DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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, 7, 8, 11, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicant-Admitted Prior Art (hereinafter AAPA) in view of Grayson (U.S. Pat. No. 10/795,550 B1).
AAPA and Grayson were cited in the previous office action.
As per claim 1, AAPA teaches the limitations substantially as claimed, including an article of manufacture comprising a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium that provides instructions that, if executed by one or more electronic devices are configurable to cause the one or more electronic devices to perform operations comprising:
setting a plurality of configuration values associated with a resource provisioning pipeline (Paragraph [0002], “In many cases, for example, the configuration data of the infrastructure provisioning pipelines…are manually copied into the corresponding application deployment pipelines”);
executing resource provisioning stages of the resource provisioning pipeline in accordance with the plurality of configuration values to provision resources of a cloud platform (Paragraph [0002], “…so that later invocation of those deployment pipelines can use the provisioned infrastructure”).
AAPA does not expressly teach making a first call to a configuration service comprising a key-value store during execution of one or more of the resource provisioning stages to cause the configuration service to store the plurality of configuration values to the key-value store, executing application deployment stages of an application deployment pipeline to deploy application program code on the resources provisioned by the resource provisioning pipeline, and making a second call to the configuration service during execution of one or more of the application deployment stages to cause the configuration service to provide one or more of the plurality of configuration values from the key-value store, the one or more of the plurality of configuration values to be used by the one or more application deployment stages.
However, Grayson teaches making a first call to a configuration service comprising a key-value store during execution of one or more of the resource provisioning stages to cause the configuration service to store the plurality of configuration values to the key-value store, executing application deployment stages of an application deployment pipeline to deploy application program code on the resources provisioned by the resource provisioning pipeline, and making a second call to the configuration service during execution of one or more of the application deployment stages to cause the configuration service to provide one or more of the plurality of configuration values from the key-value store, the one or more of the plurality of configuration values to be used by the one or more application deployment stages (Col. 7, Lines 46-57 teaches storing data in a key-value database at an earlier time that can later be retrieved and used during a deployment stage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine the teachings of Grayson with those of AAPA in order to allow for AAPA’s article of manufacture to take advantage of and update previous knowledge in making deployment decisions, which could increase the efficiency of its operations, thereby potentially increasing buy-in among prospective users.
As per claim 7, Grayson teaches that based on the first call, the configuration service is to generate a new version of the key-value store or relevant portion thereof, the new version to include the plurality of configuration values associated with the first call, the configuration service to maintain a prior version of the key-value store or relevant portion thereof, which does not include the plurality of configuration values (Col. 7, Lines 46-57).
As per claim 8, Grayson teaches that the configuration service is to assign a first version identifier to uniquely identify the prior version of the key-value store or relevant portion thereof, and is to assign a second version identifier to uniquely identify the new version of the key-value store or relevant portion thereof (Col. 7, Lines 46-57).
As per claims 11, 17, and 18, they are method claims with no further limitations beyond those rejected above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 2, 3, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA and Grayson, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al (U.S. Pat. No. 10,484,334 B1, hereinafter Lee).
Lee was cited in the previous office action.
As per claim 2, AAPA and Grayson do not expressly teach that the resources provisioned by one or more of the resource provisioning stages comprise one or more server groups, one or more clusters of the server groups, and/or one or more service groups comprising the clusters.
However, Lee teaches that the resources provisioned by one or more of the resource provisioning stages comprise one or more server groups, one or more clusters of the server groups, and/or one or more service groups comprising the clusters (Col. 18, Lines 28-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine the teachings of Lee with those of AAPA and Grayson in order to allow for AAPA’s and Grayson’s article of manufacture to take advantage of known and regularly utilized hardware and software elements, which could increase trust in its operations, thereby potentially increasing buy-in among prospective users.
As per claim 3, AAPA and Grayson do not expressly teach that for a virtual machine (VM)-based implementation, the resources provisioned by one or more of the resource provisioning stages further comprise one or more VM instances provisioned from templates, persistent disks, object stores, and/or network resources.
However, Lee teaches that for a virtual machine (VM)-based implementation, the resources provisioned by one or more of the resource provisioning stages further comprise one or more VM instances provisioned from templates, persistent disks, object stores, and/or network resources (Col. 18, Lines 28-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine the teachings of Lee with those of AAPA and Grayson in order to allow for AAPA’s and Grayson’s article of manufacture to take advantage of known and regularly utilized hardware and software elements, which could increase trust in its operations, thereby potentially increasing buy-in among prospective users.
As per claims 12 and 13, they are method claims with no further limitations beyond those rejected above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 4-6 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA and Grayson, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Orozco Cervantes et al (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0398070 A1, hereinafter Orozco Cervantes).
As per claim 4, AAPA and Grayson do not expressly teach that a first command is to be transmitted to the configuration service responsive to the first call and a second command is to be transmitted to the configuration service responsive to the second call, the first and second commands supported by an application programming interface (API) of the configuration service.
However, Orozco Cervantes teaches that a first command is to be transmitted to the configuration service responsive to the first call and a second command is to be transmitted to the configuration service responsive to the second call, the first and second commands supported by an application programming interface (API) of the configuration service (Paragraph [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine the teachings of Orozco Cervantes with those of AAPA and Grayson in order to allow for AAPA’s and Grayson’s article to take advantage of an API, which could increase the ease of using the article for a wider variety of prospective users.
