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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to Request for Continued Examination Transmittal received 4/3/2026.Claims 1, 7, 9, 15, and 17 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 1 is drawn to apparatus, claim(s) 13 is drawn to a method, and claim 17 is drawn to non-transitory computer readable recording medium. As such, claims 1, 13, and 17 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claim 1 recites, in part, obtaining upgrade data, generating parameterized Kubernetes resource manifests, transmitting the upgrade data and causing execution of the software upgrade based on the transmitted data. These limitations, when considered as a whole, describe managing and implementing a software upgrade process using data collection, processing and transmission steps. These activities are reasonably characterized as organizing and managing information and processes, which fall within the category of abstract ideas identified in judicial precedent such as Electric Power Group v. Alstom.
The additional regarding upgrade data, communication processes, deployment characteristics, and system components relate to further data manipulation, transmission, or use of the managed information.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The additional elements including Network Function Orchestrator, a Service Management Orchestration, an O2 Deployment Management service (O2dms), a Kubernetes API server, and one or more Kubernetes worker nodes. These elements are described at high level as components that receive, process, and transmit data, and that execute software based on the received data. The claims do not recite details indicating that these components are implemented in a manner that meaningfully limits the abstract idea or improves the functioning of the computer or network itself.
For example, the claims recite performing an upgrade without disrupting existing traffic, this is presented as a desired result rather than tied to a specific technical mechanism that achieves the result. Therefore, the additional elements individually and in combination, are considered to amount to no more than the application of the abstract idea using generic computer and network components. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The recited components such as: orchestrator, API server, worker nodes, perform their typical functions of receiving, processing, transmitting and executing data. These functions are generally understood to be well understood, routine and conventional activities. The use of parameterized resource manifests, secure communication and deployment through API sever are considered conventional implementation techniques. The addition limitations when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the abstract idea into patent eligible subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to claims rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues the following:
Argument- Regarding the Non-Disruptive Upgrade limitation.
The applicant points to the amendment indicating that the existing network function (NF) deployment continues execution until the upgraded deployment is up and running, such that existing traffic is not disrupted. This limitation is understood as describing a desirable operational outcome. However, the claim does not appear to recite specific technical details or mechanisms for how this result is achieved. Rather, the limitation is recited in a functional manner, indicating what is intended to occur during the upgrade process. This limitation does not appear to provide meaningful limitation beyond the abstract idea, but instead describes as intended result of the claimed process.
Argument- regarding the Alleged improvement to software upgrade technology.
The applicant asserts that the claims provide an improvement in how software upgrades are performed, including the use of an o2dms interface and the placement of a termination point at a Kubernetes API server within a target cluster.
Despite the claims recite a particular arrangement involving these components, the elements are described at a relatively high level and appear to perform their typical functions in receiving, processing and transmitting data, as well as initiating software deployment. The claims do not appear to clearly reflect how this arrangement results in an improvement to the functioning o the computer system itself, as opposed to an improvement in the overall deployment workflow or process. Additionally, while the applicant notes that the arrangement maybe novel, it is noted that novelty alone does not determine eligibility under 25 U.S.C. 101.
Argument- Regarding the claimed architecture.
The applicant emphasizes that the claims recite a particular architecture involving an 02dms termination point at a Kubernetes API server within the target cluster.
This feature has been considered. However, as currently claimed, this aspect appears to describe where certain communication occurs within the system, rather than defining a specific technical modification to how the components operate. The claims do not appear to provide sufficient detail indicating that this arrangement results in a change to the operation of the Kubernetes API server, worker nodes or other system components, or that it improves the performance or the functioning of the system itself. In conclusion, the arguments have been considered but are not persuasive at this time. The claims continue to be directed to an abstract idea and do not appear to include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARGON N NANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4007. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM. M.S.T..
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at 571 272 3889. 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.
/SARGON N NANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights