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 10/31/2025.
Response to Amendment
By this amendment, claims 18-24 are amended. Therefore, claims 1-25 are pending. Any objections and rejections not repeated below is withdrawn due to Applicant's amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/31/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues in substance:
The Applicant agrees with the foregoing statement to the extent that claim limitations in this application that use the word "means" are intended to be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, whereas claim limitations in this application that do not use the word "means" are not intended to be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The Applicant respectfully submits there are no exceptions to the foregoing interpretation of the pending claims in the instant application.
With regard to point (a), although Applicant has acknowledged the Office Action’s 112(f) claim interpretation, the closest disclosure in Applicant’s specification of the claim limitations which invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is [0032] “In some examples, the computing device 102 includes means for transmitting an API call. For example, the means for transmitting the API call may be implemented by the client application 200. In some examples, the computing device 102 includes means for identifying service container circuitry to execute a workload. For example, the means for identifying service container circuitry to execute a workload may be implemented by the local API gateway 206 and/or the request routing circuitry 210. In some examples, the computing device 102 includes means for utilizing a container to execute the workload. For example, the means for utilizing a container to execute the workload may be implemented by the service container circuitry 212a-212n. In some examples, the computing device 102 includes means for determining whether the container is locally available. For example, the means for determining whether the container is locally available may be implemented by the client circuitry 214…”. However, this section of Applicant’s specification does not recite sufficient corresponding structure (in this instance computer + algorithm) and contains indefinite language, and thus all 112(a) and 112(b) claim rejections are also maintained. Argument has not been found to be persuasive.
The Office action rejected claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as allegedly being directed to an abstract idea. However, as indicated in the Examiner Interview Summary attached herewith, the Examiner has withdrawn the§ 101 rejection to claim 1-25. Accordingly, the § 101 rejections to claim 1-25 will not further be discussed.
With regard to point (b), Examiner agrees with Applicant and all 101 claim rejections are withdrawn due to the prior interview. Specifically, the limitation of “the service container circuitry to utilize the container to execute the workload to generate an output” cannot be done mentally and thus fails Step 2A Prong One of MPEP 2106.
Griffin describes that "the client computing device 150 may send the request 155 to the API gateway 110 (e.g., over network 145)." Griffin, paragraph [0033]. Griffin further describes that "the API gateway 110 may examine the request 155 to determine one or more APIs 172 to which the request 155 should be forwarded." Id The Office action alleges that the client computing device of Griffin is the application circuitry. Assuming, arguendo, that the client computing device of Griffin is the application circuitry of claim 1, then the API gateway of Griffin is not a local API gateway circuitry because, as shown in FIG. 1 of Griffin, the API gateway is a remote device that communicates with the client computing device via a network. Additionally, because the API gateway of Griffin is remote, it would not make sense to transmit an API call to local API gateway circuitry using a system local network stack Internet protocol (IP) address because a system local network stack Internet protocol address will not reach a remote device. Accordingly, Griffin does not teach or suggest "application circuitry to, after determining that the container is locally available to execute the workload, transmit an application programming interface (API) call to local API gateway circuitry using a system local network stack Internet protocol (IP) address," as set forth in claim 1.
Iyer does not cure the deficiencies of Griffin. Iyer describes instantiating new containers. Iyer, paragraph [003]. However, Iyer does not teach or suggest "application circuitry to, after determining that the container is locally available to execute the workload, transmit an application programming interface (API) call to local API gateway circuitry using a system local network stack Internet protocol (IP) address," as set forth in claim 1.
Liu does not cure the deficiencies of the alleged Griffin/Iyer combination. Liu describes a client terminal sending a user request carrying IP address information to a server when accessing an API Liu, paragraph [0038]. However, like Griffin, Lui describes sending information to a server, which is remote, not local. Accordingly, it would not make sense to transmit an API call to local API gateway circuitry using a system local network stack Internet protocol (IP) address because a system local network stack Internet protocol address will not reach the server. Thus, Liu does not teach or suggest "application circuitry to, after determining that the container is locally available to execute the workload, transmit an application programming interface (API) call to local API gateway circuitry using a system local network stack Internet protocol (IP) address," as set forth in claim 1…
With regard to point (c), Examiner disagrees with Applicant that Griffin does not teach or suggest "application circuitry to, after determining that the container is locally available to execute the workload, transmit an application programming interface (API) call to local API gateway circuitry using a system local network stack Internet protocol (IP) address," as set forth in claim 1. Griffin discloses [0023] “The API gateway computing device 110 may be coupled (e.g., may be operatively coupled, communicatively coupled, may communicate data/messages with each other) to a client computing device 150 (also referred to herein as a client device 150) via network 145. Network 145 may be a public network (e.g., the internet), a private network (e.g., a local area network (LAN) or wide area network (WAN)), or a combination thereof…”. As the API gateway computing device communicates with a client computing device on a network which includes a private network (LAN), it would make sense to transmit an API call to the local API gateway circuitry using a system local network stack Internet protocol (IP) address.
