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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6 – 8, 11 – 15, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by US 20240095010 A1 (Yuen et. al), and further in view of US 20240095230 A1 (Tripathi et. al).
Regarding claim 1, Yuen teaches, A method for upgrading components of a container-based cluster, comprising: receiving, at a management cluster of the container-based cluster, an indication of one or more pods in the container-based cluster to upgrade and an indication of one or more nodes in the container-based cluster to upgrade (paragraph 42-45, 57, 77, 99, 101, a management cluster that receives a notification to start upgrading nodes, and indicating that certain nodes are being updated, paragraph 48 and 53).
However, Yuen does not teach, adding an annotation to each of the one or more nodes having at least one of the one or more pods running thereon; performing a pod upgrade for the one or more pods; and performing a node upgrade for the one or more nodes, wherein performance of the pod upgrade and the node upgrade overlap at least partially in time, and wherein performing the node upgrade comprises: selecting a first node from the one or more nodes; determining at a first time that the first node includes an annotation; refraining from upgrading the first node at the first time based on the first node including the annotation; determining at a second time after the first time that the first node does not include the annotation; and upgrading the first node at the second time based on the first node not including the annotation.
However, Tripathi teaches, adding an annotation to each of the one or more nodes having at least one of the one or more pods running thereon (paragraph 71, 73, 86, a rolling check that provides a label to the nodes indicating that the node is ready for upgrade, paragraph 46, upgrading a subset of nodes at once, either in parallel or serially); performing a pod upgrade for the one or more pods; and performing a node upgrade for the one or more nodes, wherein performance of the pod upgrade and the node upgrade overlap at least partially in time, and wherein performing the node upgrade comprises: selecting a first node from the one or more nodes; determining at a first time that the first node includes an annotation; refraining from upgrading the first node at the first time based on the first node including the annotation (paragraph 68, 71, a check at a prior time before upgrading, determining that a node is not ready for upgrading, and marking it as such); determining at a second time after the first time that the first node does not include the annotation; and upgrading the first node at the second time based on the first node not including the annotation (paragraph 71, 73, 86, a rolling check that provides a label to the nodes indicating that the node is ready for upgrade).
It would be obvious before the filing date of this application to combine the technology of Yuen, which teaches that using a management cluster for a container-based cluster, rolling out updates to a set of nodes, and Tripathi, which teaches an application on the way the updates will occur, under the rational of use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, See MPEP 2143. Both technologies are able to perform node upgrading. In Yuen, it teaches that each pod is within a node, and that node is within a cluster. Likewise, Tripathi teaches upgrading nodes that is within a cluster.
Regarding claim 4, Yuen teaches, The method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving, at the management cluster, a deployment custom resource defining an upgrade strategy to be carried out for the one or more pods, wherein the pod upgrade is performed based on the upgrade strategy defined in the deployment custom resource (paragraph 40, 41, 44, the management cluster receives an okay to start upgrading, following an update that it received prior to upgrading).
It would be obvious before the filing date of this application to combine the technology of Yuen, which teaches that using a management cluster for a container-based cluster, rolling out updates to a set of nodes, and Tripathi, which teaches an application on the way the updates will occur, under the rational of use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way, See MPEP 2143. Both technologies are able to perform node upgrading. In Yuen, it teaches that each pod is within a node, and that node is within a cluster. Likewise, Tripathi teaches upgrading nodes that is within a cluster.
Regarding claim 6, Yuen teaches, The method of claim 1, wherein the one or more nodes and the one or more pods are distributed across cell sites in a cellular network (paragraph 15, the nodes are distributed across a wireless network like a cellular network).
Regarding claim 7, Yuen teaches The method of claim 1, wherein: the indication of the one or more pods in the container-based cluster to upgrade is provided via a rollout custom resource indicating a pod label associated with the one or more pods; and the indication of the one or more nodes in the container-based cluster to upgrade is provided via the rollout custom resource indicating a node label associated with the one or more nodes (paragraph 71, 73, 86, a rolling check that provides a label to the nodes indicating that the node is ready for upgrade or not due to pre conditions).
With regards to Claim 8, Yuen and further in view of Tripathi teaches the method of Claim 1 as referenced above. The system of Claim 8 performs the same steps as the method of Claim 1, and Claim 8 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 1 by the teachings of Yuen and further in view of Tripathi.
With regards to Claim 11, Yuen and further in view of Tripathi teaches the method of Claim 4 as referenced above. The system of Claim 11 performs the same steps as the method of Claim 4, and Claim 14 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 4 by the teachings of Yuen and further in view of Tripathi.
With regards to Claim 12, Yuen and further in view of Tripathi teaches the method of Claim 5 as referenced above. The system of Claim 12 performs the same steps as the method of Claim 5, and Claim 15 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 5 by the teachings of Yuen and further in view of Tripathi.
With regards to Claim 13, Yuen and further in view of Tripathi teaches the method of Claim 6 as referenced above. The system of Claim 13 performs the same steps as the method of Claim 6, and Claim 13 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 6 by the teachings of Yuen and further in view of Tripathi.
With regards to Claim 14, Yuen and further in view of Tripathi teaches the method of Claim 7 as referenced above. The system of Claim 14 performs the same steps as the method of Claim 7, and Claim 14 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 7 by the teachings of Yuen and further in view of Tripathi.
With regards to Claim 15, Yuen and further in view of Tripathi teaches the method of Claim 1 as referenced above. The medium of Claim 15 performs the same steps as the method of Claim 1, and Claim 15 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 1 by the teachings of Yuen and further in view of Tripathi.
