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 .
Examiner’s Note
The Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures, 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 also apply. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in its entirety 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 § 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 1-3, 8-11, 14-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen et al. (US 20230105439 A1) hereafter Shen in view of Raya Jayraman (US 20200364072 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Shen teaches:
A computer-implemented method for invoking a daemon process from a container that is capable of outliving a lifespan of the container, the method comprising:
receiving, at a proxy process operating on a host, a request from a container process to start a daemon process on the host (Paragraphs 36-37; where the shim process, corresponding to the proxy process, is in the communication path and receives instructions originating from a container engine/runtime corresponding to the container process to initiate services on the identified machine);
and starting, via the proxy process, the daemon process, wherein a lifespan of the daemon process is not affected by the lifespan of the container process (Paragraphs 36-37; modified process communicates with a worker daemon to start a new worker machine with new worker daemon by establishing a connection to an executing worker machine or directing initialization of such a machine, then migrating it).
Shen does not teach where the proxy initiates the daemon process.
However, Raya Jayraman teaches:
where the proxy initiates the daemon process (Paragraph 20; the application capture executable corresponds to the proxy and the agent corresponds to the daemon where the executable initiates the process by interacting with the agent).
Shen and Raya Jayraman are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of container management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shen to incorporate the teachings of Raya Jayraman and have the proxy initiate the daemon process. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated by the need to delegate responsibilities to proxies for resource management of the host.
Claim 9 contains similar limitations as those of claim 1, directed towards a system, additionally reciting one or more processors, container, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium.
Shen teaches:
one or more processors (Paragraph 54);
a container operating on the information handling system, in which the container comprises a container process (Paragraph 38);
and a non-transitory computer-readable medium or media comprising one or more sets of instructions (Paragraph 51).
Claim 9 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 1.
Claim 15 contains similar limitations as those of claim 1, directed towards a method. Claim 15 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Shen in view of Raya Jayraman teach the method of claim 1. Shen teaches:
wherein the step of starting, via the proxy process, the daemon process comprises: starting the daemon process in which a hierarchical dependency of the daemon process is independent of the container process (Paragraphs 37 and 48; initiates a process involving a worker daemon in which operation is independent of the original container’s lifecycle, corresponding to independence of hierarchical dependencies).
Claim 10 recites similar limitations as those of claim 2, directed towards a system. Claim 10 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 2.
Regarding claim 3, Shen in view of Raya Jayraman teach the method of claim 1. Shen teaches:
establishing a communication channel between the container process and the daemon process (Paragraph 37; describes the modified container runtime process communicating with the worker daemon, corresponding to the daemon process, by connecting an agent on the host machine with the proxy on another machine thus establishing a network connection, corresponding to a communication channel).
Claim 11 recites similar limitations as those of claim 3, directed towards a system. Claim 11 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 3.
Claim 16 recites similar limitations as those of claim 3, directed towards a method. Claim 16 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 3.
Regarding claim 8, Shen in view of Raya Jayraman teach the method of claim 1. Shen teaches:
responsive to a second container process starting after termination of the container process that requested the daemon process to be started, granting the second container process access to the daemon process (Paragraph 37; migration of containerized processes including the agent and worker daemon to a new machine with the scheduler component managing migration and reestablishing connections implies a second container process on a new machine starts after the first is terminated, corresponding to a second container process coming online after the first terminates. Shen further discloses that the worker daemon remains active and communicates with the agent and proxy to enable the new container instance to access daemon services, corresponding to reestablishing or maintaining access between the new container process and the daemon process).
Claim 14 recites similar limitations as those of claim 8, directed towards a system. Claim 14 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 8.
Claim 20 recites similar limitations as those of claim 8, directed towards a method. Claim 20 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 8.
Claims 4-7, 12-13, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shen in view of Raya Jayraman, further in view of Liapis (US 20140164342 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Shen in view of Raya Jayraman teach the method of claim 1. Shen in view of Raya Jayraman does not teach responsive to the proxy process terminating and responsive to the daemon process being dependent from the proxy process, causing the daemon process to be adopted by a second process on the host.
However, Liapis teaches:
responsive to the proxy process terminating and responsive to the daemon process being dependent from the proxy process, causing the daemon process to be adopted by a second process on the host (Paragraph 48; parent process immediately exiting corresponds to proxy service terminating. Daemon created as a child process of another process making it dependent on that parent process corresponds to the daemon process being dependent on the proxy process. When the parent process exits, init adopts the daemon process corresponds to the daemon process being adopted by a second process on the host).
Shen, Raya Jayraman, and Liapis are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of container management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shen in view of Raya Jayraman to incorporate the teachings of Liapis and respond to a proxy process being terminated by having the daemon process be adopted by a second process on the host. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the need for orphaned process management to avoid the problems associated with zombie processes.
Claim 12 recites similar limitations as those of claim 4, directed towards a system. Claim 12 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 4.
Claim 17 recites similar limitations as those of claim 4, directed towards a method. Claim 17 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 4.
Regarding claim 5, Shen in view of Raya Jayraman, further in view of Liapis teach the method of claim 4. Liapis teaches:
wherein the second process is a child reaper process that is capable of adopting the daemon process (Paragraph 48; by definition, init is the child reaper process in Unix. It adopts orphaned daemon processes to ensure proper management and cleanup).
Regarding claim 6, Shen in view of Raya Jayraman, further in view of Liapis teach the method of claim 4. Shen teaches:
maintaining the communication channel or establishing a new communication channel with the container process in relation to the daemon process being adopted by the second process on the host (Paragraph 37; the modified container runtime process communicates with the worker daemon which connects an agent on the host machine with the proxy that establishes a communication channel which persists through migrations and thus maintained even if the container process moves, corresponding to maintaining the communication channel).
Claim 13 recites similar limitations as those of claim 6, directed towards a system. Claim 13 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 6.
Claim 18 recites similar limitations as those of claim 6, directed towards a method. Claim 18 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 6.
Regarding claim 7, Shen in view of Raya Jayraman, further in view of Liapis teach the method of claim 4. Shen teaches:
responsive to creating of a second proxy process at the host, not changing dependency of the daemon process to the second proxy process (Paragraph 37; the scheduler component establishes a new worker machine with new worker daemon and connect an agent with the proxy on the original machine, corresponding to creating a second proxy process at the host. Paragraph 48 further discusses a replica capable of executing independently of the original container, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as the daemon’s dependency being maintained and unaffected by the creation of new proxies or replicas).
Claim 19 recites similar limitations as those of claim 7, directed towards a method. Claim 19 is rejected for similar reasons as those of claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Pathak et al. (US 12277449 B1) discusses a proxy server responsive to requests on a port to check processes/daemons executed by the virtual machine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENNETH P TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6926. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 5:30 a.m. - 2 p.m. PT; F 5:30 a.m. - 9:30 a.m. PT.
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, April Blair can be reached at (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.
/KENNETH P TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2196
/APRIL Y BLAIR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2196