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 Office Action is in response to amendment filed on 07/23/2025.
Response to Amendment
By this amendment, claims 1-2, 8-9, and 15-16 are amended. Therefore, claims 1-20 are pending. Any objections and rejections not repeated below is withdrawn due to Applicant's amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues in substance:
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101…
With regard to point (a), Examiner agrees with Applicant and all 101 claim rejections are withdrawn due to Applicant’s amendments. Specifically, the limitations of “responsive to the first configuration version number from the configuration details not matching the second configuration version number from the instance data of the application newly spawned in the container orchestration cloud computing environment, updating the configuration details stored in the configuration cache, the database, or both with the second configuration version number from the instance data of the application newly spawned in the container orchestration cloud computing environment”, wherein the updating limitation is performed in order to update/sync the centralized database or configuration cache to manage instances of an application.
Claims 4-7, 11-14, and 18-10 were rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,474,851. Applicant respectfully traverses this rejection as the independent claims of the instant application are patentably distinct from the independent claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,474,851 and, as such, dependent claims -7, 11-14, and 18-10 of the instant application and are dependent claims 2-3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,474,851 are patentably distinct as they each incorporate the features of the base claims from which they depend respectively. Accordingly, withdrawal of this rejection is respectfully requested.
With regard to point (b), Examiner disagrees with Applicant that U.S. Patent No. 11,474,851 is patentably distinct from the instant application (as they each incorporate the features of the base claims from which they depend respectively). This Office Action’s double patenting rejection below shows the instant application’s claims covering claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,474,851. Argument has not been found to be persuasive.
In this case, Bendre fails to meet these requirements. For example, in rejecting claim 1, the Examiner cited paragraphs [0118], [0120] of Bendre as supposedly anticipating "obtaining, by a configuration cache manager locally from a configuration cache or directly from a database, configuration details for an instance of an application newly spawned in a container orchestration cloud environment." See Office Action, pages 17-18.
Applicant respectfully disagrees and submits that the cited portions of Bendre do not anticipate or suggest the claim limitation at issue. For instance, the cited paragraph [0118] of Bendre describes "[as] an example of this processing, computational instance 322 may compare information received from proxy servers 312 to data stored in a normalization database to determine whether a configuration item is correctly identified." According to Bendre, the "proxy servers 312" reside in the managed network 300. See Bendre, FIG. 4. In this case, the "configuration item" represents "a device, application, service, or relationship that is present in the managed network." See Bendre, paragraph [0117].
Further, according to Bendre, the "managed network" refers to "an enterprise network used by a business for computing and communications tasks." See Bendre, paragraph [0061]. Thus, the "information received from proxy servers 312" in the cited paragraph [0118] of Bendre pertains to "a configuration item" that represents "a device, application, service, or relationship that is present in [an enterprise network used by a business for computing and communications tasks]." Consequently, the cited paragraph [0118] of Bendre does not describe "obtaining ... configuration details for an instance of an application newly spawned in a container orchestration cloud environment" as expressly recited in the claim limitation at issue.
Likewise, the cited paragraph [0120] of Bendre describes "a particular software application that is installed on a client device of [an enterprise network used by a business for computing and communications tasks]." According to Bendre, the enterprise network includes proxy servers 312 that "establish and maintain secure communication sessions with one or more computational instances of remote network management platform 320." See Bendre, paragraph [0064]. Through these proxy servers 312, the remote network management platform 320 can "discover and manage aspects of the architecture and configuration of managed network 300 and its components." Id. As a whole, Bendre does not describe the enterprise network as a conventional cloud environment.
Further, Bendre describes an infrastructure that supports configuration management of settings in a centralized database (e.g., a configuration managernent database (CMDB) of computational instance 322 shown in FIG. 4 of Bendre). See Bendre, paragraph [0083]. Traffic between the managed network 300 and the computational instance 322 is by way of dedicated, direct VPN to VPN. See Bendre, paragraph [0084]. Thus, Bendre neither has the technical problem described above nor provides a solution to the technical problem.
In rejecting the remaining limitations of claim 1, the Examiner cited the same paragraphs [0118], [0120] of Bendre as supposedly anticipating "validating, by the configuration cache manager, the configuration version number from the configuration details, wherein the validating comprises comparing the configuration version number from the configuration details with the configuration version number from the instance data" and "responsive to the configuration version number from the configuration details not matching the configuration version number from the instance data, updating the configuration details stored in the configuration cache, the database, or both with the configuration version number from the instance data."