As per claim 5, Orozco Cervantes teaches that the first command comprises a plurality of key-value pairs corresponding to the plurality of configuration values and the second command comprises a plurality of keys to be used by the API of configuration service to query the key-value data store and access the corresponding plurality of configuration values (Paragraph [0082]).
As per claim 6, Orozco Cervantes teaches that at least one of the resource provisioning pipeline and the application deployment pipeline are to be managed within a continuous delivery (CD) service, the CD service to transmit at least one of the first command and the second command to the configuration service in accordance with the first call and the second call, respectively (Paragraph [0045]).
As per claims 14-16, they are method claims with no further limitations beyond those rejected above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AAPA and Grayson, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mutnuru et al (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0217052 A1, hereinafter Mutnuru).
Mutnuru was cited in the previous office action.
As per claim 9, AAPA and Grayson do not expressly teach that the configuration service is to initially populate the key-value store with one or more service-specific dictionaries, the configuration service to extract configuration data from a directory tree of a service and to map the configuration data to key-value pairs to construct a service-specific dictionary.
However, Mutnuru teaches that the configuration service is to initially populate the key-value store with one or more service-specific dictionaries, the configuration service to extract configuration data from a directory tree of a service and to map the configuration data to key-value pairs to construct a service-specific dictionary (Paragraph [0502]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine the teachings of Mutnuru with those of AAPA and Grayson in order to allow for AAPA’s and Grayson’s article to take advantage of known dictionary technologies, which could ensure accurate data recording and retrieval, which could increase the trust in using the article for a wider variety of prospective users.
As per claim 10, Mutnuru teahes that the service-specific dictionary is to be stored in the key-value store and updated responsive to calls from the resource provisioning pipeline, the application deployment pipeline, or one or more other pipelines (Paragraph [0502]).
As per claims 19 and 20, they are method claims with no further limitations beyond those rejected above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 02/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to prior art rejections, applicant argues the following in the remarks:
a. On pages 7 and 8, applicant argues that the combination of references used in rejecting claim 1 were improperly combined due to insufficient rationale.
b. On page 8, applicant argues that impermissible hindsight was used in forming the combination of references, citing MPEP 2142 and 2145 and stating that the examiner’s rationale for combining does not arise from a teaching in the prior art but instead only a teaching in the applicant’s specification.
c. On pages 8-12, applicant argues that the references in question are not analogous art.
d. On pages 12-14, applicant argues that the combination of the cited references would not teach or make obvious the claimed invention.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant:
a. The examiner would point out that in MPEP 2143, it is stated that “the legal determination of obviousness may include resource to logic, judgment, and common sense.” It further states that “Office personnel should note that although the Federal Circuit invoked the idea of common sense in support of a conclusion of obviousness, it did not end its explanation there… The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is a clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious.
In the instant case, the cited problem of including a human step in the deployment process which could lead to human error and the breaking of automation, would lead one with common sense to find a solution, including the solution found by combining the references used in the rejection above. That said, a clear articulation of reasons must also be provided, as was done – taking advantage of previous knowledge to build a better article, which could entice users to adopt the technology. Thus, the rejection stands.
b. Initially, the examiner would point out that in Paragraph [0002] of the instant specification, under the heading “Background Art,” a problem is states involving the introduction of a human step. As that is included in the “Background Art” section and describes the known state of the technology, any use of that information in the formation of a motivation to combine would arise from the known state of the prior art.
MPEP 2145 teaches that “[a]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.” Such is the case with the rejection in question. Applicant fully admits in his own “Background Art” section that the problem is known. Thus, the rejection stands.
c. According to MPEP 2141.01(a), it is stated that “As for the ‘reasonably pertinent’ test, the examiner should consider the problem faced by the inventor, as reflected - either explicitly or implicitly - in the specification.” As stated above, this problem is clearly stated in the “Background Art” section – “This introduces a human step to the overall deployment process, which creates the possibility of human error, and breaks automation.”
There is no logical reason that a person of ordinary skill would confront such a problem in the narrow way of considering only references within cloud computing, as the applicant seems to argue. Anyone with ordinary skill in the art of cloud computing would understand that while cloud computing is a relatively new technology (at least compared to computing as a whole), many of the problems of cloud computing are simply wider versions of problems already solved in single computers. It would be entirely logical and reasonable for a person of ordinary skill to conclude that the inclusion of a human step in a cloud computing implementation might be solved similarly to the inclusion of a human step on a single computer and therefore look widely in computing arts to find possible solutions. Cloud computing is simply scalable, network-based computing. It would be foolish for a practitioner to assume that solutions to problems found in other computing technologies might not be scalable to cloud computing. Thus, the rejection stands.
d. The examiner would point out that, contrary to applicant’s arguments, the entirety of Grayson’s invention would not need to be combined into the elements taught by AAPA. Instead, one of ordinary skill in the art would be wise enough and capable enough to simply extract the relevant pieces and add them into a different invention. The ideas taught by Grayson in automating a certain element of the invention by using key-value pairs of configuration values in order to avoid potential user error and better automate the article of manufacture could be done without the need to add the rest of the invention. Thus, the rejection stands.
Conclusion
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 Gregory Kessler whose telephone number is (571)270-7762. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30 - 5, Alternate Fridays 8:30-4.
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, Bradley Teets can be reached at (571)272-3338. 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.
/GREGORY A KESSLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2197