Non-Final Office Action
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed January 24, 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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 1-11 and 13-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11, 14, 15, and 17-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,229,026 B2 (hereinafter ‘026). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-11 and 13-19 are an obvious variation of claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11, 14, 15, and 17-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,229,026 B2 as shown below.
Referring to claim 1:
Claim 1 of ‘026 discloses a computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving, by a computer system, a request to replicate resources from a primary region data center to a secondary region data center.
Claim 1 of ‘026 discloses determining, by the computer system, first information about resources at the primary region data center (obtaining, by the computer system, information about the resources at the primary region data center) and second information about second resources at the secondary region data center (adding, by the computer system, one or more entries to a correspondence table utilizing the information about the resources at the primary region data center and second resources at the secondary region data center. The information would have had to be determined or obtained in order for it to be added—see Figure 3 of ‘026).
Claim 1 of ‘026 discloses creating, by the computer system, an executable configuration file (the transformed executable configuration file of claim 1) utilizing the first information about the resources at the primary region data center and the second information about the second resources at the secondary region data center (adding, by the computer system, one or more entries to a correspondence table utilizing the information about the resources at the primary region data center and second resources at the secondary region data center; creating, by the computer system, a transformed executable configuration file utilizing the executable configuration file and the correspondence table. The transformed executable configuration file is created utilizing the correspondence table which contains entries about the resources at the primary region data center and the second resources at the secondary region data center—see also Figures 2 and 3 of ‘026. Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, utilizing the first information about the resources at the primary region data center and the second information about the second resources at the secondary region data center can be interpreted as utilizing a correspondence table that is created utilizing the first and second information).
Claim 1 of ‘026 discloses and executing, by the computer system, the executable configuration file at the secondary region data center to implement one or more resources at the secondary region data center (executing, by the computer system, the transformed executable configuration file at the secondary region data center to implement one or more resources at the secondary region data center. The transformed executable configuration file is equivalent to the claimed executable configuration file).
Referring to claim 2, Claim 1 of ‘026 discloses obtaining, by the computer system, information about the resources at the primary region data center; creating, by the computer system, an executable configuration file utilizing the information about the resources at the primary region data center.
Referring to claim 3, Claim 1 of ‘026 discloses determining one or more entries to a correspondence table utilizing the first information (adding, by the computer system, one or more entries to a correspondence table utilizing the information about the resources at the primary region data center and second resources at the secondary region data center).
Claims 4-11 are anticipated by claims 2, 4-9, and 11 of ‘026.
Referring to claim 13:
Claim 14 of ‘026 discloses A system comprising: one or more processors configured to: receive, by a computer system, a request to replicate resources from a primary region data center to a secondary region data center.
Claim 14 of ‘026 discloses obtain first information about the resources at the primary region data center (obtain information about the resources at the primary region data center) and second information about second resources at the secondary region data center (add one or more entries to a correspondence table utilizing the information about the resources at the primary region data center and second resources at the secondary region data center. The information would have had to be obtained in order for it to be added—see Figure 3 of ‘026).
Claim 14 of ‘026 discloses create an executable configuration file (the transformed executable configuration file of claim 14) utilizing the first information and the second information (add one or more entries to a correspondence table utilizing the information about the resources at the primary region data center and second resources at the secondary region data center; create a transformed executable configuration file utilizing the executable configuration file and the correspondence table. The transformed executable configuration file is created utilizing the correspondence table which contains entries about the resources at the primary region data center and the second resources at the secondary region data center—see also Figures 2 and 3 of ‘026. Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, utilizing the first information and the second information can be interpreted as utilizing a correspondence table that is created utilizing the first and second information).
Claim 14 of ‘026 discloses and execute the executable configuration file at the secondary region data center to implement one or more resources at the secondary region data center (execute the transformed executable configuration file at the secondary region data center to implement one or more resources at the secondary region data center. The transformed executable configuration file is equivalent to the claimed executable configuration file).
Referring to claim 14, Claim 14 of ‘026 discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to add one or more entries to a correspondence table utilizing the first information about the resources at the primary region data center and the second information about the second resources at the secondary region data center (one or more processors configured to add one or more entries to a correspondence table utilizing the information about the resources at the primary region data center and second resources at the secondary region data center).
Claims 15-18 are anticipated by claims 15, and 17-19 of ‘026.
Referring to claim 19:
Claim 20 of ‘026 discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions, the set of instructions when executed by one or more processors cause processing to be performed comprising: receiving, by a computer system, a request to replicate resources from a primary region data center to a secondary region data center.
Claim 20 of ‘026 discloses obtaining information about the resources at the primary region data center (obtaining, by the computer system, information about the resources at the primary region data center) and second information about second resources at the secondary region data center (adding, by the computer system, one or more entries to a correspondence table utilizing the information about the resources at the primary region data center and second resources at the secondary region data center. The information would have had to be determined or obtained in order for it to be added—see Figure 3 of ‘026).
