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 .
Claims 1 – 20 are pending for examination. Claims 1, 4 – 5,8, 11 – 12, 15- 20 are amended.
References were cited in previous office action.
Examiner’s Note
The prior art rejection below cites particular paragraphs, columns, and/or line numbers in the references 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 their 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.
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 claim 15 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 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: [means for] causing in claim 15
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6 – 8, 11, 13 – 15, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nandavar et al., (US PUB 2022/0326930 thereafter Nandavar) in view of Parees et al., (US PUB 2017/0147335 hereafter Parees).
As to claim 1, Nandavar teaches a system comprising:
a processor (“...processor-based system...” para. 0088); and
a memory storage device storing instructions thereon (“...the machine-readable medium 404 may be non-transitory. As described in detail herein, the machine-readable medium 404 may be encoded with the executable instructions 406 to perform one or more methods...” para. 0090), which, when executed by the processor, cause the system to perform operations comprising:
[causing a first user interface to be presented to a user, the first user interface] presenting for each integrated service of a plurality of integrated services comprising a primary service (“As depicted in FIG. 1, the networked system 100 may also include repositories 130 to facilitate version and configuration management of on-premise packages hosted in the on-premise gateway....” para. 0021) and (“...In some examples, a developer (such as the developer 120) may submit a change to a service component of a plurality of service components. The developer may be from one of a plurality of service teams managing the plurality of service components. The service component may be included in a package that is among a plurality of packages (such as the on-premise packages 114) hosted on an on-premise gateway (e.g. on-premise gateway 102) for managing as-a-service workloads. In an example, the developer 120 may submit a pull request (PR) for a service component. In an example, the PR refers to a request to review a change (such as hotfixes, patches, updates) in a service component pushed to a branch of a repository before the change is merged or updated in other branches in the repository....” para. 0027 - 0030), one or more configuration settings (“...a configuration management system is presented that may facilitate automatic updates to provide a release and update management mechanism that enables CI/CD for service components and packages. Also, the release and update management mechanism of the present disclosure may enable efficient service versioning, release bundling and deployment strategy for delivering the updates to the packages. Further, the release and update management mechanism of the present disclosure may provide agility to the service teams to develop, test, and release their service components independently yet with the flexibility to collaborate with other service teams.” para. 0016) and (“..Thus, version and configuration information of each of the service components and packages 114 hosted on the on-premise gateway 102 are to be maintained. Each of the service teams managing the service components may release updates, new versions, deploy changes, add sub-components, deliver patches, bug fixes, etc.,...” para. 0028. Note: configuration information is configuration settings that allow users to manage and update service components).and (“...the use of the configuration management system 132 may allow the version and configuration management to be governed centrally using a standard mechanism...” para. 0029) wherein the one or more configuration settings for each integrated service are maintained as a version-controlled descriptive model (Note: paragraphs 0019 – 0022 of specification define a configuration setting is referred as version-controlled descriptive model. Nandavar teaches configuration settings with capability to update applications and maintain versions of them which is version-controlled descriptive model);
receiving a request to [instantiate an instance of] a application service based on a specification of configuration values for the configuration settings for the plurality of integrated services as provided by the user via the user interface (“In some examples, a developer (such as the developer 120) may submit a change to a service component of a plurality of service components....” para. 0030) and (“...As depicted in FIG. 2, a developer 202, from a service team may submit a PR including a change in a service component...” para. 0034);
responsive to the request to change/update [instantiate] the instance of the application service, communicating to each integrated service of the plurality of integrated services an instance configuration request (“...In response to successful validation of the latest version, a release phase repository 220 associated with the package (for example VMaaS) is updated. The release phase repository 220 stores version information associated with the package in the release or production environment. As indicated by a repository name of the release phase repository 220, <vmaas-prod-config>, the environment information is a production environment, i.e., the change in the service component is ready for release to tenants....” para. 0060 – 0061. Note: communicating to each integrated service of the plurality of integrated services when validating and comparing the latest version of the service component with current version of the service component installed on each tenant (para. 0060 - 0061), the instance configuration request associated with specified values for one or more configuration settings for the integrated service (“...The updated version of the package corresponds to the change in a service component, such as the service component “component1” as depicted in FIG. 2. In an example, the development phase repository 210 and the release phase repository may be included in the repositories 130 of FIG. 1” para. 0061);
receiving from each integrated service of the plurality of integrated services a service configuration status (“...Further, the configuration management system sends a notification indicative of availability of the updated version to the on-premise gateway.” Abstract, para. 0017. Note: notification indicative of availability of the updated version is the configuration status in response to the configuration/change request submitted in multiple paragraphs 0014, 0030 and 0034 - 0036) and (“...Alternatively, the update management system 308 may also receive an input from the service team 318 as shown by arrow A6, where the input indicates a command to process and install the updated version of the package” para. 0085) in response to the instance configuration request (“..The change to the service component may be submitted in a repository among a plurality of repositories (e.g. repositories 130)...” para. 0030); and
storing, as an instance data record for the instantiated instance of the application service, the configuration status of each integrated service, the values for the one or more configuration settings for each integrated service, and an indicator of a version of the descriptive model in use at the time of the request to instantiate the instance of the application service (“..The updated version of the package is published for the tenant to be installed on the on-premise gateway and a notification indicative of availability of the updated version is sent to the on-premise gateway.” Abstract. Note: updated required storing) and (“....In an example, the availability is determined based on a latest version information of the package, an installed version information of the package for the tenant, and an environment information. The latest version information indicates a new version of a package or service component that is released and available for consumption.....” para. 0017) and (“...The configuration management system 132 also interfaces with the repositories 130 to update different versions of the service components in the repositories...” para. 0022) and (“In some examples, a latest version information of the package may be stored in the repository associated with the package. The latest version information indicates a current version of the package that is released for consumption by the on-premise packages 114 (such as the on-premise VM package 114-2). The latest version information may be stored in a version file that includes updated version information of each of the service components included in the package...” para. 0031 – 0033 and 0074).
While Nandavar teaches the system allows users/developers to request to change to update applications that would require instantiating and then override an old version of applications. Nandavar does not but Parees teaches causing a first user interface to be presented to a user, the first user interface (“...The client layer 210, in one implementation, also includes a set of command line tools 214 that a user can utilize to create, launch, and manage applications. In one implementation, the command line tools 214 can be downloaded and installed on the user's client machine, and can be accessed via a command line interface or a graphical user interface, or some other type of interface...” para. 0029) and instantiate an instance of application (“...image transformation pipeline for a Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) system. A method of the disclosure includes receiving a request to create an application for execution on a multi-tenant PaaS system...” abstract and para. 0029).
It 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 was made to modify Nandavar by applying the teachings of Parees because Parees also teaches a PaaS and Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) (abstract and para. 0035) to allow users to create or update applications. Nandavar would implement Parees that allow users to create an application in addition to change the system to provide more services for users of the SaaS since Parees also teaches the same of the invention and it would be just another function to be added.
As to claim 4, Nandavar modified by Parees teaches the system of claim 1, Nandavar teaches wherein the instructions cause the system to perform additional operations comprising:
subsequent to the descriptive model being updated to include one or more new configuration settings for one or more new features or functions of a first integrated service of the plurality of integrated services, causing an updated user interface to be presented to a user, the updated user interface presenting the one or more new configuration settings for the first integrated service (“...different service teams may issue one or more than one change” para. 0013);
receiving a request to update the instance of the application service based on a specification of values for the configuration settings for the plurality of integrated services, including configuration values for the one or more new configuration settings for the first integrated service (“In some examples, a developer (such as the developer 120) may submit a change to a service component of a plurality of service components. The developer may be from one of a plurality of service teams managing the plurality of service components. The service component may be included in a package that is among a plurality of packages (such as the on-premise packages 114) hosted on an on-premise gateway (e.g. on-premise gateway 102) for managing as-a-service workloads. In an example, the developer 120 may submit a pull request (PR) for a service component. In an example, the PR refers to a request to review a change (such as hotfixes, patches, updates) in a service component pushed to a branch of a repository before the change is merged or updated in other branches in the repository....” para. 0027 - 0030);
responsive to the request to update the instance of the application service, communicating to each integrated service of the plurality of integrated services an instance configuration request, the instance configuration request including specified values for one or more configuration settings for the integrated service, including values for one or more new configuration settings for first integrated service (“...In response to successful validation of the latest version, a release phase repository 220 associated with the package (for example VMaaS) is updated. The release phase repository 220 stores version information associated with the package in the release or production environment. As indicated by a repository name of the release phase repository 220, <vmaas-prod-config>, the environment information is a production environment, i.e., the change in the service component is ready for release to tenants....” para. 0060 - 0061);
receiving from each integrated service of the plurality of integrated services a service configuration status in response to the instance configuration request (“...In response to determining that the updated version of the package is available, the configuration management system may publish the updated version of the package for the tenant to be installed on the on-premise gateway. Further, the configuration management system sends a notification indicative of availability of the updated version to the on-premise gateway.” para. 0017 - 0018) and (“The update management system 308 may receive the notification indicating availability of the updated version of the package from the message queue 314, as shown by arrow A4. Alternatively, the update management system 308 may also receive an input from the service team 318 as shown by arrow A6, where the input indicates a command to process and install the updated version of the package.” (figure 1 and associated text, especially para. 0017 - 0018, 0022, 0028, 0062, and 0085. Note: the update management system is associated with on-premise gateway of each tenant of service components); and
The configuration management system (element 132 of figure 1) verified version of the package based on tenants’ requirement and agreement and then provided notification of the latest version which is the claimed status to the on-premise gateway (figure 1 and associated text, especially para. 0017 - 0018, 0022, 0028, 0062, and 0085).
storing, as an instance data record for the updated instance of the application service, the configuration status of each integrated service, the values for the one or more configuration settings for each integrated service and an indicator of a version of the updated descriptive model in use at the time of the request to update the instance of the application service (“..The updated version of the package is published for the tenant to be installed on the on-premise gateway and a notification indicative of availability of the updated version is sent to the on-premise gateway.” Abstract) and (“....In an example, the availability is determined based on a latest version information of the package, an installed version information of the package for the tenant, and an environment information. The latest version information indicates a new version of a package or service component that is released and available for consumption.....” para. 0017) and (“...The configuration management system 132 also interfaces with the repositories 130 to update different versions of the service components in the repositories...” para. 0022).
As to claim 6, Nandavar modified by Parees teaches the system of claim 1, Nandavar teaches wherein a first edition of the version-controlled descriptive model specifies a first set of configuration values for a subset of the one or more configuration settings for the plurality of integrated services (“...the determination is based on a latest version information of the package, an installed version information of the package for the tenant, and an environment information stored in a plurality of repositories...” abstract) ND (“..a configuration management system is presented that may facilitate automatic updates to provide a release and update management mechanism that enables CI/CD for service components and packages. Also, the release and update management mechanism of the present disclosure may enable efficient service versioning, release bundling and deployment strategy for delivering the updates to the packages...” para. 0016) and (“The SaaS cloud platform 104 includes a configuration management system 132 which controls version management operations for on premises packages...” para. 0022) and (“....the SaaS cloud platform 104 may enable management and/or consumption of such capabilities of the on-premise gateway 102 as-a-service in a pay-per-use model at the edge, in colocations, or in a data center...” para. 0024); and
wherein causing the user interface to be presented to the user comprises causing the user interface to present configuration values for the subset of the one or more configuration settings for the plurality of integrated services (“...a configuration management system is presented that may facilitate automatic updates to provide a release and update management mechanism that enables CI/CD for service components and packages. Also, the release and update management mechanism of the present disclosure may enable efficient service versioning, release bundling and deployment strategy for delivering the updates to the packages. Further, the release and update management mechanism of the present disclosure may provide agility to the service teams to develop, test, and release their service components independently yet with the flexibility to collaborate with other service teams.” para. 0016) and (“...the use of the configuration management system 132 may allow the version and configuration management to be governed centrally using a standard mechanism...” para. 0029).
As to claim 7, Nandavar modified by Parees teaches The system of claim 1, wherein the instructions cause the system to perform additional operations comprising:
receiving a request to update the instance of the application service based on a specification of configuration values associated with a specific version of the descriptive model (“In some examples, a developer (such as the developer 120) may submit a change to a service component of a plurality of service components. The developer may be from one of a plurality of service teams managing the plurality of service components. The service component may be included in a package that is among a plurality of packages (such as the on-premise packages 114) hosted on an on-premise gateway (e.g. on-premise gateway 102) for managing as-a-service workloads. In an example, the developer 120 may submit a pull request (PR) for a service component. In an example, the PR refers to a request to review a change (such as hotfixes, patches, updates) in a service component pushed to a branch of a repository before the change is merged or updated in other branches in the repository....” para. 0027 - 0030) and (“....the SaaS cloud platform 104 may enable management and/or consumption of such capabilities of the on-premise gateway 102 as-a-service in a pay-per-use model at the edge, in colocations, or in a data center...” para. 0024);
obtaining from a selected configured instance record configuration values for the one or more configuration settings of the plurality integrated services, wherein the configured instance record is selected based on the configured instance record having an indicator of a version of the descriptive model that corresponds with the specific version of the descriptive model (“...The updated version of the package is published for the tenant to be installed on the on-premise gateway and a notification indicative of availability of the updated version is sent to the on-premise gateway.” Abstract) and (“...Typically, developers in the service teams submit their change to a central database. The change is then validated and merged with the service component/sub-component included in the package. After validation, an updated version of the package is released for consumption. Because the package is subscribed to by different tenants at different locations, the updated version of the package may be deployed at different on-premise gateways accessible by the tenants subscribing to the package. Thus, the updated version of the package is to be consumed by multiple on-premise gateways...” para. 0014).
As to claim 8, this is a method claim of claim 1. See rejection for claim 1 above.
As to claims 11 and 13 - 14, they recite similar scope of claims 4 and 6 - 7. See rejection for claims 3 – 4 and 6 - 7 above.
As to claim 15, this is a system claim of claim 1. See rejection for claim 1 above.
As to claim 18, this claim recites similar scope of claim 4. See rejection for claim 4 above.
As to claim 20, this claim recites similar scope of claim 6. See rejection for claim 6 above.
Claims 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nandavar et al., (US PUB 2022/0326930 thereafter Nandavar) in view of Parees et al., (US PUB 2017/0147335 hereafter Parees), and further in view of Moon, (US PUB 2021/0028943).
As to claim 2, Nandavar modified by Parees teaches the system of claim 1, Nandavar teaches wherein the storage device is storing additional instructions thereon, which, when executed by the processor, cause the system to perform additional operations comprising:
receiving from a first integrated service of the plurality of integrated services a service configuration status in response to the instance configuration request, the service configuration status indicating a change in service capabilities of the first integrated service (“...The updated version of the package corresponds to a change to at least one of the plurality of service components, where the change is received from (or in other words, originates from) at least one of a plurality of different service teams managing the plurality of service components...” para. 0017) and (“..In an example, the PR refers to a request to review a change (such as hotfixes, patches, updates) in a service component pushed to a branch of a repository before the change is merged or updated in other branches in the repository....” para. 0030);
Nandavar and Parees do not but Moon teaches
generating an alert to indicate the first integrated service has reported a change in service capabilities; and causing the alert to be displayed (“...sends notifications to all users collaborating after each update based on selective preferences and type of application data...” para. 0084).
It 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 was made to modify Nandavar and Parees by applying the teachings of Moon because Moon would provide an alert to other users in collaborative integrated service environment about the update (para. 0084).
As to claims 9 and 16, these claims recite similar scope of claim 2. See rejection for claim 2 above.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nandavar et al., (US PUB 2022/0326930 thereafter Nandavar) in view of Parees et al., (US PUB 2017/0147335 hereafter Parees), and further in view of Grieve et al., (US PUB 8,738,706 hereinafter Grieve).
As to claim 3, Nandavar modified by Parees teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the storage device is storing additional instructions thereon, which, when executed by the processor, cause the system to perform additional operations comprising: Nandavar does not but Parees teaches the request is the instance configuration request (“...image transformation pipeline for a Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) system. A method of the disclosure includes receiving a request to create an application for execution on a multi-tenant PaaS system...” abstract).
It 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 was made to modify Nandavar by applying the teachings of Parees because Parees also teaches a PaaS and Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) (abstract and para. 0035) to allow users to create or update applications. Nandavar would implement Parees that allow users to create an application in addition to change the system to provide more services for users of the SaaS since Parees also teaches the same of the invention and it would be just another function to be added.
Nandavar modified by Parees teaches receiving from a first integrated service of the plurality of integrated services an error message in response to [the instance configuration] request (“...At step 8006, a message indicating that the first change will be not be applied to the document is transmitted to the mobile device. Collaborative development service 104 transmits a message indicating that the first change will not be applied to document 308 to mobile device 106-A via network 102...” col. 13 lines 40 – 60); generating an alert to indicate the first integrated service has reported the error message; and causing the alert to be displayed (“...As collaborative development service 104 has made a determination that the version of document 308 accessed by user device 106-A is not the current version and thus, user device 106-A is not synchronized to the current version of document 308, collaborative development service 104 sends a message to user device 106-A. In one embodiment, in response to receiving the message, user device 106-A sends an alert or error message to the user employing user device 106-A...” col. 13 lines 40 – 60).
As to claims 10 and 17, these claims recite similar scope of claim 6. See rejection for claim 6 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 12 and 19 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.
As to claim 5, Nandavar modified by Parees and Moon do not teaches The system of claim 1, wherein the instructions cause the system to perform additional operations comprising:
“subsequent to the descriptive model being updated to include one or more new configuration settings for a new integrated service, causing an updated user interface to be presented to a user, the updated user interface presenting the one or more new configuration settings for the new integrated service”; and
“including configuration values for the one or more new configuration settings for the new integrated service” when taken in a context as a whole.
As to claims 12 and 19, these claims recite similar scope with claim 5. See objection for claim 5 above.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections (page 12 of remark).
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the claim objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection has been withdrawn
Claim Interpretation Under § 112(f) (page 12 of remark)
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the interpretation of claim 15 - 20 under 112(f) have been fully considered and are maintained.
Applicant argued
“The Examiner interpreted the "means for causing" limitation in claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. @ 112(f). Applicant does not contest this interpretation at this time. The specification describes sufficient corresponding structure-specifically, a processor executing instructions stored in a memory storage device-to perform the claimed functions. See, e.g., published application at 11 [0015]-[0016]” (page 12 of remark).
In response,
Examiner maintain the interpretation since applicant does not contest it.
Claim rejection Under § 112(b) (pages 12 - 13 of remark).
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection under 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection has been withdrawn.
Claim rejection Under § 103 (page of remark).
Applicant's arguments, with respect to the rejection under 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argued
“A. Nandavar Does Not Teach the Claimed Management Control Plane Architecture
Nandavar describes a configuration management system for managing version-controlled updates to software packages hosted on an on-premise gateway. In Nandavar, developers submit code changes (pull requests) to service components of a software package. A CI/CD pipeline validates those changes, updates version information in repositories, and publishes updated packages to tenant gateways. See Nandavar at [0028]-[0035], [0057]-[0062].
The claimed invention operates in a fundamentally different domain. Independent claim 1, for example, recites a system that causes a user interface to be presented to a user, the user interface presenting configuration settings for each integrated service of a plurality of integrated services. A user-not a developer-specifies configuration values through this interface, and the system communicates individual instance configuration requests to each integrated service, receives a configuration status back from each service, and stores an instance data record capturing the per- service configuration status, per-service configuration values, and a version indicator of the descriptive model.
These are categorically different operations. Nandavar manages the software supply chain for packages: code changes flow through a CI/CD pipeline, are validated, and result in updated package versions published to gateways. The claimed invention manages the runtime configuration of a multi-service application instance: a user selects configuration values for each integrated service, the control plane configures each service individually and collects per-service status, and the system stores a comprehensive instance data record. Nothing in Nandavar teaches or suggests a management control plane that presents per-service configuration settings to a user, receives per-service configuration values from the user, sends individual configuration requests to each integrated service, collects per-service configuration status responses, and stores the results as an instance data record.” (page 14 of remark).
In response,
Applicant argued that Nandavar does not teach summary of at least whole claim 1 but not point out how each claimed limitation is not taught. Further, management control plane is not recited in all claims. It is combination of Nandavar and Parees, not any alone, teaches claim 1. See rejection for claim 1 above.
Nandavar teaches presents per-service configuration settings to a user (para. 0016 – 0017), receives per-service configuration values from the user (0021, 0026 – 0030), sends individual configuration requests to each integrated service (para. 0030), collects per-service configuration status responses (para. 0017 and 0085), and stores the results as an instance data record (abstract, para. 0017, 0096).
(“...Alternatively, the update management system 308 may also receive an input from the service team 318 as shown by arrow A6, where the input indicates a command to process and install the updated version of the package” para. 0085)
“B. The Examiner's Mapping of Specific Claim Elements Is Not Supported
Applicant argued
Even setting aside the fundamental architectural mismatch, the Examiner's element-by- element mapping of Nandavar to the independent claims is not supported by the reference.
