the combination enables:
wherein encrypted data for the portion of the workload to retain is not transferred as part of the workload migration, and wherein the encrypted data for the portion of the workload to retain is determined by profiling data use by the workload (e.g. Ha, sect. 3.2 – partial data migration based upon performance considerations and/or Ha, sect. 4.1; 4.2; 4.4.2 fig. 9 – delta transmission of VM workload data based upon the characteristics of the data).
Regarding claim 5, the combination enables:
wherein the plurality of edge computing nodes are network peers in a layer of a distributed edge computing system (e.g. Ha, Introduction –base station “cloudlets” of MEC network).
Regarding claim 6, the combination enables:
wherein the at least one metric includes a data gravity metric used to determine whether to migrate latency-sensitive compute operations and retain data-intensive compute operations, and wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
receive a cloudlet migration signal at the source cloudlet (e.g. Ha, sect. 4.1 – migration command);
analyze computation components of the source cloudlet to produce the data gravity metric (e.g. Ha, sect. 4.2; sect. 4.4; sect. 4.4.1; sect. 4.4.2 – data volume or size metrics and delta encoding);
move a first component of the workload, in response to a first data gravity metric value for the first component of the workload being below a threshold, to the destination cloudlet (e.g. Ha, fig. 8; sect. 4.2; sect. 4.6 – deduplication and iterative transfer for first, second, third blocks, i.e. “first, second, third, etc.” components, of the VM workload);
refrain from moving a second component of the workload, in response to a second data gravity metric value for the second component of the workload being above the threshold, to the destination cloudlet (e.g. Ha, sect. 4.2; sect. 4.6 – deduplication and iterative transfer);
and provide an interface for the second component to the destination cloudlet (e.g. Ha, sect. 4.2; sect. 4.3 – data pipeline, i.e. “interface”, for the eventual transmission of the “second component” to the destination cloudlet).
Regarding claim 7, the combination enables:
wherein the source cloudlet is at a first base station, and wherein the destination cloudlet is at a second base station (e.g. Ha, Introduction –base station “cloudlets” of MEC network).
Regarding claim 8, the combination enables:
wherein the cloudlet migration signal is in response to a hand-off of user equipment from the first base station to the second base station, and wherein the user equipment is using services of the source cloudlet prior to the hand-off (e.g. Ha, Abstract; Introduction; sect. 3.2; sect. 4.1).
Regarding claim 9, the combination enables:
wherein the data gravity metric is based on a size of data used by the second component (e.g. Ha, sect. 4.2; sect. 4.4; sect. 4.4.1; sect. 4.4.2).
Regarding claim 10, the combination enables:
wherein the data gravity metric is further based on a computation of the data size (e.g. Ha, sect. 4.4.1), the computation being at least one of a count of resources to move the data to the destination cloudlet or a cost to move the data to the destination cloudlet (e.g. Ha, sect. 4.4.2).
Regarding claims 11 – 20, they are method and medium claims, essentially corresponding to the claims above, and they are rejected, at least, for the same reasons. And furthermore because regarding claim 16, the combination enables …. At least one non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising instructions stored thereupon … (e.g. Ha, fig. 4; pg. 1:section 1, par. 1, 2; pg. 6, 7: sections 4 and 4.1; pg. 15:section 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/9/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues or alleges essentially that:
…
Neither Ha nor Rozas teaches or suggests the obviousness of migrating only a portion of the workload to another cloudlet, by specifically migrating a first portion of compute operations of the workload to a destination cloudlet while retaining a second portion of the compute operations of the workload at a source cloudlet. Instead, Ha discusses a scenario where an entire VM instance and all workloads running within this VM are transferred from a source to a destination. … In other words, when Ha transfers all data and all workloads for a VM instance, no portion of the workload is retained.
…
(Remarks, pg. 8)
Examiner respectfully responds:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Ha clearly and explicitly teaches partial workload migration, i.e. the migration of a “portion”, as well as the migration only of chunks, i.e. “portions”, of a workload from a source cloudlet to a destination cloudlet (e.g. Ha, sect. 4.2; sect. 4.6). Thus, Ha teaches that, at any particular time, a portion of a VM workload is retained, while a portion of the VM workload has been transferred.
Applicant argues or alleges essentially that:
…
… A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Ha does not retain or keep any portion of the workload at a source cloudlet, as claimed, including to retain data intensive compute operations at the source cloudlet as recited in amended claim 6.
…
(Remarks, pg. 8, 9)
Examiner respectfully responds:
The examiner respectfully disagrees, at least, for the reason that the applicant’s argument is directed only to a characterization of intended use a data “metric” within the preamble of the claim. However, the intended use characterization of the data metric does not serve to structurally or functionally distinguish the claimed “processing circuitry” from that of the prior art processing circuitry.
The balance of Applicant’s arguments are essentially based upon the unpersuasive arguments above, and they are noted to be unpersuasive, at least, for the same reasons.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEFFERY L WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-7965. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am - 4:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Farid Homayounmehr can be reached on 571-272-3739. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JEFFERY L WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2495
Prosecution Insights