Applicant respectfully disagrees. As submitted above, Bendre does not describe the managed network 300 as a conventional cloud environment and the managed network 300 does not have the same technical problem described above. Specifically, the cited paragraphs [0118], [0120] of Bendre do not describe "an instance of an application newly spawned in a container orchestration cloud environment" in which "the instance of the application [comprises] instance data" and "the instance data [comprises] a configuration version number." Without needing to solve a technical problem in a cloud environment, the cited paragraphs [0118], [0120] of Bendre could not have disclosed or suggested validating a configuration version number of an instance of an application newly spawned in such a cloud environment and then updating some storage with such a non-existent configuration version number.
With regard to point (c), Examiner disagrees with Applicant that Bendre does not describe "obtaining ... configuration details for an instance of an application newly spawned in a container orchestration cloud environment". The container orchestration cloud environment is merely a virtualized cloud environment that does not distinguish itself from a virtual machine cloud environment. In addition, Bendre discloses [0091] “FIG. 5A also depicts devices, applications, and services in managed network 300 as configuration items 504, 506, 508, 510, and 512. As noted above, these configuration items represent a set of physical and/or virtual devices (e.g., client devices, server devices, routers, or virtual machines), applications executing thereon…” which states that the configuration items can be any type of virtual device (i.e. container) in the cloud-based server cluster ([0053] “FIG. 2 depicts a cloud-based server cluster 200…”). Thus, Bendre describes a conventional cloud environment. Bendre also discloses a technical problem of [0119] “To help ensure that configuration items are consistently identified correctly, the process of normalization may involve updating identifying information stored in the normalization database for a particular configuration item with canonical normalization information that corresponds to attributes of that configuration item.” which covers the technical problem of Applicant’s disclosed claims. Furthermore, Bendre provides a solution to the technical problem wherein software application A is the instance of the application, canonical normalization information is the instance data, and the comparison of attributes (version instead of publisher) for software application A is performed in order to determine whether to update the database storing a different version of software application A ([0118] “…As another example, a software application installed on a computing device may be represented by attributes that include a name, publisher, edition, version, operating system, and/or a product description of the software application.”, [0120] “Considering a particular software application that is installed on a client device of managed network 300, for example, canonical normalization information may include information that corresponds to attributes of that software application. To that end, identifying information stored in the database for software application "A" may specify that publisher "X" is the publisher for software application A. But canonical normalization information stored in the content library may specify that publisher "Y" is the publisher for the software application A. As a result, based on this canonical normalization information, the system may update the identifying information stored in the database to instead specify that publisher Y is the publisher for software application A.”). Therefore, the claims are still rejected for the reasons in this Office Action’s 102 and 103 rejections below. Argument has not been found to be persuasive.
Applicant respectfully disagrees and submits that the "customer requests" mentioned in the cited paragraph [0025] of Cahill do not pertain to "requests for the application in the container orchestration cloud environment." Paragraph [0019] of Cahill describes how a machine manager 115 "could be requested through API 150 to deploy a [virtual machine]."
As those skilled in the art can appreciate, in a container orchestration cloud environment, an application is packaged (with all its dependencies, libraries and configuration files) into a single, isolated unit called a container. This containerization allows the application to run consistently across different environments, regardless of the underlying operating system or infrastructure.
Contrastingly, virtual machines are emulations of entire computer systems, including their own operating systems, and run on top of a hypervisor. Thus, virtual machines, like those described in the cited paragraph [0019] of Cahill do not teach or suggest an "application in the container orchestration cloud environment."
Because of the technical distinctions between virtual machines and containerized applications, they are created and configured rather differently. For instance, an instance of an application can be "dynamically" spawned in the container orchestration cloud environment to accommodate a number of user requests. However, at best, Cahill describes that virtual hard disks used to create virtual machines (VMs) can be dynamically expanded and then converted to fixed immediately "before creating a VM with them." See Cahill, paragraph [0077].
With regard to point (d), Examiner disagrees with Applicant that the container environment cannot be substituted by the virtual machine environment described in Cahill. Applicant’s claim language in claim 2 merely acknowledges the container orchestration cloud computing environment and does not utilize advantages of the container environment. In KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), a rationale for obviousness is a “(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results”. A mere substitution of a virtual machine environment for the container environment would produce predictable results to track the requests for the application running in a virtualized environment (Cahill [0024] “…Typically, the machines inside the farm are running the same build of an application (i.e. SharePoint)…”, [0027] “…Cloud manager 105 maintains records to keep track of current requests…”). In addition, the claims do not describe or specify a definition for “dynamically” spawning instances of an application. Therefore, under BRI, virtual hard disks used to create virtual machines (VMs) can be dynamically expanded and then converted to fixed immediately "before creating a VM with them” in order to “dynamically” spawn instances of an application. Argument has not been found to be persuasive.
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 4-7, 11-14, and 18-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2-3 of US 11474851 B2.
The following table is constructed below to show claims 4-7, 11-14, and 18-20 of the instant application and claims 2-3 of (US 11474851 B2).
Instant Application
US 11474851 B2
4. The method according to claim 1, wherein the database stores configurations of instances of the application.
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the configuration data of the CS subsystem and the iJMS subsystem are stored in a cache managed by a configuration cache manager or in
a centralized database in the container orchestration cloud environment.
5. The method according to claim 4, wherein the configurations are managed using hostnames.
3. The method according to claim 2, wherein the configuration data of the CS subsystem and the iJMS subsystem are managed using fully-qualified domain names (FQDNs).
6. The method according to claim 5, wherein each of the hostnames is a fully-qualified domain name.
3. The method according to claim 2, wherein the configuration data of the CS subsystem and the iJMS subsystem are managed using fully-qualified domain names (FQDNs).
7. The method according to claim 1, wherein the configuration cache is managed by the configuration cache manager.
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the configuration data of the CS subsystem and the iJMS subsystem are stored in a cache managed by a configuration cache manager or in
a centralized database in the container orchestration cloud environment.
11. The system of claim 8, wherein the database stores configurations of instances of the application.
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the configuration data of the CS subsystem and the iJMS subsystem are stored in a cache managed by a configuration cache manager or in
a centralized database in the container orchestration cloud environment.
12. The system of claim 11, wherein the configurations are managed using hostnames.
3. The method according to claim 2, wherein the configuration data of the CS subsystem and the iJMS subsystem are managed using fully-qualified domain names (FQDNs).
13. The system of claim 12, wherein each of the hostnames is a fully-qualified domain name.
3. The method according to claim 2, wherein the configuration data of the CS subsystem and the iJMS subsystem are managed using fully-qualified domain names (FQDNs).
14. The system of claim 8, wherein the configuration cache is managed by a configuration cache manager.
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the configuration data of the CS subsystem and the iJMS subsystem are stored in a cache managed by a configuration cache manager or in
a centralized database in the container orchestration cloud environment.
18. The computer program product of claim 15, wherein the database stores configurations of instances of the application.
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein the configuration data of the CS subsystem and the iJMS subsystem are stored in a cache managed by a configuration cache manager or in
a centralized database in the container orchestration cloud environment.
19. The computer program product of claim 18, wherein the configurations are managed using hostnames.
3. The method according to claim 2, wherein the configuration data of the CS subsystem and the iJMS subsystem are managed using fully-qualified domain names (FQDNs).
20. The computer program product of claim 19, wherein each of the hostnames is a fully-qualified domain name.
3. The method according to claim 2, wherein the configuration data of the CS subsystem and the iJMS subsystem are managed using fully-qualified domain names (FQDNs).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, 10-11, 14-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bendre et al. Pub. No. US 2019/0342162 Al (hereafter Bendre).
Regarding claim 1, Bendre anticipates the invention as claimed, including: A method, comprising: obtaining, by a configuration cache manager locally from a configuration cache or directly from a database, configuration details for an instance of an application newly spawned in a container orchestration cloud computing environment ([0118] “…As another example, a software application installed on a computing device may be represented by attributes that include a name, publisher, edition, version, operating system, and/or a product description of the software application.”, [0120] “Considering a particular software application that is installed on a client device of managed network 300, for example, canonical normalization information may include information that corresponds to attributes of that software application. To that end, identifying information stored in the database for software application "A" may specify that publisher "X" is the publisher for software application A…”, Note: Software application A is the instance of the application, and any attribute for software application A can be identified as well (not only publisher)), the configuration details comprising a first configuration version number ([0118] “…As another example, a software application installed on a computing device may be represented by attributes that include … version … of the software application.”), the instance of the application comprising instance data, the instance data comprising a second configuration version number ([0118] “…As another example, a software application installed on a computing device may be represented by attributes that include a name, publisher, edition, version, operating system, and/or a product description of the software application.”, [0120] “Considering a particular software application that is installed on a client device of managed network 300, for example, canonical normalization information may include information that corresponds to attributes of that software application … But canonical normalization information stored in the content library may specify that publisher "Y" is the publisher for the software application A…”, Note: Software application A is the instance of the application, canonical normalization information is the instance data, and canonical normalization information comprises any attribute for software application A (not only publisher)); comparing, by the configuration cache manager, the first configuration version number from the configuration details with the second configuration version number from the instance data of the application newly spawned in the container orchestration cloud computing environment ([0118] “…As another example, a software application installed on a computing device may be represented by attributes that include a name, publisher, edition, version, operating system, and/or a product description of the software application.”, [0120] “Considering a particular software application that is installed on a client device of managed network 300, for example, canonical normalization information may include information that corresponds to attributes of that