Receiving a request to instantiate an instance of an application service based on a specification of configuration values. The Examiner maps this limitation to Nandavar's developer submitting a pull request for a service component change. See Office Action at p. 8 (citing Nandavar [0030]). A pull request is a request to review and merge a code change in a software repository. It is not a request to instantiate an application service instance with specific configuration values. These are categorically different: one is a developer workflow step in a CI/CD pipeline; the other is an operational action to create a configured instance of a running multi- service application.”
In response,
Examiner cited para. 0030 and 0034 where Nandavar teaches a developer submit a change or update to a service component of a plurality of service components; note that a change/update to a service component which is service application would comprise instantiation of a service application and override to update an older version of the service application.
Applicant argued
“Communicating to each integrated service an instance configuration request. The Examiner maps this to Nandavar's release phase repository updates and publishing to tenants. See Office Action at p. 9 (citing Nandavar [0060]). Nandavar's system publishes an updated package version for tenants to install-this is a one-to-many software distribution event, not a per-service configuration request directed to each integrated service individually with specified configuration values for that service. The claimed invention sends distinct configuration requests, with user- specified configuration values, to each individual integrated service of the plurality.” (page 15 para. 3 of remark).
In response,
The claim recites “responsive to the request to instantiate the instance of the application service, communicating to each integrated service of the plurality of integrated services an instance configuration request” which comprise a request which is one request for a plurality of integrated services.
In Nandavar, the service team communicates to each integrated service which is tenant of the service component, an instance configuration request when validating and comparing the latest version of the service component with current version of the service component installed on each tenant (para. 0060 - 0061).
Applicant argued
“Receiving from each integrated service a service configuration status. The Examiner maps this to Nandavar's notification of availability of an updated version. See Office Action at p. 9 (citing Nandavar Abstract, [0017], [0022]). Nandavar's notification is sent from the configuration management system to the on-premise gateway-it flows in the opposite direction of the claimed limitation. The claims require receiving a configuration status from each integrated service back to the control plane in response to the instance configuration request. Nandavar's notification that an update is available is not a per-service configuration status response.” (page 15 para. 4 of remark).
In response,
The configuration management system (element 132 of figure 1) verified version of the package based on tenants’ requirement and agreement and then provided notification of the latest version which is the claimed status to the on-premise gateway (figure 1 and associated text, especially para. 0017 - 0018, 0022, 0028, 0062, and 0085).
Therefore, Nandavar teaches receiving from each integrated service of the plurality of integrated services a service configuration status in response to the instance configuration request.
Applicant argued
“Storing, as an instance data record, the configuration status of each integrated service, the values for the configuration settings, and an indicator of a version of the descriptive model. The Examiner maps this to Nandavar's version tracking in repositories. See Office Action at p. 9 (citing Nandavar Abstract, [0017], [0022]). Nandavar's repositories store software version information for packages. They do not store an instance data record that captures per-service configuration status, per-service configuration values, and a version indicator of a descriptive model for a specific instantiated application service instance. The claimed instance data record is a fundamentally different data structure from a software version repository” (page 16 of remark).
In response,
Further, when receiving the notification of the latest version of the package on the tenant, which is a status of updated version of the service component, the update management system in the on-premise gateway installed the updated version of the package, a repository name of the deployment phase repository is indicative of the package, a tenant ID, and a tenant location of the tenant (para. 0031 – 0033 and 0074).
Therefore, Nandavar teaches limitations storing, as an instance data record, the configuration status of each integrated service, the values for the configuration settings, and an indicator of a version of the descriptive model” as agued and claimed.
Applicant argued
C. Parees Does Not Cure the Deficiencies of Nandavar
Applicant argued
“The Examiner relies on Parees for the "causing a first user interface to be presented" and "receiving a request to instantiate an instance of an application service" limitations. Parees describes a source-to-image transformation pipeline for a Platform-as-a-Service system: it receives source code, introspects it to identify the language and framework, and constructs build, deployment, and networking configuration objects. See Parees at [0038]-[0045].
While Parees includes a user interface (CLI tools and a GUI), the Parees UI is for creating applications from source code-not for specifying configuration values for each of multiple integrated services to instantiate a configured multi-service application instance. Even combined with Nandavar, the resulting system would be a CI/CD pipeline with a front-end for application building-not a management control plane that presents per-service configuration settings, collects user-specified configuration values, sends individual configuration requests to each integrated service, collects per-service status, and stores instance data records.
Parees therefore does not supply the missing elements. The core deficiency is not the absence of a user interface-it is the absence of the entire control plane architecture: per-service configuration presentation, per-service configuration request communication, per-service status collection, and instance data record storage. Parees's source-to-image UI does not teach or suggest any of these elements” (page 16 of remark).
In response,
It combination of Nandavar and Paree, not any alone, teaches claim 1. Examiner cited Parees for teaching causing a first user interface to be presented to a user, the first user interface (para. 0029) and instantiate an instance of application (abstract and para. 0029).
Nandavar teaches the system allows users/developers to request to change to update applications. Note that changing/upgrading would require instantiate a new on and override current version. Paree teaches a Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS) system receives a request to create an application for execution on a multi-tenant PaaS system...” abstract and para. 0029).
It 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 was made to modify Nandavar by applying the teachings of Parees because Parees also teaches a PaaS and Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) (abstract and para. 0035) to allow users to create or update applications. Nandavar would implement Parees that allow users to create an application in addition to change the system to provide more services for users of the SaaS since Parees also teaches the same of the invention and it would be just another function to be added.
D. The Motivation to Combine Is Conclusory and Unsupported
Applicant argued
“The Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill would have been motivated to combine Nandavar and Parees to "allow users to create an application in addition to change the system to provide more services for users." Office Action at p. 10. This motivation is generic and conclusory. It does not explain why a person of ordinary skill in the art would combine Nandavar's on-premise gateway package management system with Parees's source-to-image build pipeline to arrive at the specifically claimed management control plane for configuring multi-service application instances.
The references solve different problems in different architectural contexts. Nandavar addresses the problem of distributing software package updates to on-premise gateways. Parees addresses the problem of building deployment artifacts from source code in a PaaS environment. Neither reference addresses the problem solved by the claimed invention: providing a unified management control plane through which a user can instantiate and configure an application service instance composed of multiple independently configurable integrated services, with version- controlled configuration management and per-service status tracking. Absent a specific, articulated reason why a person of ordinary skill would combine these references to arrive at the claimed invention, the rejection does not establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (requiring "some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness").
In response,
Examiner refers to response above.
E. The Dependent Claims Are Independently Patentable
Applicant argued
“As set forth above, independent claims 1, 8, and 15 are patentable over the cited prior art. Each dependent claim depends from a patentable independent claim and is therefore patentable for at least the same reasons.
Claims 2, 9, and 16 were additionally rejected over Nandavar, Parees, and Moon. Moon teaches sending notifications to collaborating users after updates based on selective preferences. See Moon at [0084]. Moon's notification mechanism does not cure the deficiencies of Nandavar and Parees with respect to the independent claims. Moreover, Moon's notifications are triggered by collaborative updates-not by an integrated service reporting a change in its service capabilities in response to a configuration request, as recited in claims 2, 9, and 16.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 were additionally rejected over Nandavar, Parees, and Grieve. Grieve teaches a collaborative development service that sends a message when a change cannot be applied because the version is not current. See Grieve at col. 13, lines 40-60. Grieve's version conflict message does not cure the deficiencies of the base rejection. Furthermore, Grieve's error relates to a version mismatch in a collaborative development context-not to an integrated service returning an error message in response to a configuration request for a multi-service application instance, as recited in claims 3, 10, and 17.
Withdrawal of the rejections under § 103 is respectfully requested.” (Page 17 of remark).
In response,
All dependent claims 2, 9, and 16 and 3, 10, and 17 are rejected as their independent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record but not relied upon request is considered to be pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Shedigumme, (US 2020/0293341), discloses a method for connecting third-party services for user interaction (title, abstract and figures 1 – 7).
Bullock, (US PUB 2022/0138437), discloses a method of merging requests to the version control service API into a target repository (title, abstract and figures 1 – 6).
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 PHUONG N HOANG whose telephone number is (571)272-3763. The examiner can normally be reached 9:5-30.
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, KEVIN YOUNG can be reached at 571-270-3180. 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.
/PHUONG N HOANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2194
/KEVIN L YOUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights