DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to Applicant’s amendment for application 17/735,339 dated 20 August 2025, responding to the 20 May 2025 Office Action provided in the rejection of claims 1-15, wherein claims 1, 5, 9, and 13 have been amended, claim 7 has been canceled, and new claims 16-21 have been added
The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 5 and 13-15 as presented in the previous Office action has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s arguments and the amendments to the claims.
In light of the new grounds of rejection presented herein, the indication of allowable subject matter as presented in the previous Office action has been withdrawn.
Claims 1-6 and 8-21 remain pending in the application and have been fully considered by the examiner.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs or columns and lines in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 9 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 9, it is unclear what is meant by claimed “traffic control and/or priorities”. Specifically, it is unclear if this is intended to recite “traffic control and priorities” or “traffic control or priorities”. For the purposes of examination, this is interpreted as reciting “traffic control or priorities”. Applicant is requested to clarify the claim language.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 8, 10, and 19-20 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 prior art of record does not teach or reasonably suggest the subject matter recited in such manners as in claims 13-15.
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 1-2 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (U.S. 10,873,592) (Hereinafter Singh) in view of Laadan et al. (U.S. 2007/0244962) (Hereinafter Laadan), and further in view of Mordani et al. (U.S. 2015/0120938) (Hereinafter Mordani - art made of record).
As per claim 1, Singh discloses a distributed computing system having a plurality of clusters interconnected by a network, each cluster including a plurality of compute nodes connected by a cluster network and collectively executing a set of microservices in respective containers organized into multi-container pods, the pods being individually addressable in the cluster network (see for example Singh, this limitation is disclosed such that groups of nodes (e.g. servers) that behave similarly are grouped into clusters that communicate in a network environment, the network including an overlay network that multi-container pods (i.e. executing respective containers organized into multi-container pods) managed by nodes exchange information over (i.e. a distributed computing system having a plurality of clusters interconnected by a network, each cluster including a plurality of compute nodes connected by a cluster network); col.61 lines {40}-{58}, col.68 lines {8}-{32},{47}-{62}. Pods to be communicated with are enumerated with networking information including a five tuple, MAC address, and IP address (i.e. pods being individually addressable in the cluster network); col.63 line {37} – col.64 line {6}),
Singh does not explicitly teach the distributed computing system including application slice components distributed among the clusters to define and operate a plurality of application slices each providing application slice services for respective sets of pods distributed among the clusters, the clusters further configured in a multi-tenancy in which a plurality of distinct tenants each includes a respective distinct set of the application slices and is configured according to respective per-tenant configuration data.
However, Laadan discloses the distributed computing system including application slice components distributed among the clusters to define and operate a plurality of application slices each providing application slice services for respective sets of pods distributed among the clusters (see for example Laadan, this limitation is disclosed such that each application endpoint (process) can be placed in a separate pod of a cluster, the application being divided into many independent pods (i.e. each application endpoint of a divided application is an application slice component defining and operating an application slice to provide an application slice service to a respective pod); paragraph [0059]),
the clusters further configured in a multi-tenancy in which a plurality of distinct tenants each includes a respective distinct set of the application slices and is configured according to respective per-tenant configuration data (see for example Laadan, this limitation is disclosed such that secure isolation allows for one to run multiple pods from different organizations (i.e. multi-tenancy) with different sets of users and administrators on a single host, while retaining the semantic of multiple distinct and individually managed machines (i.e. configured according to respective per-tenant configuration data); paragraph [0019]. Each pod is part of a namespace, where multiple pods can have processes running on the same system with the same UID while still being separate from one another (i.e. pods in a namespace on a machine that have parts of a divided application are parts of a distinct tenant including a distinct set of application slices); paragraphs [0024], [0059]).
Singh in view of Laadan is analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor, distributed computing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Singh by dividing slices into pods as taught by Laadan because it would enhance the teaching of Singh with an effective means of ensuring global consistency of network state of cluster nodes (as suggested by Laadan, see for example paragraph [0005]).
Singh in view of Laadan does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein each cluster includes a slice operator configured and operative to implement orchestration of the application slices in its cluster, the slice operator (1) implementing and enforcing application slice multi-tenancy requirements, and (2) monitoring application slice metrics and configuration to enforce the multi-tenancy requirements.
However, Mordani discloses the limitation wherein each cluster includes a slice operator configured and operative to implement orchestration of the application slices in its cluster, the slice operator (1) implementing and enforcing application slice multi-tenancy requirements, and (2) monitoring application slice metrics and configuration to enforce the multi-tenancy requirements (see for example Mordani, this limitation is disclosed such that there is a management engine (i.e. slice operator) for providing multi-tenancy support in a platform (i.e. cluster) for slices of the platform. The management engine isolates each slice according to factors including configuration and quality of service (i.e. implementing and enforcing application slice multi-tenancy requirements); Abstract, paragraph [0005]. The system further implements a metric gatherer that collects and maintains metric data about slice services, including configuration information about whether services are multitenant (i.e. monitoring application slice metrics and configuration to enforce the multi-tenancy requirements); paragraphs [0068]-[0069], [0083]-[0084]).
Singh in view of Laadan is analogous art with Mordani because they are from the same field of endeavor, distributed computing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Singh in view of Laadan by managing multi-tenant slices as taught by Mordani because it would enhance the teaching of Singh in view of Laadan with an effective means of enabling multiple tenants to use a cloud environment with their own particular requirements or restrictions as to how services are configured (as suggested by Mordani, see for example paragraph [0004]).
As per claim 2, Singh in view of Laadan, further in view of Mordani discloses the distributed computing system of claim 1, wherein each tenant is an administrative grouping of resources and functions that enable inter-service operation within each tenant while providing for desired separation and protection between services of different tenants (see for example Laadan, this limitation is disclosed such that secure isolation allows for one to run multiple pods from different organizations (i.e. multi-tenancy) with different sets of users and administrators on a single host, while retaining the semantic of multiple distinct and individually managed machines, each pod providing a separate security domain with pod system files separate from one another (i.e. providing for desired separation and protection between services of different tenants); paragraphs [0019], [0024].
Regarding claim 16, it is a system claim having similar limitations cited in claim 1. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationales as cited in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, it is a system claim having similar limitations cited in claim 2. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationales as cited in the rejection of claim 2.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (U.S. 10,873,592) in view of Laadan (U.S. 2007/0244962), further in view of Mordani (U.S. 2015/0120938) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Balaka, Jyothi (U.S. 2021/0240558) (Hereinafter Balaka).
As per claim 3, Singh in view of Laadan, further in view of Mordani discloses the distributed computing system of claim 2, wherein tenants are distinct customers of a compute cloud provider or other compute service provider.
However, Balaka discloses the limitation wherein tenants are distinct customers of a compute cloud provider or other compute service provider (see for example Balaka, this limitation is disclosed such that tenants are customers within a cloud computing service provider’s cloud; paragraph [0033]).
Singh in view of Laadan, further in view of Mordani is analogous art with Balaka because they are from the same field of endeavor, distributed computing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Singh in view of Laadan, further in view of Mordani by having tenants as customers of cloud service providers as taught by Balaka because it would enhance the teaching of Singh in view of Laadan, further in view of Mordani with an effective means of providing multi-tenant cloud services in a cluster (as suggested by Balaka, see for example paragraph [0033]).
Claims 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (U.S. 10,873,592) in view of Laadan (U.S. 2007/0244962), further in view of Mordani (U.S. 2015/0120938) as applied to claims 1 and above, respectively, and further in view Berry et al. (U.S. 2022/0206832) (Hereinafter Berry).
As per claim 4, Singh in view of Laadan, further in view of Mordani discloses the distributed computing system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein the tenants share cluster resources with isolation of per-tenant compute resources, network resources, security mechanisms, and policy among the tenants.
However, Berry discloses the limitation wherein the tenants share cluster resources with isolation of per-tenant compute resources, network resources, security mechanisms, and policy among the tenants (see for example Berry, this limitation is disclosed such that in a cluster of nodes that share a common storage pool (paragraph [0005], i.e. tenants share cluster resources), tenant workings that are not visible to other tenants of a cluster include compute for nodes, network components, credentials, per-tenant security policies; paragraphs [0074]-[0075]).
Singh in view of Laadan, further in view of Mordani is analogous art with Berry because they are from the same field of endeavor, distributed computing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Singh in view of Laadan, further in view of Mordani by not sharing tenant workings with each other as taught by Berry because it would enhance the teaching of Singh in view of Laadan, further in view of Mordani with an effective means of providing secure services by nodes of a cluster (as suggested by Berry, see for example paragraph [0074]).
Regarding claim 18, it is a system claim having similar limitations cited in claim 4. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationales as cited in the rejection of claim 4.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (U.S. 10,873,592) in view of Laadan (U.S. 2007/0244962), further in view of Mordani (U.S. 2015/0120938) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Wilson et al. (U.S. 9,781,122) (Hereinafter Wilson).
As per claim 5, Singh in view of Laadan, further in view of Mordani discloses the distributed computing system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 5 above), but does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein the per-tenant configuration data for a given tenant includes tenant-wide settings that are applied to all the slices of the tenant across all the clusters.
However, Wilson discloses the limitation wherein the per-tenant configuration data for a given tenant includes tenant-wide settings that are applied to all the slices of the tenant across all the clusters (see for example Wilson, this limitation is disclosed such that there are global tenants subject to both a global configuration and per-tenant schema; col.17 line {59} – col.18 line {11}).
Singh in view of Laadan, further in view of Mordani is analogous art with Wilson because they are from the same field of endeavor, distributed computing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Singh in view of Laadan, further in view of Mordani by using global configurations as taught by Wilson because it would enhance the teaching of Singh in view of Laadan, further in view of Mordani with an effective means of resolving where to route requests (see for example Wilson, col.15 lines {1}-{14}).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (U.S. 10,873,592) in view of Laadan (U.S. 2007/0244962), further in view of Mordani (U.S. 2015/0120938) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view Sistanizadeh et al. (U.S. 6,681,232) (Hereinafter Sistanizadeh).
As per claim 9, Singh in view of Laadan, further in view of Mordani discloses the distributed computing system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein per-tenant configuration data includes respective quality of service (QOS) profiles for the tenants and slices, whereby distinct traffic control/priorities are provided for each of the tenants.
However, Sistanizadeh discloses the limitation wherein per-tenant configuration data includes respective quality of service (QOS) profiles for the tenants and slices, whereby distinct traffic control and/or priorities are provided for each of the tenants (see for example Sistanizadeh, this limitation is disclosed such that each customer (i.e. tenant) has a service profile (i.e. per-tenant configuration data); col.9 lines {51}-{63}. Service information includes QoS profiles for backbone services on a backbone switch (i.e. QoS profiles are for tenants and slices)); col.1 line {63} – col.2 line {9}, col.14 lines {43}-{49}. Traffic control is provided for customer service traffic in view of the QoS; col.15 line {65} – col.16 line {6}, col.31 lines {6}-{15}).
Singh in view of Laadan, further in view of Mordani is analogous art with Sistanizadeh because they are from the same field of endeavor, distributed computing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Singh in view of Laadan, further in view of Mordani by using QoS profiles for services and traffic control as taught by Sistanizadeh because it would enhance the teaching of Singh in view of Laadan, further in view of Mordani with an effective means of providing multiple profiles defined based on requirements that can be mapped to ensure traffic can be handled (see for example Sistanizadeh, col.6 lines {10}-{14}).
Claims 11 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (U.S. 10,873,592) in view of Laadan (U.S. 2007/0244962), further in view of Mordani (U.S. 2015/0120938) as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, respectively, and further in view Arsovski et al. (U.S. 2010/0228861) (Hereinafter Arsovski – art made of record).
As per claim 11, Singh in view of Laadan, further in view of Mordani discloses the distributed computing system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein per-slice functionality includes configuration and implementation of different slice optimization policies selected from 1) load-balancer optimization for efficient traffic control and distribution, 2) workload placement for cost and resource optimization and 3) slice-wide auto-scalar policy to optimize cost and resources used for auto-scaling application/services deployment.
However, Arsovski discloses the limitation wherein per-slice functionality includes configuration and implementation of different slice optimization policies selected from 1) load-balancer optimization for efficient traffic control and distribution, 2) workload placement for cost and resource optimization and 3) slice-wide auto-scalar policy to optimize cost and resources used for auto-scaling application/services deployment (see for example Arsovski, this limitation is disclosed such that for workload shares (i.e. slices), job assignment in a cluster considers cost and optimization; paragraphs [0005], [0071]).
Regarding claim 21, it is a system claim having similar limitations cited in claim 11. Thus, claim 21 is also rejected under the same rationales as cited in the rejection of claim 11.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (U.S. 10,873,592) in view of Laadan (U.S. 2007/0244962), further in view of Mordani (U.S. 2015/0120938) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view So, Tricci (U.S. 2020/0015158) (Hereinafter So).
As per claim 12, Singh in view of Laadan, further in view of Mordani discloses the distributed computing system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but does not explicitly teach the limitation wherein each slice has its own slice specific service discovery, and services discovered across the slice are isolated from other tenants and slices.
However, So discloses the limitation wherein each slice has its own slice specific service discovery, and services discovered across the slice are isolated from other tenants and slices (see for example So, this limitation is disclosed such that second level network repository functions (NRF) operate at the slice level and support the discovery of network functions (i.e. services) within the slice (i.e. each slice has its own slice specific service discovery). Functions (i.e. services) that are discovered are isolated between slices; paragraph [0094]).
Singh in view of Laadan, further in view of Mordani is analogous art with So because they are from the same field of endeavor, distributed computing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method as taught by Singh in view of Laadan, further in view of Mordani by using slice function discovery and isolation as taught by So because it would enhance the teaching of Singh in view of Laadan, further in view of Mordani with an effective means of supporting requirements for network slicing (see for example So, paragraph [0094]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN R LABUD whose telephone number is (571)270-5174. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 10am-4pm.
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 (571)270-1014. 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.
/JONATHAN R LABUD/ Examiner, Art Unit 2196