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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 03/13/2023.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Examiner’s Note
Please note that Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirely as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
1. A system comprising:
a first compute node comprising:
a first isolated virtual computing instance executing a first version of a first service of a distributed computing system; and
a second isolated virtual computing instance executing a first version of a second service of the distributed computing system; and
a management node comprising:
a processor; and
a memory coupled to the processor, wherein the memory comprises a version rollback module to:
receive a request to upgrade the distributed computing system;
upgrade the distributed computing system including the first service and the second service to a second version while retaining the first version of the first service and the second service;
upon upgrading the distributed computing system, detect an issue associated with the second version of the first service; and
upon detecting the issue, perform a rollback operation to roll back the first service to the first version while retaining second version of the second service.
Claim 1, this claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directing to a system claim under Step 1.
Regarding claim 1, the limitations “upon upgrading the distributed computing system, detect an issue associated with the second version of the first service; and upon detecting the issue, perform a rollback operation to roll back the first service to the first version while retaining second version of the second service” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. For example, a person is capable of finding an issue with the software versions. In the same manner, a person is capable of rolling back the previous version (i.e., the first version) in case of an error occurred during upgrade with the aid of pen and paper. These limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, the additional elements “a first compute node comprising: a first isolated virtual computing instance executing a first version of a first service of a distributed computing system; and a second isolated virtual computing instance executing a first version of a second service of the distributed computing system; and a management node comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, wherein the memory comprises a version rollback module to,” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, See MPEP 2106.05(f). For the additional elements “receive a request to upgrade the distributed computing system; upgrade the distributed computing system including the first service and the second service to a second version while retaining the first version of the first service and the second service” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering and upgrading/storing data. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “a first compute node comprising: a first isolated virtual computing instance executing a first version of a first service of a distributed computing system; and a second isolated virtual computing instance executing a first version of a second service of the distributed computing system; and a management node comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, wherein the memory comprises a version rollback module to,” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer and/or computer components to carry out the exception. See MPEP 2105.06(f). The elements “receive a request to upgrade the distributed computing system; upgrade the distributed computing system including the first service and the second service to a second version while retaining the first version of the first service and the second service” the courts have identified mere data gathering and upgrading/storing data are well-understood, routine and conventional activity (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
2. The system of claim 1, further comprising:
a second compute node comprising: a third isolated virtual computing instance executing a first version of a third service of the distributed computing system, wherein the version rollback module is to upgrade the distributed computing system including the first service, the second service, and the third service to a second version.
Regarding claim 2, the limitations a second compute node comprising: a third isolated virtual computing instance executing a first version of a third service of the distributed computing system, amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer and/or computer components to carry out the exception under prong 2 and 2B. For the limitations wherein the version rollback module is to upgrade the distributed computing system including the first service, the second service, and the third service to a second version is an additional mental process under prong 1.
3. The system of claim 2, wherein the first compute node is part of a management plane and the second compute node is part of a data plane or a control plane.
Regarding claim 3, the limitations wherein the first compute node is part of a management plane and the second compute node is part of a data plane or a control plane is an additional insignificant extra solution activity under prong 2.
4. The system of claim 1, wherein the version rollback module is to:
during the upgrade of the distributed computing system, detect an error or failure associated with the upgrade of the first service; and
in response to detecting the error or failure associated with the upgrade of the first service, perform the rollback operation to roll back the first service to the first version while retaining the second version of the second service.
Regarding claim 4, the limitations during the upgrade of the distributed computing system, detect an error or failure associated with the upgrade of the first service; and in response to detecting the error or failure associated with the upgrade of the first service, perform the rollback operation to roll back the first service to the first version while retaining the second version of the second service is an additional mental process under prong 1.
5. The system of claim 1, wherein the version rollback module is to:
upon completing the upgrade of the distributed computing system, provide a user- selectable option to roll back the first service in a user interface of a management plane;
and upon a user selection of the user-selectable option, perform the rollback operation to roll back the first service from the second version to the first version while retaining the second version of the second service.
Regarding claim 5, the limitations upon completing the upgrade of the distributed computing system, provide a user- selectable option to roll back the first service in a user interface of a management plane; and upon a user selection of the user-selectable option, perform the rollback operation to roll back the first service from the second version to the first version while retaining the second version of the second service is an additional mental process under prong 1.
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the version rollback module is to:
upon completing the upgrade of the distributed computing system, provide a user- selectable option in a user interface of a management plane to enable a user to navigate through a roll back process of the first service.
Regarding claim 6, the limitations upon completing the upgrade of the distributed computing system, provide a user- selectable option in a user interface of a management plane to enable a user to navigate through a roll back process of the first service is an additional mental process under prong 1.
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the version rollback module is to:
upon rolling back the first service to the first version and when the second version of the first service does not include a new feature, display a notification on a user interface of the first service indicating that the first service is rolled back to the first version.
Regarding claim 7, the limitations upon rolling back the first service to the first version and when the second version of the first service does not include a new feature, display a notification on a user interface of the first service indicating that the first service is rolled back to the first version is an additional insignificant extra solution activity under prong 2.
8. The system of claim 1, wherein the version rollback module is to:
upon rolling back the first service to the first version and when the second version of the first service includes a new feature, display a notification on a user interface of the first service indicating an unavailability of the new feature.
Regarding claim 8, the limitations upon rolling back the first service to the first version and when the second version of the first service includes a new feature, display a notification on a user interface of the first service indicating an unavailability of the new feature is an additional insignificant extra solution activity under prong 2.
9. The system of claim 1, wherein the version rollback module is to:
determine a dependent service of the distributed computing system that is having a dependency relationship with the second version of the first service;
determine a functionality of the dependent service that is likely to affect; and
generate a notification on a user interface, wherein the notification is to indicate the functionality of the dependent service that is likely to affect.
Regarding claim 9, the limitations determine a dependent service of the distributed computing system that is having a dependency relationship with the second version of the first service; determine a functionality of the dependent service that is likely to affect; and generate a notification on a user interface, wherein the notification is to indicate the functionality of the dependent service that is likely to affect is an additional mental process under prong 1.
10. A non-transitory computer readable storage medium having instructions executable by a processor of a management node to:
receive a request to upgrade a distributed computing system comprising a microservices architecture, wherein the distributed computing system comprises a first service having a first component running in a management plane and a second component running in a data plane;
upgrade the distributed computing system from a first version to a second version while retaining the first version;
upon upgrading the distributed computing system, receive a request to roll back the first component running in the management plane from the second version to the first version; and
in response to receiving the request, perform a rollback operation to roll back the first component to the first version while retaining the second version of the second component running in the data plane.
Claim 10, this claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directing to a medium claim under Step 1.
Regarding claim 10, the limitations “upon upgrading the distributed computing system, receive a request to roll back the first component running in the management plane from the second version to the first version; and in response to receiving the request, perform a rollback operation to roll back the first component to the first version while retaining the second version of the second component running in the data plane” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. For example, a person is capable of finding an issue with the software versions. In the same manner, a person is capable of rolling back the previous version (i.e., the first version) in case of an error occurred during upgrade with the aid of pen and paper. These limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, the additional elements “non-transitory computer readable storage medium” “by a processor of a management node to” and “wherein the distributed computing system comprises a first service having a first component running in a management plane and a second component running in a data plane” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, See MPEP 2106.05(f). For the additional elements “receive a request to upgrade a distributed computing system comprising a microservices architecture” “upgrade the distributed computing system from a first version to a second version while retaining the first version” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering and upgrading/storing data. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “non-transitory computer readable storage medium” “by a processor of a management node to” and “wherein the distributed computing system comprises a first service having a first component running in a management plane and a second component running in a data plane,” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer and/or computer components to carry out the exception. See MPEP 2105.06(f). The elements “receive a request to upgrade a distributed computing system comprising a microservices architecture” “upgrade the distributed computing system from a first version to a second version while retaining the first version” the courts have identified mere data gathering and upgrading/storing data are well-understood, routine and conventional activity (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
11. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 10, wherein the first component is to run in a first isolated virtual computing instance of a first compute node in the management plane such that the first component executes in isolation from other services running on the first compute node, and wherein the second component is to run in a second isolated virtual computing instance of a second compute node in the data plane such that the second component executes in isolation from other services running in the second compute node.
Regarding claim 11, the limitations wherein the first component is to run in a first isolated virtual computing instance of a first compute node in the management plane such that the first component executes in isolation from other services running on the first compute node, and wherein the second component is to run in a second isolated virtual computing instance of a second compute node in the data plane such that the second component executes in isolation from other services running in the second compute node, amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer and/or computer components to carry out the exception under prong 2 and 2B.
12. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 10, wherein instructions to receive the request to roll back the first component comprise instructions to:
provide, via a user interface of the management plane, a user-selectable option to roll back the first component; and
receive the request to roll back the first component via the user-selectable option.
Regarding claim 12, the limitations provide, via a user interface of the management plane, a user-selectable option to roll back the first component; and receive the request to roll back the first component via the user-selectable option is an additional insignificant extra solution activity under prong 2.
13. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 10, wherein the data plane is backward compatible with the management plane such that operations of the first version of the first component in the management plane can be compatible with operations of the second version of the second component in the data plane.
Regarding claim 13, the limitations wherein the data plane is backward compatible with the management plane such that operations of the first version of the first component in the management plane can be compatible with operations of the second version of the second component in the data plane is an additional insignificant extra solution activity under prong 2.
14. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 10, further comprising instructions to:
determine a second service of the distributed computing system that is having a dependency relationship with the second version of the first service;
determine a functionality of the second service that is likely to affect; and
generate a notification on a user interface, wherein the notification is to indicate the functionality of the second service that is likely to affect.
Regarding claim 14, the limitations determine a second service of the distributed computing system that is having a dependency relationship with the second version of the first service; determine a functionality of the second service that is likely to affect; and generate a notification on a user interface, wherein the notification is to indicate the functionality of the second service that is likely to affect is an additional mental process under prong 1.
15. A computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a request to upgrade a distributed computing system, the distributed computing system comprising multiple services running on respective isolated virtual computing instances in a network virtualization platform, the network virtualization platform comprising a management plane and at least one of a data plane and a control plane;
upgrading the services of the distributed computing system from a first version to a second version while retaining the first version associated with the services;
upon upgrading the distributed computing system, detecting an issue associated with the second version of a first service of the services in the management plane; and
upon detecting an issue associated with the second version of the first service, enabling to perform a rollback operation to roll back the first service in the management plane to the first version while retaining the second version of remaining services.
Claim 15 this claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directing to a method claim under Step 1.
Regarding claim 15, the limitations “upon upgrading the distributed computing system, detecting an issue associated with the second version of a first service of the services in the management plane; and upon detecting an issue associated with the second version of the first service, enabling to perform a rollback operation to roll back the first service in the management plane to the first version while retaining the second version of remaining services” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. For example, a person is capable of finding an issue with the software versions. In the same manner, a person is capable of rolling back the previous version (i.e., the first version) in case of an error occurred during upgrade with the aid of pen and paper. These limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations recite and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, the additional elements “the distributed computing system comprising multiple services running on respective isolated virtual computing instances in a network virtualization platform, the network virtualization platform comprising a management plane and at least one of a data plane and a control plane” are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, See MPEP 2106.05(f). For the additional elements “receiving a request to upgrade a distributed computing system” “upgrading the services of the distributed computing system from a first version to a second version while retaining the first version associated with the services” do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering and upgrading/storing data. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “the distributed computing system comprising multiple services running on respective isolated virtual computing instances in a network virtualization platform, the network virtualization platform comprising a management plane and at least one of a data plane and a control plane,” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer and/or computer components to carry out the exception. See MPEP 2105.06(f). The elements “receiving a request to upgrade a distributed computing system” “upgrading the services of the distributed computing system from a first version to a second version while retaining the first version associated with the services” the courts have identified mere data gathering and upgrading/storing data are well-understood, routine and conventional activity (Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1368, 125 USPQ2d 1649, 1654 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
16. The method of claim 15, wherein enabling to perform the rollback operation comprises:
providing, via a user interface of the management plane, a user-selectable option to roll back the first service; and
in response to a selection of the user-selectable option, performing the rollback operation to roll back the first service from the second version to the first version while retaining the second version of the remaining services.
Regarding claim 16, the limitations providing, via a user interface of the management plane, a user-selectable option to roll back the first service; and in response to a selection of the user-selectable option, performing the rollback operation to roll back the first service from the second version to the first version while retaining the second version of the remaining services is an additional insignificant extra solution activity under prong 2.
17. The method of claim 15, further comprising:
determining a second service that is having a dependency relationship with the second version of the first service;
determining a functionality of the second service that is likely to affect; and
generating a notification on a user interface, wherein the notification is to indicate the functionality of the second service that is likely to affect.
Regarding claim 17, the limitations determining a second service that is having a dependency relationship with the second version of the first service; determining a functionality of the second service that is likely to affect; and generating a notification on a user interface, wherein the notification is to indicate the functionality of the second service that is likely to affect is an additional mental process under prong 1.
18. The method of claim 17, further comprising:
providing an option, on the user interface, to roll back the second service from the second version to the first version.
Regarding claim 18, the limitations providing an option, on the user interface, to roll back the second service from the second version to the first version is an additional mental process under prong 1.
19. The method of claim 15, wherein detecting the issue associated with the second version of the first service comprises one of:
during the upgrading of the services of the distributed computing system, detecting an error or failure associated with the upgrade of the first service; and
after the upgrade of the services of the distributed computing system, detecting that a feature associated with the second version of the first service is not working.
Regarding claim 19, the limitations during the upgrading of the services of the distributed computing system, detecting an error or failure associated with the upgrade of the first service; and after the upgrade of the services of the distributed computing system, detecting that a feature associated with the second version of the first service is not working is an additional mental process under prong 1.
20. The method of claim 15, wherein the first service comprises a first component running in the management plane and a second component running in the data plane and/or the control plane, and wherein performing the rollback operation comprises:
performing the rollback operation to roll back the first component running in the management plane to the first version while retaining the second version of the second component in the data plane and/or the control plane.
Regarding claim 20, the limitations performing the rollback operation to roll back the first component running in the management plane to the first version while retaining the second version of the second component in the data plane and/or the control plane is an additional mental process under prong 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10-13, 15-16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPN 20230004381 to Ma.
Per claim 1:
Ma discloses:
1. A system comprising:
a first compute node comprising:
a first isolated virtual computing instance executing a first version of a first service of a distributed computing system (Fig. 1 element ECU and related discussion); and
a second isolated virtual computing instance executing a first version of a second service of the distributed computing system (Fig. 1 element software development device and related discussion); and
a management node comprising:
a processor (Fig. 1 element 920 and related discussion); and
a memory coupled to the processor, wherein the memory comprises a version rollback module to (Fig. 1 element 920, 930 and related discussion):
receive a request to upgrade the distributed computing system (Paragraph [0049] “terminal device may download, based on the version numbers, the corresponding software update package”);
upgrade the distributed computing system including the first service and the second service to a second version while retaining the first version of the first service and the second service (Paragraph [0065] “downloads the software update package of the new version (i.e., second version) of the target software (i.e., first version) from the OTA cloud server”);
upon upgrading the distributed computing system, detect an issue associated with the second version of the first service (Paragraph [0065] “After updating the target software, a new version is obtained based on an old version… there may be a bug in software of the new version, causing abnormal running of the software of the new version”); and
upon detecting the issue, perform a rollback operation to roll back the first service to the first version while retaining second version of the second service (Paragraph [0068] “there may be a bug in software of the new version, causing abnormal running of the software of the new version. After detecting that there is a rollback requirement for the target software, the ECU may roll back the target software to obtain the target software of the old version”).
Per claim 2:
Ma discloses:
2. The system of claim 1, further comprising:
a second compute node comprising: a third isolated virtual computing instance executing a first version of a third service of the distributed computing system (Paragraph [0049] “version numbers used to indicate versions of the application software… terminal device may download, based on the version numbers”), wherein the version rollback module is to upgrade the distributed computing system including the first service, the second service, and the third service to a second version (Paragraph [0049] “a current version number of the application software is v.2.0, and a version number of application software of the new version is v.2.1”).
Per claim 3:
Ma discloses:
3. The system of claim 2, wherein the first compute node is part of a management plane and the second compute node is part of a data plane or a control plane (Paragraph [0059] “the terminal device may be a mobile phone, a tablet computer, or the like. In an internet of things (internet of things, IoT) communications scenario, the terminal device may be a mobile internet device, a wearable device, or various wireless terminals in industry or smart household”).
Per claim 4:
Ma discloses:
4. The system of claim 1, wherein the version rollback module is to:
during the upgrade of the distributed computing system, detect an error or failure associated with the upgrade of the first service (Paragraph [0068] “there may be a bug in software of the new version, causing abnormal running of the software of the new version”); and
in response to detecting the error or failure associated with the upgrade of the first service, perform the rollback operation to roll back the first service to the first version while retaining the second version of the second service (Paragraph [0068] “After detecting that there is a rollback requirement for the target software, the ECU may roll back the target software to obtain the target software of the old version”).