software application. To that end, identifying information stored in the database for software application "A" may specify that publisher "X" is the publisher for software application A. But canonical normalization information stored in the content library may specify that publisher "Y" is the publisher for the software application A. As a result, based on this canonical normalization information, the system may update the identifying information stored in the database to instead specify that publisher Y is the publisher for software application A.”, Note: Software application A is the instance of the application, canonical normalization information is the instance data, and the comparison of attributes for software application A can be performed with version (instead of publisher)); and responsive to the first configuration version number from the configuration details not matching the second configuration version number from the instance data of the application newly spawned in the container orchestration cloud computing environment, updating the configuration details stored in the configuration cache, the database, or both with the second configuration version number from the instance data of the application newly spawned in the container orchestration cloud computing environment ([0120] “…As a result, based on this canonical normalization information, the system may update the identifying information stored in the database to instead specify that publisher Y is the publisher for software application A.”, Note: Software application A is the instance of the application, canonical normalization information is the instance data, and the comparison/updating of attributes for software application A can be performed with version (instead of publisher)).
Regarding claim 3, Bendre anticipates: The method according to claim 1, further comprising: inquiring the database for a status of the instance periodically ([0092] “…discovery may be manually triggered or automatically triggered based on triggering events (e.g., discovery may automatically begin once per day at a particular time).”, [0117] “During each phase of discovery, various modules of computational instance 322 may process the responses to the probes sent from proxy servers 312. Such processing may assist in identifying various characteristics of the devices, applications, services, and relationships represented by the responses. After processing the responses, the modules may update configuration items stored in the CMDB 500 such that these configuration items more accurately represent a device, application, service, or relationship that is present in the managed network…”, Note: CMDB 500 is the database, and a configuration item is the instance); and updating the database in response to the instance being killed ([0118] “As an example of this processing, computational instance 322 may compare information received from proxy servers 312 to data stored in a normalization database to determine whether a configuration item is correctly identified…”, [0117] “…the modules may update configuration items stored in the CMDB 500 such that these configuration items more accurately represent a device, application, service, or relationship that is present in the managed network…”, Note: The normalization database is CMDB 500, and any configuration item (instance) that is not discovered (killed) will be removed).
Regarding claim 4, Bendre anticipates: The method according to claim 1, wherein the database stores configurations of instances of the application ([0117] “…the modules may update configuration items stored in the CMDB 500 such that these configuration items more accurately represent a device, application, service, or relationship that is present in the managed network…”, Note: CMDB 500 is the database, and configuration items are the instances of applications).
Regarding claim 7, Bendre anticipates: The method according to claim 1, wherein the configuration cache is managed by the configuration cache manager ([0117] “During each phase of discovery, various modules of computational instance 322 may process the responses to the probes sent from proxy servers 312. Such processing may assist in identifying various characteristics of the devices, applications, services, and relationships represented by the responses. After processing the responses, the modules may update configuration items stored in the CMDB 500 such that these configuration items more accurately represent a device, application, service, or relationship that is present in the managed network…”, Note: CMDB 500 is the database (configuration cache), and the group of modules that comprise computational instance 322 is the configuration cache manager).
Regarding claim 8, Bendre further anticipates: A system, comprising: a processor; a non-transitory computer-readable medium; and instructions stored on the non-transitory computer-readable medium and translatable by the processor for ([0048] “Memory 104 may store program instructions and/or data on which program instructions may operate. By way of example, memory 104 may store these program instructions on a non-transitory, computer-readable medium, such that the instructions are executable by processor 102 to carry out any of the methods, processes, or operations disclosed in this specification or the accompanying drawings.”). The other limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 10, it is a machine claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 3. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 11, it is a machine claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 4. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 14, it is a machine claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 7. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15, Bendre further anticipates: A computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions translatable by a processor for ([0048] “Memory 104 may store program instructions and/or data on which program instructions may operate. By way of example, memory 104 may store these program instructions on a non-transitory, computer-readable medium, such that the instructions are executable by processor 102 to carry out any of the methods, processes, or operations disclosed in this specification or the accompanying drawings.”). The other limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 17, it is an article of manufacture claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 3. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18, it is an article of manufacture claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 4. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
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 2, 5-6, 9, 12-13, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bendre et al. Pub. No. US 2019/0342162 Al (hereafter Bendre) as applied to claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, 10-11, 14-15, and 17-18 above, in view of Cahill et al. Pub. No. US 2012/0102487 Al (hereafter Cahill).
