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 .
1. The text of those sections of Title 35 U.S.C not included in this section can be found in the prior office action.
2. The prior office actions are incorporated herein by reference. In particular, the observations with respect to claim language, and response to previously presented arguments.
3. Claim 10 has been amended.
4. No claims have been added.
Claims 23-25 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-22 are pending.
Response to Arguments
The rejection of claims 23-25 under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) has been removed in view of cancellation of the claims by Applicant.
With respect to prior art rejection of independent claims 1, 10 and 19 Applicant argues: “The claim requires "performing a security evaluation of the container image, before execution of the container image on the development platform" - an operation directed at the image. In contrast, the cited portion of Chen at IL 0048 and its reference to "security" merely refers to the weighting of parameters in a recommendation engine that considers what type of application the user intends to build and "the overall compatibility of the several parts and the core features of the intended application." There is no scanning, vulnerability analysis, or security assessment of the image in Chen. Similarly, the cited portion of Chen at I 0057 discusses providing a suggested container image(s) based on dynamic suggestion parameters - not storing results of a security evaluation in a database.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that Chen discloses: “the system 100 may suggest an image package using suggestion parameters that place more weight on the overall compatibility of the several parts and the core features of the intended application (e.g., security) rather than the properties of the individual image (e.g., ease of use).” Chen Implicitly indicating that the suggestion is based on a security evaluation of the core features of the intended application.
Applicant also argues “ Further, while the cited portions of Fujiwara refer to container image verification, it does not perform any type of image verification operations as part of the execution of that image (e.g., at image runtime). As discussed in Applicant's specification, after an image is evaluated and the results of the security evaluation are stored, then later, the security evaluation results are validated at runtime.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and asserts that Fujiwara teaches the claim limitation and applicant appear to be reading the specification into the claim.
Please See MPEP 2111 AND 2131. MPEP 2131, under the heading "Claims Must Be given Their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation," where it explained that "during patent examination], the Pending claims must be ‘given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification," and cites In re Prater,4l5 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541. 550-51 (CCPA 1969) to explain that "reading a claim in light of the specification, to thereby interpret limitations explicitly recited in the claim, is a quite different thing from ,reading limitations of the specification into a claim, ‘to thereby narrow the scope of the claim by Implicitly adding disclosed limitations which have no express basis in-the claim.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of dependent claims are based on the arguments with respect to the independent claims above. Therefore, Examiner refers Applicant the above response.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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, 5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14, 16, 17, 19-21, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen; Huamin US 20190205408 (hereinafter Chen) in view of Fujiwara Masataka JP 2020154861(hereinafter Fujiwara).
As per claim 1, Chen teaches: A method for processing of container software package images for use in a development platform of edge computing hardware, comprising:
identifying container package data stored at a remote location (A log-in request to log a user into a cloud user account of a cloud platform is received via a user interface, and responsive to the log-in request, the user is logged into the cloud user account. A search query for a type of container image is received from the user via the user interface. The cloud platform is searched for one or more container images within the queried type of container image. One or more container images from among the one or more searched container images are suggested, where the suggesting is based on one or more suggestion parameters." Chen: Abs.), the container package data to be imported into the development platform ("One or more container images from among the one or more searched container images are suggested, where the suggesting is based on one or more suggestion parameters including: an indication of an error rate of the one or more searched container images, an amount of cloud computational resources that would be consumed by running the one or more searched container images, and a compatibility between the one or more searched container images and one or more software development environments (SDE) of the user, wherein the SDE compatibility is known from the cloud user account. A search result is provided, the search result including the one or more suggested container images." Chen: Abs. Also, "The suggested container images are chosen [ upon identifying] from among the one or more searched container images," Chen: para. 59);
storing a container image at the development platform, based on the container package data ("Chen: para. 58);
performing a security evaluation of the container image, before execution of the container image on the development platform ("the system 100 may suggest an image package using suggestion parameters that place more weight on the overall compatibility of the several parts and the core features of the intended application (e.g., security) rather than the properties of the individual image (e.g., ease of use)." Chen: para. 48);
storing results of the security evaluation of the container image in a database accessible to the development platform ("one or more container images are suggested from among the containers searched at action 206. The suggestion is based on one or more suggestion parameters, which may be static, such as a fixed rule to suggest the top ten images with the lowest error rates, or dynamic, such as when the suggestion parameters change in response to a change in the user's account type, or when the suggestion parameters change to focus on overall application parameters (such as security) in response to the system's determination that the user is piecing together an application (such as secure webmail) from disparate images." Chen: para. 57);
adding the container image into a registry of containers available for execution at the development platform (the system provides more than one image to the user. Chen: para. 58);
Chen does not explicitly teach; however, Fujiwara discloses: wherein execution of the container image at the development platform is based on verification of the results of the security evaluation and use of the registry of containers ("When the container image is added to the local registry, the container image verification device 100 according to the present embodiment verifies in advance whether or not a vulnerable package is included.... Therefore, according to the container image verification device 100 according to the present embodiment, the safety of the container image used in the container environment can be ensured." Fujiwara: page. 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Chen with the teaching of
Fujiwara to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the
time of the instant invention and would have been applied to ensure the safety of the
container image used in the container environment (Fujiwara page 16, para. 8).