Per claim 5:
Ma discloses:
5. The system of claim 1, wherein the version rollback module is to:
upon completing the upgrade of the distributed computing system, provide a user- selectable option to roll back the first service in a user interface of a management plane (Paragraph [0140-0141] “A user has a rollback requirement for the target software… After the update of the target software is completed, if the user wants the target software to roll back to a previous version (the old version)”);
and upon a user selection of the user-selectable option, perform the rollback operation to roll back the first service from the second version to the first version while retaining the second version of the second service (Paragraph [0141] “updated target software of a new version does not have a function frequently used by the user, the user may trigger the terminal device to perform rollback. For example, the user controls the terminal device to install a complete installation file of the target software of the old version, or the terminal device has a rollback functional button, where the rollback functional button may be used for selecting software to be rolled back. The user may perform an operation on the functional button, to trigger the terminal device to roll back the target software”).
Per claim 6:
Ma discloses:
6. The system of claim 1, wherein the version rollback module is to:
upon completing the upgrade of the distributed computing system (Paragraph [0140-0141] “A user has a rollback requirement for the target software… After the update of the target software is completed, if the user wants the target software to roll back to a previous version (the old version)”), provide a user- selectable option in a user interface of a management plane to enable a user to navigate through a roll back process of the first service (Paragraph [0141] “updated target software of a new version does not have a function frequently used by the user, the user may trigger the terminal device to perform rollback. For example, the user controls the terminal device to install a complete installation file of the target software of the old version, or the terminal device has a rollback functional button, where the rollback functional button may be used for selecting software to be rolled back. The user may perform an operation on the functional button, to trigger the terminal device to roll back the target software”).
Claims 10 is/are the medium/product claim corresponding to system claims 1+3 and rejected under the same rational set forth in connection with the rejection of claims 1+3 as noted above.
Per claim 11:
Ma discloses:
11. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 10, wherein the first component is to run in a first isolated virtual computing instance of a first compute node in the management plane such that the first component executes in isolation from other services running on the first compute node (Fig. 1 element ECU and related discussion), and wherein the second component is to run in a second isolated virtual computing instance of a second compute node in the data plane such that the second component executes in isolation from other services running in the second compute node (Paragraph [0049] “version numbers used to indicate versions of the application software… terminal device may download, based on the version numbers”; Paragraph [0059] “the terminal device may be a mobile phone, a tablet computer, or the like. In an internet of things (internet of things, IoT) communications scenario, the terminal device may be a mobile internet device, a wearable device, or various wireless terminals in industry or smart household”).
Claims 12 is/are the medium/product claim corresponding to system claim 5 and rejected under the same rational set forth in connection with the rejection of claim 5 respectively, as noted above.
Per claim 13:
Ma discloses:
13. The non-transitory computer readable storage medium of claim 10, wherein the data plane is backward compatible with the management plane such that operations of the first version of the first component in the management plane can be compatible with operations of the second version of the second component in the data plane (Paragraph [0059] “the terminal device may be a mobile phone, a tablet computer, or the like. In an internet of things (internet of things, IoT) communications scenario, the terminal device may be a mobile internet device, a wearable device, or various wireless terminals in industry or smart household”).
Claims 15, 16 and 19 is/are the method claim corresponding to apparatus/system claims 1+3, 5, and 4 respectively, and rejected under the same rational set forth in connection with the rejection of claims 1+3, 5, and 4 respectively, as noted above.
Per claim 18:
Ma discloses:
18. The method of claim 17, further comprising:
providing an option, on the user interface, to roll back the second service from the second version to the first version (Paragraph [0140-0141] “A user has a rollback requirement for the target software… After the update of the target software is completed, if the user wants the target software to roll back to a previous version (the old version)”).
Per claim 20:
Ma discloses:
20. The method of claim 15, wherein the first service comprises a first component running in the management plane and a second component running in the data plane and/or the control plane, and wherein performing the rollback operation comprises:
performing the rollback operation to roll back the first component running in the management plane to the first version while retaining the second version of the second component in the data plane and/or the control plane (Paragraph [0141] “updated target software of a new version does not have a function frequently used by the user, the user may trigger the terminal device to perform rollback. For example, the user controls the terminal device to install a complete installation file of the target software of the old version, or the terminal device has a rollback functional button, where the rollback functional button may be used for selecting software to be rolled back. The user may perform an operation on the functional button, to trigger the terminal device to roll back the target software”).
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.
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN US20230004381A1 to Ma in view of USPN 10725763 to Chud.
Per claim 7:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further, Ma does not explicitly disclose upon rolling back the first service to the first version and when the second version of the first service does not include a new feature, display a notification on a user interface of the first service indicating that the first service is rolled back to the first version.
However, Chud discloses in an analogous computer system upon rolling back the first service to the first version and when the second version of the first service does not include a new feature, display a notification on a user interface of the first service indicating that the first service is rolled back to the first version (Col. 4, lines 5-13 “when a rollback condition has occurred, notifications can be sent to customers of the service… the customers may receive an email or text message indicating that a rollback condition has occurred… an online dashboard or control panel of the customers may provide an alert indicating that a rollback condition has occurred”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to incorporate the method of upon rolling back the first service to the first version and when the second version of the first service does not include a new feature, display a notification on a user interface of the first service indicating that the first service is rolled back to the first version as taught by Chud into the method of software version rollback as taught by Ma. The modification would be obvious because of one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to add/incorporate the features of upon rolling back the first service to the first version and when the second version of the first service does not include a new feature, display a notification on a user interface of the first service indicating that the first service is rolled back to the first version to provide an efficient technique notifying user that the software is updated and ready to use so as the efficiency of utilization of the computing resource is improved as suggested by Chud (col. 2, lines 38-62).
Per claim 8:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and further, Ma does not explicitly disclose upon rolling back the first service to the first version and when the second version of the first service includes a new feature, display a notification on a user interface of the first service indicating an unavailability of the new feature.
However, Chud discloses in an analogous computer system upon rolling back the first service to the first version and when the second version of the first service includes a new feature (Col. 7, lines 51-53 “where the rollback condition is not satisfied during the rollback window, the auto-rollback feature can be disabled”), display a notification on a user interface of the first service indicating an unavailability of the new feature (Col. 10, lines 63-67 “auto-rollback system 124 determines that a rollback condition has been satisfied, the auto-rollback system 124 can provide a notification 210 to one or more of the computing devices 106 or to other computing devices”).
The feature of providing upon rolling back the first service to the first version and when the second version of the first service includes a new feature, display a notification on a user interface of the first service indicating an unavailability of the new feature would be obvious for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 7.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 14 and 17 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Applicants must overcome the 101 rejection above in order for these claims to be allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Related cited arts:
Machado, Guilherme Sperb, et al. "Enabling rollback support in IT change management systems." NOMS 2008-2008 IEEE Network Operations and Management Symposium. IEEE, 2008. pp. 347-354.
Srinivasan, Sudarshan M., et al. "Flashback: A lightweight extension for rollback and deterministic replay for software debugging." USENIX annual technical conference, general track. 2004. pp. 29-44.
Prvulovic, Milos, Zheng Zhang, and Josep Torrellas. "ReVive: Cost-effective architectural support for rollback recovery in shared-memory multiprocessors." ACM SIGARCH Computer Architecture News 30.2 (2002): pp. 111-122.
US20210165650 discloses A method and system for upgrading a service or microservice within a system where an updated version of the service is employed in the system without immediately allowing the service from assuming control of the final output of the system is provided.
US20200344117 discloses A software upgrade method and system which relate to the field of communications technologies. The method is applied to an evolved core packet (EPC) system. The EPC system includes a system manager, a traffic decider, a first service server, and a second service server, and the first service server and the second service server are installed with service software of a first version. As a result, service continuity and stability of the EPC system are ensured.
US20120117555 discloses A method and controller device for upgrading the firmware in a virtualized storage environment having a first storage controller and a second storage controller, wherein each storage controller includes a first virtual machine, at least one second virtual machine and a storage device. The method includes upgrading the current firmware of the first virtual machine in the first storage controller to a new firmware version, upgrading the current firmware of the second virtual machine in the first storage controller to a new firmware version, upgrading the current firmware of the first virtual machine in the second storage controller, upgrading the current firmware of the second virtual machine in the second storage controller, and rolling back the firmware version of all virtual machines in the first and second storage controllers if the firmware upgrade of any of the virtual machines in the first and second storage controllers is not successful.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Satish Rampuria whose telephone number is 571-272-3732. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30 AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chat Do, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3721. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center and the Private Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center or Private PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center and Private PAIR for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/Satish Rampuria/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2193