Claim 20 of ‘026 discloses creating, by the computer system, an executable configuration file (the transformed executable configuration file of claim 20) utilizing the first information about the resources at the primary region data center and the second information about the second resources at the secondary region data center (adding, by the computer system, one or more entries to a correspondence table utilizing the information about the resources at the primary region data center and second resources at the secondary region data center; creating, by the computer system, a transformed executable configuration file utilizing the executable configuration file and the correspondence table. The transformed executable configuration file is created utilizing the correspondence table which contains entries about the resources at the primary region data center and the second resources at the secondary region data center—see also Figures 2 and 3 of ‘026. Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation, utilizing the information and the second information can be interpreted as utilizing a correspondence table that is created utilizing the first and second information).
Claim 20 of ‘026 discloses and executing the executable configuration file at the secondary region data center to implement one or more resources at the secondary region data center (executing, by the computer system, the transformed executable configuration file at the secondary region data center to implement one or more resources at the secondary region data center. The transformed executable configuration file is equivalent to the claimed executable configuration file).
Claim 20 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,229,026 B2 (hereinafter ‘026) in view of Tanenbaum, Structured Computer Organization.
Referring to claim 20, claim 14 of ‘026 discloses all of the limitations of claim 19. Claim 14 of ‘026 additionally discloses adding one or more entries to a correspondence table utilizing the information about the resources. Claim 14 of ‘026 discloses a system comprising one or more processors, however, claim 14 of ‘026 does not explicitly disclose a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions, the set of instructions when executed by one or more processors cause processing to be performed. On page 11, Tannenbaum discloses that any instruction executed by the hardware can also be simulated in software. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time of filing of the invention to use software to simulate the hardware as taught by Tannenbaum in claim 14 of ‘026. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification because hardware and software are logically equivalent (see Tannenbaum: page 11).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 1-11 and 13-20 would be allowable if the non-statutory double patenting rejection was overcome.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
CN 107153571 A discloses obtaining a virtual management node template file and using the template file for automatic installation and deployment of a virtualization management node.
US 2018/0173554 A1 discloses an orchestrator can select an appropriate cloud compute instance or VM template based on configuration information of the source VM. Whether VM templates or prepopulated cloud computed instances are used, these can include variations to support different VM configurations—different system memory configurations, central processor configurations, network interface card configurations, bandwidth configurations, etc.
US 2015/0341221 A1 discloses replicating configuration files for virtual machine at a recovery site. The configuration files that are replicated may include configuration information and hardware settings of the VM. Guest OS configuration, including TCP/IP settings, are thus preserved in the configuration files after a disaster event.
US 2010/0125712 A1 discloses a virtualized IT system provides a server resource pool and a storage resource pool composed from multiple physical devices either within a datacenter or a globally located plurality of datacenters. The virtual server and the storage volume provisioned from those pools will be paired to form the virtual infrastructure. In other words, the virtual infrastructure becomes a logical IT environment build with the required computing and storage resources needed in order to execute specific applications. The virtual infrastructure can also be migrated within/among datacenter sites.
US 2011/0055399 A1 discloses scripts associated with at least one cloud provider and/or at least one data center are accessed, where each script is capable of automatically setting up a computing resource on an associated cloud provider or associated data center. The scripts are then used to automatically allocate and/or configure the computing resources on the at least one cloud provider and/or at least one data center.
US 10,585,766 B2 (cited on IDS) discloses that system changes applied to the primary location are automatically applied to the secondary location. For example, removing/adding machines, updating machine/role assignments, removing adding/database are automatically applied to the secondary location such that the secondary location substantially mirrors the primary location.
US 10,999,163 B2 (cited on IDS) discloses a transformer that may convert topology into a plurality of templates, that, once executed by a controller will build and modify a virtual computing environment across one or more data centers.
With respect to claim 1, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with the remaining limitations, a computer-implemented method, comprising: determining, by the computer system, first information about resources at the primary region data center and second information about second resources at the secondary region data center; creating, by the computer system, an executable configuration file utilizing the first information and the second information; and executing, by the computer system, the executable configuration file at the secondary region data center.
With respect to claim 13, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with the remaining limitations, a system comprising: one or more processors configured to: obtain first information about the resources at the primary region data center and second information about second resources at the secondary region data center; create an executable configuration file utilizing the first information and the second information; and execute the executable configuration file at the secondary region data center.
With respect to claim 19, the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest, in combination with the remaining limitations, a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions, the set of instructions when executed by one or more processors cause processing to be performed comprising: obtaining information about the resources at the primary region data center and second information about second resources at the secondary region data center; creating an executable configuration file utilizing the information and the second information; and executing the executable configuration file at the secondary region data center.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL C MASKULINSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3649. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
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, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at (571) 272-3655. 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.
/MICHAEL MASKULINSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights