DETAILED 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 .
This action is responsive to the Applicant’s amendments filed on 04/09/2026. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application. Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended. Any examiner’s note, objection, and rejection not repeated is withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendment.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/26/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-10, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada (US 20210049001 A1) in view of Jain et al. (US 11734136 B1) hereafter Jain, further in view of Anwar et al. (US 20200356387 A1) hereafter Anwar.
Regarding claim 1, Okada teaches:
calculating, by a processing device, a time required to have a container image ready for use in memory (Paragraphs 49 and 59; “measures a processing time spent on the build” and “changes a content of the updated container definition file in the data storage 200”, where the build execution unit and build-time measurement unit correspond to the processing device which calculates the processing time required to complete building and reconstructing the container image before updating the container definition file in storage, corresponding to memory. As the measurement occurs prior to the container image being ready for use, the calculation is completed before the container image is ready, corresponding to the temporal relationship);
determining whether the time required to have the container image ready for use (Paragraph 61; “the build-time measurement unit 22 in the container-image generation unit 20 measures a build time being a processing time of the above-described build”) satisfies a threshold criterion (Paragraph 67; “The exceeding-upper-limit-time determination unit 42 determines whether the overall processing time exceeds a predetermined upper limit time”) associated with resources associated with a synchronization operation (Paragraph 67; “The exceeding-upper-limit-time determination unit 42 determines whether the overall processing time exceeds a predetermined upper limit time (step S14). When the overall processing time does not exceed the upper limit time (No in step S14), the flow ends”, where the upper time limit constrains the duration and resource consumption of the synchronization operation that saves the container image to storage and no further action needs to be taken when the threshold is not exceeded.);
responsive to determining that the time required to have the container image ready for use satisfies the threshold criterion (Paragraphs 66-67; “The exceeding-upper-limit-time determination unit 42 in the container management unit 40 measures the startup time of the container (step S12)” and “The exceeding-upper-limit-time determination unit 42 determines whether the overall processing time exceeds a predetermined upper limit time (step S14). When the overall processing time does not exceed the upper limit time (No in step S14), the flow ends”, where when the overall processing time does not exceed the predetermined upper limit time, the threshold criterion is satisfied and the normal synchronization flow proceeds), performing the synchronization operation that stores the container image in a persistent storage (Paragraphs 61-65; “The update detection unit 10 stores the container image having been updated by executing the build in the container-image management unit 30.”, while introduced prior to the threshold, the synchronization is explicitly dependent on the threshold check. The synchronization operation does not immediately occur until the threshold is met, as evidenced by Paragraph 68; “When the upper limit time is exceeded (Yes in step S14), the container-image rewrite unit 25 reconstructs a layer structure included in the container image to be stored in the container-image management unit 30” where a corrective path is taken prior to updating the container image in storage, corresponding to the synchronization operation), subsequent to performing the synchronization operation, loading the container image from the persistent storage into the memory (Paragraph 65; “The resource control unit 41 sequentially stops the operating containers, acquires a new updated container image from the container-image management unit 30, and starts the container 60”, where acquiring and starting the new updated container image requires that the container image is loaded from storage into memory);
and executing the container image loaded from the persistent storage into the memory (Paragraph 61; “The resource control unit 41 in the container management unit 40 illustrated in FIG. 5 receives an update notification from the container-image management unit 30 (step S10). The resource control unit 41 sequentially stops the operating containers, acquires a new updated container image from the container-image management unit 30, and starts the container 60 (step S11).”, where starting the container executes the container image that has been loaded from persistent storage into memory which occurs after the synchronization operation completes, maintaining the sequence of loading before execution.).
Okada does not teach wherein the persistent storage is shared between different container engines with different policies to persist container images.
However, Jain teaches:
wherein the persistent storage is shared between different container engines with different policies to persist container images (Col. 3, lines 34-48; “COP 120 includes at least one of Kubernetes®, Docker Swarm®, OpenShift®, Cloud Foundry®, and Marathon/Mesos®, OpenStack®, VMware®, Amazon ECS®, or any other applicable container orchestration system for automating software deployment, scaling, and management. It should be noted that network 110 may be agnostic to the type of COP 120. In a preferred embodiment, COP 120 manages Kubernetes® (all container orchestration platforms collectively referred to as “pods”) which are configured to be applied to management of computing-intensive large scale task applications in network 110. For example, pods may function as groups of containers (e.g., rkt container, runc, OCI, etc.) that share network 110 along with computing resources of environment 100”, which explicitly discloses multiple container engines that may manage containers in pods that share resources. Further, Col. 4 lines 45-49 discloses “In some embodiments, a storage policy of one or more components of COP 120 may define storage classes based on the actual performance achieved by primary server site 140, secondary server site 150, and/or components of environment 100” which shows different components of COP may apply different storage policies to the same persistent storage.).
Okada and Jain are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of container management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Okada to incorporate the teachings of Jain and have the persistent storage shared between different container engines with different policies to persist container images. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that allowing multiple types of container engines to share persistent storage each with different policies is a known method in the art yielding the predictable result of ensuring reliable container image persistence and consistent application deployment outcomes across a heterogeneous container environment.
Okada in view of Jain does not teach storing metadata of the container image.
However, Anwar teaches:
storing metadata of the container image (Paragraph 35; “Container images may be stored in online stores (e.g., container registries). Each container image is a combination of manifest (e.g., metadata including information about the container image layers, size, digest, operating system (OS), architecture, runtime requirements, etc.) and various layers (e.g., compressed tar files).”).
Okada, Jain, and Anwar are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of container management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Okada in view of Jain to incorporate the teachings of Anwar and have additionally stored metadata of the container image. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that storing metadata would facilitate management, identification, tracking, configuration, deployment, and retrieval of container images, corresponding to an implementation of the known technique of metadata storage yielding the predictable result of improving management of stored container images through the availability of associated metadata.
Claim 8 recites similar limitations as those of claim 1, additionally reciting a memory; and a processing device, operatively coupled to the memory. Okada teaches:
a memory; and a processing device, operatively coupled to the memory (Paragraph 31; “the application execution device 500 may have a configuration in which a computer (e.g., a central processing unit (CPU)) executes a program stored in a memory.”).
Claim 8 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 1.
Claim 15 recites similar limitations as those of claim 1, additionally reciting a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions. Okada teaches:
a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions (Paragraph 78; “one or more CPUs that read and execute a program and a memory that stores an instruction to be executed by the CPU can be cited, for example. The computer-readable recording medium is, for example, a non-transitory storage device”).
Claim 15 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Okada in view of Jain, further in view of Anwar teach the method of claim 1. Okada teaches:
responsive to determining that the time required to have the container image ready for use does not satisfy the threshold criterion, avoiding the synchronization operation (Paragraph 67-68; “When the upper limit time is exceeded (Yes in step S14), the container-image rewrite unit 25 reconstructs a layer structure included in the container image to be stored in the container-image management unit 30 (step S15).”, where when the measured overall processing time exceeds the threshold, the reconstruction path is triggered. The normal synchronization operation is thus avoided until reconstruction is complete, thereby corresponding to the claimed avoiding the synchronization operation.).
Claim 9 recites similar limitations as those of claim 2. Claim 9 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 2.
Claim 16 recites similar limitations as those of claim 2. Claim 16 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Okada in view of Jain, further in view of Anwar teaches the method of claim 1. Okada teaches:
wherein calculating the time required to have the container image ready for use comprises obtaining a time for building the container image (Paragraphs 60-61; “build-time measurement unit 22 in the container-image generation unit 20 measures a build time being a processing time of the above-described build (step S5)”, where the measured build time explicitly includes the time to build the container image which is captured by the build-time measurement unit.).
Claim 10 recites similar limitations as those of claim 3. Claim 10 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 3.
Regarding claim 5, Okada in view of Jain, further in view of Anwar teaches the method of claim 1. Okada teaches:
wherein determining whether the time required to have the container image ready for use satisfies the threshold criterion comprises determining whether the time required to have the container image ready for use exceeds a threshold value (Paragraph 67; “The exceeding-upper-limit-time determination unit 42 determines whether the overall processing time exceeds a predetermined upper limit time (step S14). When the overall processing time does not exceed the upper limit time (No in step S14), the flow ends.”, where the exceeding upper limit time determination unit explicitly compares the calculated overall time required for the container image to be ready against a predetermined upper threshold value.).
Claim 12 recites similar limitations as those of claim 5. Claim 12 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 5.
Regarding claim 6, Okada in view of Jain, further in view of Anwar teaches the method of claim 1. Okada teaches:
wherein determining whether the time required to have the container image ready for use satisfies the threshold criterion comprises determining whether the time required to have the container image ready for use is associated with one of: building the container image or retrieving the container image (Paragraphs 60-61; “When the build of the container definition file is executed, the build-time measurement unit 22 in the container-image generation unit 20 measures a build time being a processing time of the above-described build (step S5). The measured build time is stored in the storage unit 50” corresponds to the time being associated with building the container image, covering the “building the container image” element of the claim.).
Claim 13 recites similar limitations as those of claim 6. Claim 13 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 6.
Claim 20 recites similar limitations as those of claim 6. Claim 20 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Okada in view of Jain, further in view of Anwar teaches the method of claim 1. Okada teaches:
wherein determining whether the time required to have the container image ready for use satisfies the threshold criterion comprises determining whether the time required to have the container image ready for use is associated with customizing the container image (Paragraphs 66-68; “The exceeding-upper-limit-time determination unit 42 in the container management unit 40 measures the startup time of the container (step S12). The measured startup time is stored in the storage unit 50”, and “When the upper limit time is exceeded (Yes in step S14), the container-image rewrite unit 25 reconstructs a layer structure included in the container image to be stored in the container-image management unit 30 (step S15)”. When the measured overall processing time exceeds the threshold, the container image is reconstructed before it can be synchronized. This reconstruction operation corresponds to a form of customization of the container image.).
Claim 14 recites similar limitations as those of claim 7. Claim 14 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 7.
Regarding claim 17, Okada in view of Jain, further in view of Anwar teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15. Okada teaches:
wherein the threshold value is preset (Paragraph 67; “The exceeding-upper-limit-time determination unit 42 determines whether the overall processing time exceeds a predetermined upper limit time”, explicitly discloses the threshold being predetermined, corresponding to being preset before execution).
Regarding claim 18, Okada in view of Jain, further in view of Anwar teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15. Okada teaches:
responsive to determining the time required to have the container image ready for use is associated with building the container image, perform the synchronization operation (Paragraphs 60-62; “When the build of the container definition file is executed, the build-time measurement unit 22 in the container-image generation unit 20 measures a build time being a processing time of the above-described build (step S5). The measured build time is stored in the storage unit 50, for example. The update detection unit 10 stores the container image having been updated by executing the build in the container-image management unit 30”, where the measured build time corresponds to the time associated with building the container image. Once the build is complete, the container image is stored, corresponding to performance of the synchronization operation. The update notification triggers a series of steps that lead to performance of the synchronization operation if the threshold is met, and reconstruction steps if not met.).
Regarding claim 19, Okada in view of Jain, further in view of Anwar teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15. Okada teaches:
responsive to determining that the time required to have the container image ready for use is associated with customizing the container image, perform the synchronization operation (Paragraphs 66-68; “The exceeding-upper-limit-time determination unit 42 in the container management unit 40 measures the startup time of the container (step S12)”, and “When the upper limit time is exceeded (Yes in step S14), the container-image rewrite unit 25 reconstructs a layer structure included in the container image to be stored in the container-image management unit 30 (step S15)”. When the measured time to have the container image ready for use exceeds the threshold, then it is modified, corresponding to being associated with customization, prior to the synchronization operation.).
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada in view of Jain, further in view of Anwar, further in view of Li et al. (US 20230236946 A1) hereafter Li.
Regarding claim 4, Okada in view of Jain, further in view of Anwar teaches the method of claim 1. Okada teaches:
wherein calculating the time required to have the container image ready for use comprises obtaining a time (Paragraph 61; “build-time measurement unit 22 in the container-image generation unit 20 measures a build time being a processing time of the above-described build (step S5)”, where the time includes all operations for preparing the container image for deployment)
Okada in view of Jain, further in view of Anwar does not teach a time for retrieving the container image.
However, Li teaches:
a time for retrieving the container image (Paragraph 19; “a large container image being retrieved from a registry before the workload starts may require a long time to retrieve the image”, where obtaining the container image includes the time to retrieve it from persistent storage, and the retrieval time contributes to the overall time required for the container image to be ready for use).
Okada, Jain, Anwar, and Li are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of container management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Okada in view of Jain, further in view of Anwar to incorporate the teachings of Li to have the time include the time for retrieving a container image. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the calculation of retrieval time to be a known method in the art, and the implementation of such in the container-based environment would yield the predictable result of being able to estimate actual deployment times.
Claim 11 recites similar limitations as those of claim 4. Claim 11 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 4.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/09/2026 have been fully considered. Applicant’s arguments are summarized below:
Okada and Jain do not teach a “synchronization operation that stores the container image and metadata of the container image” as recited in amended claim 1.
Okada teaches away from the present invention and cannot be relied upon in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 due to its disclosure of removing metadata [0068].
Dependent claims are submitted as allowable by virtue of their dependencies from their respective base claims and for the additional distinguishing subject matter recited therein.
Examiner’s response:
The Examiner agrees that the prior art of record does not teach the amended limitation. Accordingly, the previous rejections of claim 1, 8, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Okada, Jain, and Anwar.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. A reference teaches away only when the disclosure “criticize[s], discredit[s], or otherwise discourage[s] the solution claimed” (MPEP 2145(X)(D)(1)). Okada’s disclosure of “removing meta data, a plurality of layers (layers 1 to 3) into one layer (layer 1). The Meta data are not certain data as such, but data that describe an attribute representing the data and related information. FIG. 10 illustrates the layer 1 that becomes lightweight by eliminating the meta data and is provided by the layers being integrated into one” (Paragraph 68) with the purpose of achieving a lightweight image does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the storage of metadata associated with a container image, and instead appears to reflect a design choice directed toward an optimization step for image size reduction rather than a condemnation of metadata retention. Therefore, contrary to Applicant’s arguments, Okada does not teach away from the claimed invention as reflected in amended independent claim 1.
Independent claims 1, 8, and 15 remain rejected for the reasons stated above. Therefore, contrary to Applicant’s arguments, because the dependent claims depend from an unpatentable claim and does not add limitations that overcome the rejection, it likewise remains rejected.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chen et al. (US 20170052772 A1) discusses obtaining information required by a target container, loading the relevant libraries on a host, and calculating the time. Bavishi et al. (US 20160092266A1) discusses allocation on cloud computing resources dependent on VM status, one of which is server time.
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 KENNETH P TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6926. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 4:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. PT, F 4:30 a.m. - 8:30 a.m. PT, or at Kenneth.Tran@uspto.gov.
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.
/KENNETH P TRAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2196
/APRIL Y BLAIR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2196
Prosecution Insights