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
Claim Objections
Claims 21, 28 and 35 are objected to because the phrase “an other” contains a typographical error. Term should be corrected to “another”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 21, 23-26, 28, 29-33, 35 and 37-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ben-Shaul et al. (Pub. No.: US 2015/0331635).
Regarding independent claim 21, 28 and 35, Ben-Shaul discloses a method comprising: provisioning, by an on-premises storage system (Fig.1: On-Prem Edge Proxy 125), a storage volume (Fig.1: storage disks 131) in persistent storage (Fig.1: network storage node 129) for storing data for a cloud computing instance (Fig.1: computing instance 141) (Fig.1, [0044] and [0048]-[0050]: the cloud edge proxy serves as a block storage device for an instance running in the cloud. The on-prem edge Regarding claim-routes data to and from on-prem storage disks.); and
after the cloud computing instance becomes unavailable (Fig.15: disconnect instance On-Prem and Cut-Over Control to Cloud Computing Instance 1533), maintaining the data in the persistent storage (Fig.16: Create Snapshot of On-Prem Virtual Disks and Network Storage 1613; Restore Local Instance Configuration 1615) for access by another cloud computing instance (Fig.15: disconnect instance on-prem and cut-over control to cloud computing instance 1533 and Fig.16: Activate Restored Instance 1621).
Regarding claims 23, 30 and 37, Ben-Shaul teaches creating the other cloud computing instance using the data by configuring a state of the other cloud computing instance based on the data (Fig.12 and [0045]-[0048]: creating a clone, provisioning a remote server, booting from the storage target, and configuring the cloned computing instance).
Regarding claims 24, 31 and 38, Ben-Shaul teaches configuring the other cloud computing instance to utilize non-volatile storage in the on-premises storage system for servicing input/output ('I/O') operations generated by the other cloud computing instance (Fig.1, 4, 5, and 15; [0048]-[0050]: booting the computing instance from the storage target and utilizing the on-prem storage for read and write I/O operations)
Regarding claims 25, 32 and 39, Ben-Shaul teaches wherein the other cloud computing instance is configured to utilize a cloud storage service for servicing input/output ('I/O') operations generated by the other cloud computing instance, the method further comprising copying data stored by the cloud storage service to non-volatile storage in the on-premises storage system (Fig.17 and [0045]-[0048]: utilizing cloud storage and on-prem storage in migration mode by proxying storage I/Os between cloud storage and on-prem storage).
Regarding claims 26 and 33, Ben-Shaul teaches wherein the cloud storage service is supported by an on- premises cloud infrastructure (Fig.1 and 18; [0044]-[0048]: a hybridized data center including an on-prem network, an on-prem edge proxy; and cloud computing resources that support cloud storage services).
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 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 of this title, 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 27, 34 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ben-Shaul et al. (Pub. No.: US 2015/0331635) in view of Pena (Pub. No.: US 2021/0312487).
Regarding claims 27 and 34, Ben-Shaul does not specifically teach wherein the other cloud computing instance is an Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud ('EC2') instance
However, Pena teaches wherein the other cloud computing instance is an Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud ('EC2') instance ([0093] Platforms that may be used according to embodiments of the present invention include the AWS EC2 Deep Learning AMI instance. The AWS Deep Learning AMIs provide machine learning infrastructure and tools to accelerate deep learning in the cloud, at any scale. One can quickly launch Amazon EC2 instances pre-installed with deep learning frameworks and interfaces such as TensorFlow, PyTorch, Apache MXNet, Chainer, Gluon, Horovod, and Keras to train sophisticated, custom AI models).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the EC2-baed machine learning training and deployment techniques, as taught by Pena into the hybrid cloud system of Ben-Shaul, because doing so would have enabled efficient cloud-based model training while deploying the trained model for use in the on-premises cloud infrastructure.
Regarding claim 40, Pena teaches wherein the artificial intelligence application executes a machine learning model, and wherein the computer program instructions when executed, cause the apparatus to carry out the steps of: training, at the other cloud computing instance, the machine learning model; and deploying the machine learning model at an on-premises cloud infrastructure ([0094]: Amazon SageMaker may also be used according to embodiments of the present invention. Amazon SageMaker is a fully-managed service that enables developers and data scientists to quickly and easily build, train, and deploy machine learning models at any scale).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22, 29 and 36 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 22, 29 and 36 identify the distinct features “wherein the data includes values of at least one of execution variables and execution parameters of the cloud computing instance, and wherein the cloud computing instance is a transient cloud computing instance that executes an artificial intelligence application", which are not taught or suggested by the prior art of records.
Claims 22, 29 and 36 would be allowable over the prior art of record because the claimed features as mentioned above in combination with other claimed features are not recited or suggested by the prior art of records.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Krivenok et al. (Pub. No.: US 2026/0056848) “RECOVERING DATA IN CLOUD-BASED STORAGE ENVIRONMENTS”
Considered for teachings related to a technique for recovering data following a failure of a first availability zone (AZ) of a cloud-based system includes creating a plurality of temporary instances in a second AZ of the cloud-based system.
Does not disclose or suggest provisioning, by an on-premises storage system, a storage volume in persistent storage for storing data for a cloud computing instance; and after the cloud computing instance becomes unavailable, maintaining the data in the persistent storage for access by an other cloud computing instance.
Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to Yong Choe at telephone number 571-270-1053 or email to yong.choe@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 10:00 am to 6:30pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutz, Jared Ian can be reached on (571) 272-5535. Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application should be directed to the TC 2100 whose telephone number is (571) 272-2100.
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 PMR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-irect.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).
/YONG J CHOE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2135
Prosecution Insights