Examiner agrees with Applicant that Iyer does not teach or suggest "application circuitry to, after determining that the container is locally available to execute the workload, transmit an application programming interface (API) call to local API gateway circuitry using a system local network stack Internet protocol (IP) address," as set forth in claim 1.
Examiner disagrees with Applicant that Liu does not teach or suggest "transmit an application programming interface (API) call … using a system local network stack Internet protocol (IP) address," as set forth in claim 1. Liu discloses [0038] “…When accessing blogs, cloud services, APIs, web, and other applications, the client terminal can send a user request carrying the domain name information or the IP address information to a server. After receiving the user request, the server can parse out the domain name information or the IP address information from the user request, and determine among all local containers a first container matching the domain name information or the IP address information, namely, the first container corresponding to the user request.”. As Liu does not disclose which type of network it utilizes for communication, a private network (LAN) would be included as a type of network in which a person of ordinary skill in the art would deem obvious. Thus, it would make sense to transmit an API call using a system local network stack Internet protocol (IP) address.
Therefore, independent claims 1, 11, 18, and 24 and their respective dependent claims are rejected for the reasons in this Office Action’s 103 rejection below.
Argument has not been found to be persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-17 and 19-25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claims 1, 11, and 24, “a container is locally available to execute a workload” should read “a container is locally available to execute the workload”.
In Claims 19-23, “The non-transitory machine readable medium” should read “The non-transitory machine readable storage medium”.
Any claim not specifically mentioned above, is objected due to its dependency on an objected claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations of “means for transmitting to: obtain an indication” in claim 24, “means for transmitting to: transmit an application programming interface (API) call” in claim 24, “means for identifying execution means to execute the workload” in claim 24, “the execution means to utilize the container” in claim 24, “the forwarding means to forward the output to the means for transmitting” in claim 24, and “means for determining” in claim 25 in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The closest disclosure in Applicant’s specification of the above claim limitations which invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is [0032] “In some examples, the computing device 102 includes means for transmitting an API call. For example, the means for transmitting the API call may be implemented by the client application 200. In some examples, the computing device 102 includes means for identifying service container circuitry to execute a workload. For example, the means for identifying service container circuitry to execute a workload may be implemented by the local API gateway 206 and/or the request routing circuitry 210. In some examples, the computing device 102 includes means for utilizing a container to execute the workload. For example, the means for utilizing a container to execute the workload may be implemented by the service container circuitry 212a-212n. In some examples, the computing device 102 includes means for determining whether the container is locally available. For example, the means for determining whether the container is locally available may be implemented by the client circuitry 214…”. However, this section of Applicant’s specification does not recite sufficient corresponding structure (in this instance computer + algorithm) and contains indefinite language, and thus the above claim limitations also are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 24-25 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim limitations of “means for transmitting to: obtain an indication” in claim 24, “means for transmitting to: transmit an application programming interface (API) call” in claim 24, “means for identifying execution means to execute the workload” in claim 24, “the execution means to utilize the container” in claim 24, “the forwarding means to forward the output to the means for transmitting” in claim 24, and “means for determining” in claim 25 invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), see claim interpretation above. The disclosure does not recite sufficient corresponding structure (in this instance computer + algorithm), again see claim interpretation above. As such, and in accordance with MPEP § 2181 (ll)(B), last paragraph "When a claim containing a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for failure to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (e.g., the computer and the algorithm) in the specification that performs the entire claimed function, it will also lack written description under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)."
