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 amendment received on 7/21/2026.Claims 1, 9, 17 are amended. Claims 21 and 22 are newly added. Consequently, claims 1-22 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 1-22 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.
Claims 1-22 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.
Step 2A-Prong one
Claim 1 is directed to managing a software upgrade. In general, the claim obtains upgrade information, generates and sends information used for the upgrade, causes new software deployment to be started, maintains the old deployment until the new deployment is running, and then allows the old deployment to be terminated. The claim therefore recites rules and decisions for managing the upgrade process, including determining what information is used for the upgrade, when the new deployment is started and when the old deployment may be terminated. These limitations fall within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas, because the evaluation and sequencing of the upgrade such as maintaining an existing version until a replacement is available and determining when the existing version may be removed represent evaluations or decisions that can be performed conceptually. The fact that these steps are performed using computer and network components does not change the nature of the underlying abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong Two
The additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.Claim 1 also recites an NFO, SMO, O2dms, Kubernetes API server, worker nodes, resource manifests, resource objects, and container images. These components are used to carry out the software upgrade process. The NFO obtains and sends upgrade information, O2dms transfers the information, the API server creates resource objects, and the worker nodes obtain container images and execute the deployment. The claim does not improve how these components operate. Rather, the components perform different functions in carrying out the upgrade process. The recited secure transfer using O2dms also does not provide an improvement to security or communication technology. The claim does not recite new encryption, authentication, or communication technique. O2dms is used to securely transfer the upgrade. The limitation for preventing traffic disruption also does not change the result. The old deployment remains running until the upgraded deployment is up and running, after which the old deployment may be terminated. The specification describes this as build-and-replace upgrade approach. Therefore, this limitation provides the timing and sequence for performing the upgrade but does not improve Kubernetes, O2dms, the API server, worker nodes or another computer or network component. Accordingly, the additional limitations provide details for carrying out the software upgrade but do not provide an improvement to technology. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Step 2B
The additional elements, individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The NFO, O2dms, Kubernetes API server, worker nodes, resource manifests, and container images are used to obtain, transfer, and execute information as part of the software upgrade process. The claims do not change how these components operate. When considered together, the limitations amount to carrying out the claimed software upgrade process in the recited Kubernetes/O2dms environment. Therefore, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the judicial exception. Accordingly, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and do not provide significantly more. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. is maintained.
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.
Applicant argues that the amended claims are patent eligible because the claims recite a specific O2dms/Kubernetes architecture, provide secure transfer of Kubernetes resource manifests, and prevent further disruption of existing traffic during a network function software upgrade. Applicant further argues that these features constitute an improvement to the network platform itself.
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The amendments add additional detail regarding where and through what components the software upgrade process is performed, but they do not establish an improvement to the operation of Kubernetes, O2dms, Kubernetes API server, the worker nodes, or another computer or network component.
Improvement to The O2dms/Kubernetes Architecture.
The applicant argues that the location of the O2dms termination point at the Kubernetes API server is a novel and non-generic architecture that improves the network platform.
This argument is not persuasive. The claims do not recite an improvement to how O2dms communicates or how the Kubernetes API server operates. The claims do not provide a new communication protocol, encryption technique, authentication technique, Kubernetes API operation, resource object structure, or worker node operation. Rather, O2dms is used to securely transfer the upgrade information to Kubernetes API server. Therefore, the claimed arrangement provides a location and communication path for performing the software upgrade, but it does not improve the operation of O2dms or Kubernetes itself.
The applicant reliance on Novelty
The applicant argues that the claimed arrangement is novel, non-generic, and previously unknown. This argument is not persuasive because novelty and eligibility are separate inquiries. Whether the claimed arrangement is new or non-obvious is considered under 35 U.S.C. 103 and 103. A feature does not become an improvement to computer technology simply because applicant alleges that the feature is novel. Even assuming that the particular arrangement is novel, the claims still must show how the arrangement improves computer functionality or another technology. The claims do not identify such an improvement.
Secure Transfer of the Resource Manifests
The applicant argues that secure transfer of Kubernetes resource manifests provides a technological solution to a technological problem.
This argument is not persuasive. The claims require the source manifests to be securely transferred using O2dms, but do not recite an improvement to secure communication itself. For example, the claims do not recite a new encryption method authentication method, security protocol, or other security mechanism. Instead, O2dms is being used to provide secure transfer. Therefore, the claimed secure transfer is a benefit of using O2dms in the upgrade process, rather than an improvement to secure communication technology.
Preventing Disruption of Existing Traffic.
The applicant argues that the amended claim does not simply recite the result of preventing disruption, because the claim now requires the old network-function deployment to continue running until the upgraded deployment is up and running.
The examiner agrees that the amendment provides additional details regarding the upgrade process. However, the added limitation basically specifies when the old deployment is terminated. The specification itself describes this as a build-and-replace upgrade approach. The old deployment continues operating while the new deployment is created, and the old deployment is later removed after the new deployment is operating. Therefore, the amendment provides additional steps and timing for performing the software upgrade, it does change how Kubernetes, O2dms, The API server, or the worker nodes operate. Accordingly, preventing traffic disruption represents an improvement in the software upgrade process or workflow, rather than an improvement to the computer network or network technology.
Applicant’s Reliance on DDR Holdings and BASCOM
The applicant’s reliance on DD Holdings is not persuasive. Although the claimed process is performed in a computer network environment. However, simply performing the process in a Kubernetes environment does not establish an improvement to that environment. The Kubernetes and O2dms components provide the technological environment in which the software upgrade is carried out. The claims do not recite a change in how those components operate. Therefore, the fact that the claimed process is rooted in computer technology does not by itself establish that the claims improve computer or network technology.
The applicant further argues that the ordered combination of the claimed components provides an inventive concept under BASCOM.
This argument is not persuasive. The claimed combination uses the NFO, O2dms, Kubernetes API server, worker nodes, resource manifests and container images to perform the software upgrade. Characterizing this combination is novel or non-generic does not by itself establish an inventive concept. The important question is whether the claimed combination provides something significantly more that carrying out the software upgrade using the recited computer and network components. Applicant has not shown that the claimed arrangement changes or improves how those components operate.
Claims 21 and 22
The applicant’s arguments regarding new claims 21 and 22 have been considered. Claims 21 adds gradually routing to the upgraded deployment, monitoring the traffic, determining that the traffic has moved, and then deleting the old deployment. These limitations provide additional details regarding the upgrade sequence. However, they do not improve how the load balancer, Kubernetes API server, worker node, or other network component operates.
Claim 22 adds rollback when an exception occurs. The new deployment is removed, upgrade actions are stopped, and the old deployment continues providing service. Again, this provides an additional rule for carrying out the upgrade process but does not improve the operation of the underlying computer or computer components. Accordingly, the new claims 21 and 22 do not change the eligibility determination.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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