With regards to Claim 18, Yuen and further in view of Tripathi teaches the method of Claim 4 as referenced above. The medium of Claim 18 performs the same steps as the method of Claim 4, and Claim 18 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 4 by the teachings of Yuen and further in view of Tripathi.
With regards to Claim 20, Yuen and further in view of Tripathi teaches the method of Claim 6 as referenced above. The medium of Claim 20 performs the same steps as the method of Claim 6, and Claim 20 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 6 by the teachings of Yuen and further in view of Tripathi.
Claim(s) 2, 3, 9, 10, 16, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240095010 A1 (Yuen et. al), and further in view of US 20240095230 A1 (Tripathi et. al), as applied to claims 1, 4, 6 – 8, 11 – 15, 18, and 20 and further in view of US 20200403872 A1 (Shivashankara et. al).
Regarding claim 2, Yuen and further in view of Tripathi teaches, The method of claim 1.
However, Yuen fails to teach, further comprising, at a third time between the first time and the second time: determining that delete events for all of the at least one of the one or more pods running on the first node have been performed; and removing the annotation from the first node based on the delete events.
Shivashankara teaches, further comprising, at a third time between the first time and the second time: determining that delete events for all of the at least one of the one or more pods running on the first node have been performed; and removing the annotation from the first node based on the delete events (paragraph 39, 47, 48 node labels that are used to determine the node state, and if a node needs to be migrated, and paragraph 47-52, a migration event of the pod, removing the node label after migration).
It would have been obvious before the filing date of this application to combine the cluster management system to upgrade nodes by Yuen with migrating nodes taught by Shivashankara as it allows for better memory and resource management of nodes within the cluster.
Regarding claim 3, Shivashankara teaches, the method of claim 2, further comprising: generating a delete event for a pod of the at least one of the one or more pods running on the first node when the pod is upgraded and restarted on a second node in the container-based cluster (paragraph 47-52, a migration event of the pod, deleting the pod from one node and moving it to a second one, and an update to the configuration of the nodes).
It would have been obvious before the filing date of this application to combine the cluster management system to upgrade nodes by Yuen with migrating nodes taught by Shivashankara as it allows for better memory and resource management of nodes within the cluster.
With regards to Claim 9, Tripathi teaches the method of Claim 2 as referenced above. The system of Claim 9 performs the same steps as the method of Claim 2, and Claim 9 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 2 by the teachings of Tripathi.
With regards to Claim 10, Yuen, Tripathi and further in view of Shivashankara teaches the method of Claim 3 as referenced above. The system of Claim 10 performs the same steps as the method of Claim 3, and Claim 10 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 3 by the teachings of Yuen, Tripathi and further in view of Shivashankara.
With regards to Claim 16, Yuen, Tripathi and further in view of Shivashankara teaches the method of Claim 2 as referenced above. The medium of Claim 16 performs the same steps as the method of Claim 2, and Claim 16 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 2 by the teachings of Yuen, Tripathi and further in view of Shivashankara.
With regards to Claim 17, Yuen, Tripathi and further in view of Shivashankara teaches the method of Claim 3 as referenced above. The medium of Claim 17 performs the same steps as the method of Claim 3, and Claim 17 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 3 by the teachings of Yuen, Tripathi and further in view of Shivashankara.
Claim(s) 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240095010 A1 (Yuen et. al), and further in view of US 20240095230 A1 (Tripathi et. al), as applied to claims 1, 4, 6 – 8, 11 – 15, 18, and 20 and further in view of US 20240028357 A1 (Lan et. al).
Regarding claim 5, Yuen and further in view of Tripathi teaches, The method of claim 1, wherein: the first node comprises a virtual machine; and upgrading the first node comprises at least one of: enabling the first node to use additional single root (SR) input/output (I/O virtualization (SR-OV) virtual functions for networking, assigning the first node to a physical processor or core, performing memory pinning for the first node, or configuring the first node to use pre-allocated huge pages.
However, Tripathi does not teach, wherein: the first node comprises a virtual machine; and upgrading the first node comprises at least one of: enabling the first node to use additional single root (SR) input/output (I/O virtualization (SR-OV) virtual functions for networking, assigning the first node to a physical processor or core, performing memory pinning for the first node, or configuring the first node to use pre-allocated huge pages.
Lan teaches, wherein: the first node comprises a virtual machine; and upgrading the first node comprises at least one of: enabling the first node to use additional single root (SR) input/output (I/O virtualization (SR-OV) virtual functions for networking, assigning the first node to a physical processor or core, performing memory pinning for the first node, or configuring the first node to use pre-allocated huge pages (paragraph 91, 110 updating the node, using SR-IOV, or memory pinning of the simulated VMs).
It would have been obvious before the filing date of this application to combine the cluster management system to upgrade nodes by Tripathi with Lan’s technique of first allowing the virtual machine of a node to use memory pinning for upgrading, as it allows for minimal errors with pages when upgrading a virtual machine.
With regards to Claim 12, Yuen, Tripathi and further in view of Lan teaches the method of Claim 5 as referenced above. The system of Claim 12 performs the same steps as the method of Claim 5, and Claim 15 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 5 by the teachings of Yuen, Tripathi and further in view of Lan.
With regards to Claim 19, Yuen, Tripathi and further in view of Lan teaches the method of Claim 5 as referenced above. The medium of Claim 19 performs the same steps as the method of Claim 5, and Claim 19 is therefore rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of Claim 5 by the teachings of Yuen, Tripathi and further in view of Lan.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTIAN BAKHIT whose telephone number is (571)272-4314. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 6:30-5 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, LEWIS BULLOCK can be reached at (571) 272-3759. 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.
/C.M.B./Examiner, Art Unit 2199
/LEWIS A BULLOCK JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2199