DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to claims filed 23 December 2025.
Claims 1-21 are pending. Claims 22-70 were canceled in a preliminary amendment.
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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 23 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 9 of the remarks, applicant argues that proposed amendments of claim 1 were discussed and it was agreed that they would overcome the current rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 103.
The examiner respectfully agrees that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 are overcome. Regarding the current rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103, after more carefully considering the references used in the previous rejection, the examiner has determined that the same prior art still reads on the current limitations, albeit with additional citations and rationale.
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 1-2, 4, 7-9, 11, 14-16, 18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOOSHANEJAD et al. Pub. No.: US 2023/0297397 A1 (hereafter KOOSHANEJAD), in view of SHIM et al. Pub. No.: US 2022/0166797 A1 (hereafter SHIM).
KOOSHANEJAD, and SHIM were cited previously.
Regarding claim 1, KOOSHANEJAD teaches the invention substantially as claimed, including:
An apparatus to automate suspension of cloud resources, 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 ([0005] The system comprises: at least one processor; and at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the at least one processor to execute a plurality of modules of the software application streaming system) to carry out the steps of:
based on network traffic associated with a compute cluster hosting a containerized application, determining whether to suspend the containerized application ([0179] The computing resource configuration module 104 may pause execution of an application in a container set and allow computing capacity used for the container set to be assigned for execution of another application session. In some embodiments, the computing resource configuration module 104 may detect that a user has idled for a threshold period of time and/or that the user has disconnected from a first application session (i.e., idle time or network disconnection are indicators of a lack of “network traffic” associated with clusters of distributed computing devices illustrated at least as “geographic locations” in Fig. 1A and [0128]))
in response to determining to suspend the containerized application, causing one or more resources associated with the containerized application to be deprovisioned and storing deployment details for the containerized application ([0179] In this scenario. The computing resource configuration module 104 may store data from the first session (i.e., “deployment details”) in memory (e.g., in a temporary cache). The computing resource configuration module 104 may thus free up the processing capacity (i.e., “deprovision” processing resources associated with the paused application) for execution of a second application session in another container set)…
causing a request to access the containerized application to be forwarded to…the transient container instead of the containerized application and while the containerized application remains suspended, causing a first type of request received…to be handled by the transient container without deploying the containerized application, and in response to receipt of a second type of request via the mapped port, initiating redeployment of the suspended containerized application based on the stored deployment details for the containerized application ([0179] When the computing resource configuration module 104 determines that the user of the first session has resumed activity and/or reconnected (i.e., resuming activity/reconnecting represents a request to access the application), the computing resource configuration module 104 may load the data saved in memory from previous execution of the first session into a new container set, and resume execution of the first session (i.e., the first session is redeployed onto the new container set when the first session is of a type (small enough) where the new container set has sufficient capacity to resume the execution). In the case that there is insufficient capacity for the first session, the computing resource allocation module 104 may instantiate a temporary container set (i.e., “transient container”) on other computer hardware as described herein (i.e., the first session is handled by the temporary container set when the first session is of a type (too large) where there is insufficient capacity to resume the execution). [0175] The computing resource allocation module 104 may configure a temporary container set (also referred to as a “swapping pod”) for execution of the application session (i.e., the resumed activity is forwarded to the temporary container set)).
While KOOSHANEJAD teaches pausing a first container, creating a second, temporary container, and causing the temporary container to take over requests for the first container, KOOSHANEJAD does not explicitly teach:
determining a port of a transient container that is available to be mapped to the containerized application;
mapping the determined port of the transient container to the containerized application and causing a request to access the containerized application to be forwarded to the port of the transient container
However, in analogous art that similarly teaches a second container taking over traffic from a first container, SHIM teaches:
determining a port of a [second] container that is available to be mapped to the containerized application; mapping the determined port of the [second] container to the containerized application ([0074] It is assumed that the port forwarding rule included in the NAT table is originally set so that the traffic input to port 443 of the host is forwarded to the first container address (e.g., 172.17.0.2:80). The electronic device 100 may correct the port forwarding rule included in the NAT table so that the traffic input to port 443 of the host is forwarded to the first proxy container address (172.17.0.2:12345) rather than the first container address (i.e., NAT table “maps” ports to containers)) and causing a request to access the containerized application to be forwarded to the port of the [second] container ([0074] It is assumed that the port forwarding rule included in the NAT table is originally set so that the traffic input to port 443 of the host is forwarded to the first container address (e.g., 172.17.0.2:80). The electronic device 100 may correct the port forwarding rule included in the NAT table so that the traffic input to port 443 of the host is forwarded to the first proxy container address (172.17.0.2:12345) rather than the first container address).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined SHIM’s teaching of forwarding traffic to a port of a proxy container that replaces a first container, with KOOSHANEJAD’s teaching of a temporary container that replaces a first container, to realize, with a reasonable expectation of success, a system that replaces a first container with a temporary container, as in KOOSHANEJAD, and forwards requests to a port of the second container, as in SHIM. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this combination to provide more convenient application of TLS to containerized applications (SHIM [0004]).
Regarding claim 2, KOOSHANEJAD further teaches:
filtering the network traffic to identify whether a device has requested access to the containerized application; based on a number of requests to access the containerized application over a predefined period of time satisfying a threshold value, determining whether the containerized application can be suspended based on metadata for the containerized application ([0179] The computing resource configuration module 104 may pause execution of an application in a container set and allow computing capacity used for the container set to be assigned for execution of another application session. In some embodiments, the computing resource configuration module 104 may detect that a user has idled for a threshold period of time (i.e., when a user is idle, a number of requests submitted by the user has satisfied a threshold value over the period of time (presumably, zero requests over a period of time)) and/or that the user has disconnected from a first application session (i.e., metadata indicates that a user has disconnected, enabling the containerized application may be paused)); and
based on the metadata indicating that the containerized application can be suspended, determining whether the containerized application can be suspended based on a configuration associated with the containerized application ([0252] During execution of the application by the target computer hardware, in some embodiments, the system may pause execution when the system determines that a user has been idle for a threshold amount of time (e.g., 10 minutes, 15 minutes, 20 minutes, 30 minutes 1 hours, or another threshold amount of time) and/or when the system determines that the user has disconnected (i.e., the threshold amount of time and the configured requirement that the user be disconnected represent a “configuration” associated with the application)).
Regarding claim 4, KOOSHANEJAD further teaches:
the network traffic that is filtered is streamed through a proxy server associated with the compute cluster ([0074] It is assumed that the port forwarding rule included in the NAT table is originally set so that the traffic input to port 443 of the host is forwarded to the first container address (e.g., 172.17.0.2:80). The electronic device 100 may correct the port forwarding rule included in the NAT table so that the traffic input to port 443 of the host is forwarded to the first proxy container address (172.17.0.2:12345) rather than the first container address.).
Regarding claim 7, KOOSHANEJAD further teaches:
determining deployment details for the containerized application; and
storing…the deployment details ([0178] the computing resource allocation module 104 may store configuration information in a temporary set of containers. For example, the computing resource allocation module 104 may store the configuration information in a header associated with the set of containers. In some embodiments, the configuration information may include an indication of geographic location (e.g., region identifier, GPS coordinates, and/or other indication), a timestamp associated with the request to access the application, a processing capacity (e.g., compute size) needed for the application session, an indication of importance of latency, and a user identifier)…and metadata for the containerized application ([0159] The system 100 may store metadata about the applications in the datastore. For example, the system 100 may store statistics about use of an interactive application in the datastore 112. In some embodiments, the system 100 may store user-specific data in the datastore 112. For example, the system 100 may store profile data, user identifiers, and/or user-specific application data in the datastore 112).
SHIM further teaches:
storing with the deployment details for the containerized application, data representative of port details of the port ([0074] It is assumed that the port forwarding rule included in the NAT table is originally set so that the traffic input to port 443 of the host is forwarded to the first container address (e.g., 172.17.0.2:80). The electronic device 100 may correct the port forwarding rule included in the NAT table so that the traffic input to port 443 of the host is forwarded to the first proxy container address (172.17.0.2:12345) rather than the first container address (i.e., NAT table represents storage that stores updated address details associated with the port 443)).
Regarding claims 8-9, 11, 14-16, 18, and 21, they comprise limitations similar to those of claims 1-2, 4, and 7, and are therefore rejected for similar rationale.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOOSHANEJAD, in view of SHIM, as applied to claims 2, 9, and 16 above, and in further view of AMARO et al. Pub. No.: US 2022/0405116 A1 (hereafter AMARO).
AMARO was cited previously.
Regarding claim 3, while KOOSHANEJAD and SHIM discuss filtering network traffic, KOOSHANEJAD and SHIM do not explicitly teach:
the step of filtering the network traffic includes filtering a log of the network traffic, the log including historical network traffic.
However, in analogous art that similarly analyzes traffic of a container, AMARO teaches
the step of filtering the network traffic includes filtering a log of the network traffic, the log including historical network traffic ([0257] The packet inspection service 1214 can identify a pattern of network data flows through the router container by inspecting packet contents as they flow through the router container. The packet inspection service 1214 can then use the known patterns of traffic (i.e., “traffic logs” used to “filter” traffic flows) to determine if a particular service or node is experiencing out-of-norm behavior).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined AMARO’s teaching of filtering network traffic to identify a patter, with the combination of KOOSHANEJAD and SHIM’s teaching of analyzing container traffic, to realize, with a reasonable expectation of success, a system that analyzes container traffic, as in KOOSHANEJAD and SHIM, based on traffic logs to identify patterns, as in AMARO. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this combination to improve the ability to detect out-of-norm traffic behavior of a container (AMARO [0257]).
Regarding claims 10, and 17, they comprise limitations similar to claim 3, and are therefore rejected for similar rationale.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KOOSHANEJAD, in view of SHIM, as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and in further view of WU et al. Pub. No.: US 2021/0224094 A1 (hereafter WU).
WU was cited previously.
Regarding claim 12, while KOOSHANEJAD and SHIM discuss assignment of ports to containers, KOOSHANEJAD and SHIM do not explicitly teach:
the step of determining the port of the transient container that is available to be mapped to the containerized application, includes the steps of:
determining a list of one or more ports assigned to the transient container;
determining whether the port of the transient container is available based on a mapping of the one or more ports to one or more containerized applications; and
based on the port of the transient container being available, reserving the port of the transient container.
However, in analogous art that similarly assigns ports to containers, WU teaches:
the step of determining the port of the transient container that is available to be mapped to the containerized application, includes the steps of: determining a list of one or more ports assigned to the [container] ([0026] At 202, host agent 120 initializes or fetches port reservations 130. In some examples, this includes creating a list of ports that are free or occupied);
determining whether the port of the [container] is available based on a mapping of the one or more ports to one or more containerized applications ([0039] An application (i.e., “containerized application”) is started at 514. In some examples, the host agent instructs a guest agent to run an application or a container platform (e.g., guest container platform 112a or 112b). The application checks for an available (free) port in operation 516); and
based on the port of the [container] being available, reserving the port of the [container] ([0040] If, however, that port is free (available), the application takes (occupies) (i.e., “reserves”) that port on the VM at 522).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have combined WU’s teaching of reserving a port for a containerized application based on whether the port is available, with the combination of KOOSHANEJAD and SHIM’s teaching of ports assigned to containerized applications, to realize, with a reasonable expectation of success, a system that assigns ports to containerized applications, as in KOOSHANEJAD and SHIM, based on determining whether they appear as available on a list of ports assigned to a container, as in WU. A person having ordinary skill would have been motivated to make this combination to ensure that incoming network traffic is routed to the proper application (WU [0005]).
Regarding claims 12, and 19, they comprise limitations similar to claim 5, and are therefore rejected for similar rationale.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL W AYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6420. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aimee Li can be reached at (571) 272-4169. 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.
/MICHAEL W AYERS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195