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Chen: teaches:
the container package data is a pre-built container image, wherein the container image
is pre-built by a remote computing system prior to import to the development platform
("A search query for a type of container image [pre-built container image] is received
from the user via the user interface. The cloud platform is searched for one or more
container images within the queried type of container image. One or more container
images from among the one or more searched container images are suggested." Chen.
Abs).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Chen teaches:
the container image is one of a plurality of container images to import into the
development platform (Chen: Abs.).
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Chen teaches:
implementing a configuration of the container image on the development platform
(Chen: para. 4).
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. Chen teaches:
the development platform comprises a plurality of types of hardware available for execution of the container image (Chen: para. 33 and fig. 1 including plurality of hardware (hardware processor and memory).
As per claim 10, this claim defines a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions corresponding to the method of claim 1 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 1.
As per claim 11, this claim defines a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions corresponding to the method of claim 2 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 2. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 2.
As per claim 12, this claim defines a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions corresponding to the method of claim 3 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 3. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 3.
As per claim 14, this claim defines a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions corresponding to the method of claim 5 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 5. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 5.
As per claim 16, this claim defines a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions corresponding to the method of claim 6 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 7. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 7.
As per claim 17, this claim defines a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions corresponding to the method of claim 8 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 8. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 8.
As per claim 19, this claim defines a system corresponding to the method of claim 1 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 19 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 1.
As per claim 20, this claim defines a system corresponding to the method of claim 2 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 2. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 2.
As per claim 21, this claim defines a system corresponding to the method of claim 3 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 3. Therefore, claim 21 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 3.
As per claim 23, this claim defines an apparatus corresponding to the method of claim 1 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claim 23 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 1.
As per claim 24, this claim defines an apparatus corresponding to the method of claim 2 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 2. Therefore, claim 24 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 2.
Claims 3, 4, 13 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Fujiwara and further in view of Iyer; Sreekanth R. US 20170300697 (hereinafter Lyer).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated herein. The combination of Chen and Fujiwara does not teach; however, Lyer discloses: the container package data includes source code (Lee: Abs.), and wherein the method further comprises: compiling the container image from the source code or container build instructions, at the development platform, before storing the container image ("method 200 for developing a container image for use in production environments, in accordance with embodiments of the present disclosure. In some embodiments, operations of the method 200 may be performed by a user (e.g., software developer), a computer, or a combination thereof. In some embodiments, operations of the method 200 may be performed in a development environment. The method may begin at operation 201, wherein a desired container base layer image is selected. In some embodiments, the base layer image (and other layer images) may be obtained from a file (or source code) repository. The base layer image (and other layer images) may be a pre-designed standardized layer that is used by multiple developers for a wide variety of different containers." Lyer: para. 28)
Therefore, 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 combination of Chen and Fujiwara with the teachings of Lyer to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied to distribute the system tasks.
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated herein. Chen teaches: the
source code or container build instructions are obtained from a software development
project repository (Lyer: para. 28)
Therefore, 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 combination of Chen and Fujiwara with the teachings of Lyer to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been
applied to ensure providing the assigned container image to the receiving device.
As per claim 13, this claim defines a non-transitory machine-readable medium
storing instructions corresponding to the method of claim 4 and does not define beyond
limitations of claim 4. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected with the same rational as in the
rejection of claim 4.
As per claim 25, this claim defines an apparatus corresponding to the method of
claims 3 and 4 and does not define beyond limitations of claims 3 and 4. Therefore,
claim 25 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claims 3 and 4.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Fujiwara and further in view of Biernat; Tim et al. US 20220091572 (hereinafter Biernat).
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated herein. The combination
of Chen and Fujiwara does not teach; however, Biernat discloses: the plurality of
container images provides one or more containers that are inter-dependent (Biernat:
para. 57).
Therefore, 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 combination of Chen and Fujiwara with the teachings of Biernat to meet the preceding limitations. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such modification since such techniques were known at the time of the instant invention and would have been applied handle the software dependencies.
As per claim 15, this claim defines a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions corresponding to the method of claim 6 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 6. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 6.
Claims 9, 18 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Fujiwara and further in view of Kim Youghyun KR102231358 (hereinafter Kim).
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated herein. Chen teaches: causing the execution of the container image at the development platform (Chen: fig. 1),
The combination of Chen and Fujiwara does not teach; however, Kim disclose: the wherein the execution includes performance of one or more workloads distributed among a selected set of hardware of the plurality of types of hardware ("In the case of container-based services such as Docker, container images are distributed to more computing resources in case of a sudden increase in demand so that the increased workload can be distributed and executed." Kim: page 5, para.6).
As per claim 18, this claim defines a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions corresponding to the method of claim 9 and does not define beyond
limitations of claim 9. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 9.
As per claim 22, this claim defines a system corresponding to the method of claim 9 and does not define beyond limitations of claim 9. Therefore, claim 22 is rejected with the same rational as in the rejection of claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US-20200097662-A1 Hufsmith; Brian
US 20220374218-A1 MONTEIRO VIEIRA; Igor
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GHODRAT JAMSHIDI whose telephone number is (571)270-1956. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00-6:00.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at 5712723862. 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.
/GHODRAT JAMSHIDI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
Prosecution Insights