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 24-25 are 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitations of “means for transmitting to: obtain an indication” in claim 24, “means for transmitting to: transmit an application programming interface (API) call” in claim 24, “means for identifying execution means to execute the workload” in claim 24, “the execution means to utilize the container” in claim 24, “the forwarding means to forward the output to the means for transmitting” in claim 24, and “means for determining” in claim 25 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure (in this instance computer + algorithm), see claim interpretation above. As such, and in accordance with MPEP § 2181 (ll)(B) "For a computer-implemented 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim limitation, the specification must disclose an algorithm for performing the claimed specific computer function, or else the claim is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).". Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 1-9, 11-16, and 18-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin et al. Pub. No. US 2024/0015092 Al (hereafter Griffin), in view of Iyer et al. Pub. No. US 2022/0188167 Al (hereafter Iyer), and further in view of LIU et al. Pub. No. US 2019/0012365 Al (hereafter LIU).
Regarding claim 1, Griffin teaches … processor circuitry including one or more of: at least one of a central processor unit, a graphics processor unit, or a digital signal processor, the at least one of the central processor unit, the graphics processor unit, or the digital signal processor having control circuitry to control data movement within the processor circuitry, arithmetic and logic circuitry to perform one or more first operations corresponding to instructions, and one or more registers to store a result of the one or more first operations, the instructions in the apparatus; a Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA), the FPGA including logic gate circuitry, a plurality of configurable interconnections, and storage circuitry, the logic gate circuitry and the plurality of the configurable interconnections to perform one or more second operations, the storage circuitry to store a result of the one or more second operations; or Application Specific Integrated Circuitry (ASIC) including logic gate circuitry to perform one or more third operations; the processor circuitry to perform at least one of the first operations, the second operations, or the third operations to instantiate ([0070] Processing device 602 may be provided by one or more general-purpose processing devices such as a microprocessor, central processing unit, or the like … Processing device 602 may also include one or more special-purpose processing devices such as an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC), a field programmable gate array (FPGA), a digital signal processor (DSP), network processor, or the like…”): application circuitry to ... transmit an application programming interface (API) call to local API gateway circuitry ([0033] “…For example, the client computing device 150 may send the request 155 to the API gateway 110…”, Note: The client computing device 150 is the application circuitry) … the local API gateway circuitry to identify service container circuitry to execute the workload based on the API call ([0033] “…The API gateway 110 may examine the request 155 to determine one or more APIs 172 to which the request 155 should be forwarded. Upon determining the correct one or more APIs 172, the API gateway 110 may forward the request 155 (or a portion of the request 155) to the one or more APIs 172 of the associated service 170…”, [0012] “…Cluster infrastructures may include a number of applications providing services (e.g., containers and/or VMs…”, Note: Services are in the containers executing the requests); and the service container circuitry to utilize the container to execute the workload to generate an output ([0010] “In computer systems supporting the development and execution of application services, virtual machines and/or containers may be used…”, [0033] “…The API gateway 110 also receives any response (e.g., a result) of the request 155 from the one or more APIs 172, and forwards the response to the client computing device 150.”, Note: Services are in the containers executing the requests and outputting results); and the local API gateway circuitry to forward the output to the application circuitry ([0033] “…The API gateway 110 also receives any response (e.g., a result) of the request 155 from the one or more APIs 172, and forwards the response to the client computing device 150.”, Note: The client computing device 150 is the application circuitry).
Griffin fails to teach an apparatus to service a workload locally, the
apparatus comprising: interface circuitry to obtain an indication that a container is locally available to execute a workload … after determining that the container is locally available to execute the workload…
In analogous art Iyer teaches an apparatus to service a workload locally, the
apparatus comprising: interface circuitry to obtain an indication that a container is locally available to execute a workload ([0003] “…The manager may receive a request to instantiate a new container on the information handling system, and classify and categorizes the new container. When a sum of the first and second allocations does not exceed a total amount of the hardware resource, the manager may direct the container handler to instantiate the second container on the information handling system…”, [0012] “Information handling system 130 represents the local data processing and storage resources that are available on a computing device that is local to a particular user…”, Note: The container handler is the interface circuitry) … after determining that the container is locally available to execute the workload ([0003] “…The manager may receive a request to instantiate a new container on the information handling system, and classify and categorizes the new container. When a sum of the first and second allocations does not exceed a total amount of the hardware resource, the manager may direct the container handler to instantiate the second container on the information handling system. When the sum exceeds the total amount, the manager may determine whether or not the first usage is greater than the second usage, and direct the handler to instantiate the new container on the network system when the first usage is greater than the second usage.”, [0012] “Information handling system 130 represents the local data processing and storage resources that are available on a computing device that is local to a particular user…”, Note: The network system is the edge or the cloud in Fig. 1)…
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 Griffin to incorporate the teachings of Iyer to balance resource demand with proximity (i.e., latency) of access to the resources in processing environments with limited resources (Iyer [0058] “It will be understood that the teachings, while described in the context of a user's needs on an information handling system, the functions and features of a host management service, as described above, may be applicable to other processing environments with limited resources and an ability to balance resource demand with proximity (i.e., latency) of access to the resources…”).
Griffin and Iyer fail to teach transmit an application programming interface
(API) call … using a system local network stack Internet protocol (IP) address.
In analogous art LIU teaches transmit an application programming interface
(API) call … using a system local network stack Internet protocol (IP) address ([0038] “…When accessing blogs, cloud services, APIs, web, and other applications, the client terminal can send a user request carrying the domain name information or the IP address information to a server. After receiving the user request, the server can parse out the domain name information or the IP address information from the user request, and determine among all local containers a first container matching the domain name information or the IP address information, namely, the first container corresponding to the user request.”).
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 Griffin and Iyer to incorporate the teachings of LIU to provide adequate resources to process a user request (LIU [0039] “…The processing can include analyzing information carried in the user request, such as to-be-written data, user identity information, and a link carried in the user request, and acquiring content corresponding to the link and so on. For user requests associated with other applications, the processing procedures of the user request may include similar processing of the user request associated with the blog application, details of which are not repeated herein. Based on the above, the first container can provide computing resources, memory resources, network resources, storage resources and the like for processing the user request, and the user request can be processed by using the resources provided by the first container.”).
Regarding claim 2, Griffin, Iyer, and LIU teach the apparatus of claim 1, and Iyer further teaches wherein the application circuitry is to transmit an inquiry to client circuitry corresponding to whether the container is locally available to execute the workload ([0003] “…The manager may receive a request to instantiate a new container on the information handling system, and classify and categorizes the new container. When a sum of the first and second allocations does not exceed a total amount of the hardware resource, the manager may direct the container handler to instantiate the second container on the information handling system. When the sum exceeds the total amount, the manager may determine whether or not the first usage is greater than the second usage, and direct the handler to instantiate the new container on the network system when the first usage is greater than the second usage.”, [0012] “Information handling system 130 represents the local data processing and storage resources that are available on a computing device that is local to a particular user…”, Note: The network system is the edge or the cloud in Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Griffin, Iyer, and LIU teach the apparatus of claim 2, and Iyer further teaches wherein the processor circuitry is to perform at least one of the first operations, the second operations, or the third operations to instantiate the client circuitry to: determine whether the container is locally available ([0003] “…The manager may receive a request to instantiate a new container on the information handling system, and classify and categorizes the new container. When a sum of the first and second allocations does not exceed a total amount of the hardware resource, the manager may direct the container handler to instantiate the second container on the information handling system. When the sum exceeds the total amount, the manager may determine whether or not the first usage is greater than the second usage, and direct the handler to instantiate the new container on the network system when the first usage is greater than the second usage.”, [0012] “Information handling system 130 represents the local data processing and storage resources that are available on a computing device that is local to a particular user…”, Note: The network system is the edge or the cloud in Fig. 1); and transmit the indication based on the determination ([0003] “…The manager may receive a request to instantiate a new container on the information handling system, and classify and categorizes the new container. When a sum of the first and second allocations does not exceed a total amount of the hardware resource, the manager may direct the container handler to instantiate the second container on the information handling system. When the sum exceeds the total amount, the manager may determine whether or not the first usage is greater than the second usage, and direct the handler to instantiate the new container on the network system when the first usage is greater than the second usage.”, Note: The container handler obtains the determination).
Regarding claim 4, Griffin, Iyer, and LIU teach the apparatus of claim 2, and Iyer further teaches wherein the processor circuitry is to perform at least one of the first operations, the second operations, or the third operations to instantiate the client circuitry to download the container when the container is not available ([0013] “…In this regard, handler 140 operates to receive container requests from a user of information handling system 130, from edge 120, or from cloud 110, determines the resource allocation needed to instantiate the associated containers, allocates the resources from hardware resources 160, launches the associated containers … Note that handler 140 may also represent a workload agent that is associated with a virtual desktop environment, where workloads are instantiated on information handling system 130 by a remote virtual desktop manager…”, Note: The workload agent/remote virtual desktop manager (or handler) functions similar to the client circuitry that allocates (downloads) the containers).
Regarding claim 5, Griffin, Iyer, and LIU teach the apparatus of claim 1, Iyer further teaches after determining that the container is not locally available to execute the workload … to execute a first portion of the workload at the cloud-based server ([0003] “…The manager may receive a request to instantiate a new container on the information handling system, and classify and categorizes the new container … When the sum exceeds the total amount, the manager may determine whether or not the first usage is greater than the second usage, and direct the handler to instantiate the new container on the network system when the first usage is greater than the second usage.”, [0012] “Information handling system 130 represents the local data processing and storage resources that are available on a computing device that is local to a particular user…”, [0052] “…Mode 5 may be considered as a location-based hybrid of Modes 3 and 4, where a Mode 5 container is managed similarly to a Mode 3 container in a first location, and is managed similarly to a Mode 4 container in a second location. For example, in a first location where network connectivity is not assured, running this container on information handling system 130 may be prudent, while in a second location with greater internet connectivity, running this container from edge 120 or cloud 110 may be sufficient.”, Table 1 Mode 5, Note: The network system is the edge or the cloud in Fig. 1), and Griffin further teaches wherein the API call is a first API call, the application circuitry to … transmit a second API call to a cloud-based server ([0033] “…For example, the client computing device 150 may send the request 155 to the API gateway 110 … the API gateway 110 may forward the request 155 (or a portion of the request 155) to the one or more APIs 172 of the associated service 170…”).
Regarding claim 6, Griffin, Iyer, and LIU teach the apparatus of claim 5, Iyer further teaches after determining that the container is locally available to execute the workload based on a second indication … the API call corresponding to local execution of a second portion of the workload ([0003] “…The manager may receive a request to instantiate a new container on the information handling system, and classify and categorizes the new container. When a sum of the first and second allocations does not exceed a total amount of the hardware resource, the manager may direct the container handler to instantiate the second container on the information handling system…”, [0012] “Information handling system 130 represents the local data processing and storage resources that are available on a computing device that is local to a particular user…”), and LIU further teaches wherein the indication is a first indication, the application circuitry to … transmit the API call to the local API gateway circuitry using the system local network stack IP address, ([0038] “…When accessing blogs, cloud services, APIs, web, and other applications, the client terminal can send a user request carrying the domain name information or the IP address information to a server. After receiving the user request, the server can parse out the domain name information or the IP address information from the user request, and determine among all local containers a first container matching the domain name information or the IP address information, namely, the first container corresponding to the user request.”).
Regarding claim 7, Griffin, Iyer, and LIU teach the apparatus of claim 1, and Iyer further teaches wherein the workload is scheduled to be executed at a cloud-based server ([0052] “…running this container from edge 120 or cloud 110 may be sufficient.”).
Regarding claim 8, Griffin, Iyer, and LIU teach the apparatus of claim 1, and LIU further teaches wherein the local API gateway circuitry is to select the service container circuitry based on a header of a URL used to transmit the API call, the URL corresponding to the system local network stack IP address ([0038] “…When accessing blogs, cloud services, APIs, web, and other applications, the client terminal can send a user request carrying the domain name information or the IP address information to a server. After receiving the user request, the server can parse out the domain name information or the IP address information from the user request, and determine among all local containers a first container matching the domain name information or the IP address information, namely, the first container corresponding to the user request.”).
Regarding claim 9, Griffin, Iyer, and LIU teach the apparatus of claim 1, and Griffin further teaches wherein the application circuitry is to transmit the API call without using at least one of a key, a token, or transport layer security ([0033] “As the front-end of the cluster 160, the API gateway 110 may be the point of access for requests 155 from a client computing device 150. For example, the client computing device 150 may send the request 155 to the API gateway 110…).