Regarding claim 2, Bendre teaches the method according to claim 1.
Bendre fails to teach tracking a number of user requests for the application
in the container orchestration cloud computing environment; and dynamically spawning the instance of the application to accommodate the number of user requests.
However, in analogous art Cahill teaches tracking a number of user requests
for the application in the container orchestration cloud computing environment ([0025] “Farms can contain heterogeneous sets of virtual machines. Cloud manager 105 maintains a "farm goal" within data store 140 which is a target number of machines of each role for each farm … For example, content farms are the basic SharePoint farm that handles incoming customer requests … Cloud manager 105 automatically deploys and/or decommissions virtual machines in the networks to help in meeting the defined target. These farms goals may be automatically and/or manually configured. For example, the farm goals may change to respond to changes in activity and capacity
needs…”, Note: A number of customer requests (user requests) must be tracked in order to respond to changes in activity needs (and thus changes to farm goals/target number of virtual machines)); and dynamically spawning the instance of the application to accommodate the number of user requests ([0025] “Farms can contain heterogeneous sets of virtual machines. Cloud manager 105 maintains a "farm goal" within data store 140 which is a target number of machines of each role for each farm … For example, content farms are the basic SharePoint farm that handles incoming customer requests … Cloud manager 105 automatically deploys and/or decommissions virtual machines in the networks to help in meeting the defined target. These farms goals may be automatically and/or manually configured. For example, the farm goals may change to respond to changes in activity and capacity needs…”, Note: Virtual machines are the instances deployed to handle customer requests).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bendre to incorporate the
teachings of Cahill to respond to changes in activity and capacity needs of requests (Cahill [0025] “…Cloud manager 105 automatically deploys and/or decommissions virtual machines in the networks to help in meeting the defined target. These farms goals may be automatically and/or manually configured. For example, the farm goals may change to respond to changes in activity and capacity needs…”).
Regarding claim 5, Bendre teaches the method according to claim 4.
Bendre fails to teach wherein the configurations are managed using
hostnames.
However, in analogous art Cahill teaches wherein the configurations are
managed using hostnames ([0039] “…For example, the tenant database 235 include a single row for each tenant. A given tenant may include a Required Version record … The tenant records may include other items such as authorized number of users, quotas (e.g. allowed total data usage, per user data usage, etc.), time restrictions, and the like…”, [0036] “…For example, the fully qualified domain name (FQDN) table has a constraint placed on the "name" to assist in preventing a tenant from accidentally trying to claim the same FQDN as is already allocated to a different tenant.”, Note: FQDN includes the hostname, and a tenant is a configuration).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bendre to incorporate the
teachings of Cahill to constrain tenants to unique FQDNs (Cahill [0036] “…For example, the fully qualified domain name (FQDN) table has a constraint placed on the "name" to assist in preventing a tenant from accidentally trying to claim the same FQDN as is already allocated to a different tenant.”).
Regarding claim 6, Bendre and Cahill teach the method according to claim 5, and Cahill further teaches wherein each of the hostnames is a fully-qualified domain name ([0039] “…For example, the tenant database 235 include a single row for each tenant. A given tenant may include a Required Version record … The tenant records may include other items such as authorized number of users, quotas (e.g. allowed total data usage, per user data usage, etc.), time restrictions, and the like…”, [0036] “…For example, the fully qualified domain name (FQDN) table has a constraint placed on the "name" to assist in preventing a tenant from accidentally trying to claim the same FQDN as is already allocated to a different tenant.”, Note: FQDN includes the hostname, and a tenant is a configuration).
Regarding claim 9, it is a machine claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 2. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 12, it is a machine claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 5. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 13, it is a machine claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 6. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16, it is an article of manufacture claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 2. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19, it is an article of manufacture claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 5. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20, it is an article of manufacture claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 6. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. In particular, US 20220140996 A1 is cited because it discloses a domain name database storing fully qualified domain names.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Examiner respectfully requests, in response to this Office action, support be
shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims.
That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to
page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist
Examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this Office Action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37 CFR 1.111 (c).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN CHE-CHUN TONG whose telephone number is (703)756-1737. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 7:30 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, April Y Blair can be reached on (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.
/J.C.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2196
/APRIL Y BLAIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2196
Prosecution Insights