Regarding claim 11, Griffin further teaches an apparatus to service a workload locally, the apparatus comprising: at least one memory; machine readable instructions; and processor circuitry to at least one of instantiate or execute the machine readable instructions to ([0024] “Each of the API gateway 110, the node computing devices 130, and the client computing device 150 (also collectively referred to herein as the "computing devices") may include hardware such as processing device 122 (e.g., processors, central processing units (CPUs), memory 124 (e.g., random access memory 124 (e.g., RAM), storage devices (e.g., hard-disk drive (HDD), solid-state drive (SSD), etc.), and other hardware devices (e.g., sound card, video card, etc.).”). The other limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 12, Griffin, Iyer, and LIU teach the apparatus of claim 11, and Iyer further teaches wherein the processor circuitry is to: determine whether the container is locally available to execute the workload ([0003] “…The manager may receive a request to instantiate a new container on the information handling system, and classify and categorizes the new container. When a sum of the first and second allocations does not exceed a total amount of the hardware resource, the manager may direct the container handler to instantiate the second container on the information handling system. When the sum exceeds the total amount, the manager may determine whether or not the first usage is greater than the second usage, and direct the handler to instantiate the new container on the network system when the first usage is greater than the second usage.”, [0012] “Information handling system 130 represents the local data processing and storage resources that are available on a computing device that is local to a particular user…”, Note: The network system is the edge or the cloud in Fig. 1); and download the container when the container is not locally available ([0013] “…In this regard, handler 140 operates to receive container requests from a user of information handling system 130, from edge 120, or from cloud 110, determines the resource allocation needed to instantiate the associated containers, allocates the resources from hardware resources 160, launches the associated containers … Note that handler 140 may also represent a workload agent that is associated with a virtual desktop environment, where workloads are instantiated on information handling system 130 by a remote virtual desktop manager…”, Note: The workload agent/remote virtual desktop manager (or handler) functions similar to the client circuitry that allocates (downloads) the containers).
Regarding claim 13, it is a machine claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claims 5 and 6. 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, it is a machine claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 8. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16, it is a machine claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 9. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18, Griffin further teaches a non-transitory machine readable storage medium comprising instructions that cause processor circuitry to at least ([0075] “Examples described herein also relate to an apparatus for performing the operations described herein. This apparatus may be specially constructed for the required purposes, or it may comprise a general purpose computing device selectively programmed by a computer program stored in the computing device. Such a computer program may be stored in a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium.”). The other limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 1. 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 12. 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 claims 5 and 6. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 21, it is an article of manufacture claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 7. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 22, it is an article of manufacture claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 8. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 23, it is an article of manufacture claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 9. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 24, it is a machine claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Regarding claim 25, it is a machine claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 12. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin et al. Pub. No. US 2024/0015092 Al (hereafter Griffin), in view of Iyer et al. Pub. No. US 2022/0188167 Al (hereafter Iyer), further in view of LIU et al. Pub. No. US 2019/0012365 Al (hereafter LIU) as applied to claims 1-9, 11-16, and 18-25 above, and further in view of HAYASHI et al. Pub. No. US 2018/0124170 Al (hereafter HAYASHI).
Regarding claim 10, Griffin, Iyer, and LIU teach the apparatus of claim 1.
Griffin, Iyer, and LIU fail to teach wherein the local API gateway circuitry is to: log data corresponding to the local execution of the workload; and transmit the logged data to an external device.
In analogous art HAYASHI teaches wherein the local API gateway circuitry is
to: log data corresponding to the local execution of the workload ([0070] “FIG. 9 is an explanatory diagram for explaining the list display screen of logs … The logs 221A to 221D are the logs 133 collected from the virtual server 132A in batch processing at regular intervals and scale-in processing.”, Note: Logs are collected from each locally executed virtual server); and transmit the logged data to an external device ([0073] “Each of the logs 221A to 221D is provided with an instruction button 222 to request download (output). When accepting an operation instruction of the instruction button 222 provided for the logs 221A to 221D, the cloud environment controller 11 outputs the log regarding which the operation instruction is made to the terminal device 3…”).
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 Griffin, Iyer, and LIU to incorporate the teachings of HAYASHI to provide a way to record execution history (log) of a server and verify its processing (HAYASHI [0019] “In conventional technology, the execution history (log) of the server removed in scale-in is not left and thus it is difficult to verify the course of processing until the scale-in and so forth.”).
Regarding claim 17, it is a machine claim whose limitations are substantially the same as those of claim 10. 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 20230376344 A1 is cited because it discloses steps to determining whether to execute a workload locally (on an edge device) or on cloud.
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