DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections (Remarks p. 7-10) are moot in view of the Examiner’s new ground of rejections based on added references to address applicant’s amendments.
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 1-3, 8, 11, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Mangtani (US 20130232498 A1), in view of Lewis (US 20220083363 A1), Persson (US 20180321929 A1), and Oracle (Cluster Verification Utility Reference).
Regarding Claim 1, Mangtani teaches a method comprising:
adding, by a processing device, an operator to a group of operators to be installed on a containerized computing services platform based on an identifier of the operator within the group of operators (
Mangtani discloses, “In step 206, responsive to user inputs (e.g., from developer 102), application director 106 may optionally modify deployment plan 128 to insert one or more custom tasks to be executed between tasks of deployment plan 128,” ¶ 0027, “For each application component in blueprint 126, application director 106 determines one or more tasks that include execution of action scripts corresponding to each application lifecycle stage defined for the application component,” ¶ 0061, and “A virtualization software layer, also referred to hereinafter as hypervisor 912, is installed on top of hardware platform 902. Hypervisor 912 supports virtual machine execution space 914 within which multiple container VMs for hosting application components 724 of an application may be concurrently instantiated and executed,” ¶ 0098.
The claimed “operator” and “group of operators” are mapped to the disclosed “custom tasks” that are being inserted into the deployment plan, and the existing “tasks” that already exist in the deployment plan, respectively. Each task executes action scripts for managing each application component. The mapping is consistent with the specification of the present application, because said specification provides a definition, stating “an operator is an application for packaging, deploying, and managing another application within a containerized computing services platform associated with a container-orchestration system,” ¶ 0014. The one or more tasks are responsible for managing each lifecycle stage of the application components within a containerized computing services platform.
In addition, Mangtani provides examples for its disclosed tasks, mapped to “operators,” stating “For example, for a load balancer application component, application director 106 determines tasks corresponding to execution of an installation script (e.g. "INSTALL"), a configuration script (e.g. "CONFIGURE"), and a launch script (e.g. "START"). In another example, for an SQL script that initializes a database (e.g., "init_db_script"), application director 106 determines a single task corresponding to execution of the script (e.g., "INSTALL"),” ¶ 0061.
The claimed “identifier of the operator” is mapped to the disclosed “INSTALL,” “CONFIGURE,” or “START,” that identify scripts which conduct “packaging, deploying, or managing” of other application(s).
The claimed “containerized computing services platform” is mapped to the disclosed “virtual machine execution space 914”, which contains multiple container VMs for where the tasks are performed.);
determining, by the processing device, whether the group of operators is complete (
Mangtani discloses, “Dependencies between application components and/or nodes defined in blueprint 126 may be used to determine an order in which the application components should be deployed. A dependency defined as ‘from’ a first application component ‘to’ a second application component represents a requirement that tasks for the first application component cannot be performed until the tasks for the second application component have been completed,” ¶ 0062.
The claimed “whether the group of operators is complete” is mapped to the disclosed determining of whether the topology of the virtual computing resources and the application components is complete and ready to generate a deployment plan, as seen in the highlighted portions of Figure 2 below.
PNG
media_image1.png
543
313
media_image1.png
Greyscale
);
and responsive to determining that the group of operators is complete, generating, by the processing device based on a set of meta-operator parameters comprising a meta-operator the instructions include installation phase instructions that control an ordering of operator installation(
Mangtani discloses, “A method of managing deployment of an application in a cloud environment having virtual computing resources, according to an embodiment, includes determining tasks to be executed for deploying application components on virtual computing resources for supporting execution of the application; and generating a deployment plan for executing the tasks according to a topology of the virtual computing resources, the application components, and one or more dependencies between application components,” ¶ 0007, and “Blueprint 126 may define one or more dependencies between application components to indicate an installation order of the application components during deployment,” ¶ 0022.
The claimed “meta-operator” is mapped to the disclosed “deployment plan”, which manages and executes each task after they are defined in the blueprint that is then used to generate the deployment plan.
The claimed “installation phase instructions that control an ordering of operator installation” is mapped to instructions contained the disclosed deployment plan that controls the “installation order of the application components during deployment”, which is controlled by the order of the tasks.).
Although Mangtani discloses “deployment plan,” mapped to claimed “meta-operator,” Mangtani does not explicitly disclose an identifier is used to reference the “deployment plan.”
However, Lewis teaches the use of an identifier to reference deployment plans (
Lewis discloses, “Container retrieval engine 112a may have instructions that direct and/or cause container configuration computing platform 110 to identify, over a network, a deployment identifier associated with a request to deploy one or more machine learning models, wherein the deployment identifier is indicative of the one or more machine learning models, and pre-processing scripts and post-processing scripts associated with the one or more machine learning models, as discussed in greater detail below.” ¶ 0039.
The claimed “identifier” is mapped to deployment identifier.)
Mangtani and Lewis are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of application management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mangtani to incorporate the teachings of Lewis and provide generating based on a set of meta-operator parameters comprising a meta-operator identifier. Doing so would make it easier to reference and execute the deployment plan.
Mangtani in view of Lewis does not teach instructions that include pre-installation validations that validate conditions prior to installation and post-installation phase instructions that validate successful installation of the installation phase instructions, wherein the pre-installation validations include at least checking that the operator is compatible with a cluster, wherein the post-installation phase instructions include at least checking that the cluster is healthy after the adding of the operator to the group of operators.
However, Persson teaches instructions that include pre-installation validations that validate conditions prior to installation and post-installation phase instructions that validate successful installation of the installation phase instructions (
Persson discloses, “receiving installation instructions from a remote server; validating a received data package; validating pre-installation conditions of the vehicle determining if a software installation can be performed; installing software in the vehicle; validating post-installation conditions of the vehicle determining if the software is correctly installed; and providing an installation report to the remote server,” ¶ 0010.).
Mangtani in view of Lewis, and Persson are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of software installation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mangtani in view of Lewis to incorporate the teachings of Persson and provide instructions that include pre-installation validations that validate conditions prior to installation and post-installation phase instructions that validate successful installation of the installation phase instructions. Doing so would make it easier to check for errors in installation and notify a user accordingly, and enhance reliability of software installation, to reduce possibility of system failure (Persson discloses, “The notification may also comprise information describing the status of the installation, such as if the installation is successful or not,” ¶ 0027.).
Mangtani in view of Lewis, and Persson does not teach wherein the pre-installation validations include at least checking that the operator is compatible with a cluster, wherein the post-installation phase instructions include at least checking that the cluster is healthy after the adding of the operator to the group of operators.
However, Oracle teaches wherein the pre-installation validations include at least checking that the operator is compatible with a cluster (
Oracle discloses, “Use the cluvfy stage -pre nodeadd command to verify the specified nodes are configured correctly before adding them to your existing cluster, and to verify the integrity of the cluster before you add the nodes. Use the cluvfy stage -post nodeadd command to verify that the specified nodes have been successfully added to the cluster at the network, shared storage, and clusterware levels,” Page 20,
“The cluvfy stage -pre nodeadd command verifies that the system configuration, such as the operating system version, software patches, packages, and kernel parameters, for the nodes that you want to add, is compatible with the existing cluster nodes, and that the clusterware is successfully operating on the existing nodes. Run this command on any node of the existing cluster,” Page 20.
Here, pre-installation validations include checking that the node is compatible with the cluster. After the combination of Mangtani in view of Lewis and Persson, with Oracle, the pre-installation validations now include checking that the operator is compatible with the cluster.),
wherein the post-installation phase instructions include at least checking that the cluster is healthy after the adding of the operator to the group of operators (
Oracle discloses, “cluvfy comp healthcheck
Checks your Oracle Clusterware and Oracle Database installations for their compliance with mandatory requirements and best practices guidelines, and to ensure that they are functioning properly,” Page 10.
Here, the health check can be performed after the nodes have been added to the cluster. After the combination of Mangtani in view of Lewis and Persson, with Oracle, the post-installation health check is performed after the operator is added to the cluster.).
Mangtani in view of Lewis and Persson, and Oracle are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of software installation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mangtani in view of Lewis and Persson to incorporate the teachings of Oracle and provide wherein the pre-installation validations include at least checking that the operator is compatible with a cluster, wherein the post-installation phase instructions include at least checking that the cluster is healthy after the adding of the operator to the group of operators. Doing so would help ensure stability and integrity of the cluster (Oracle discloses, “Cluster Verification Utility (CVU) performs system checks in preparation for installation, patch updates, or other system changes. Using CVU ensures that you have completed the required system configuration and preinstallation steps so that your Oracle Grid Infrastructure or Oracle Real Application Clusters (Oracle RAC) installation, update, or patch operation, completes successfully,” Page 2.).
Claim 14 is a system claim corresponding to the method Claim 1. Therefore, Claim 14 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, Mangtani in view of Lewis, Persson, and Oracle teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the set of meta-operator parameters comprises at least one of: a meta-operator name, a meta-operator description, or an icon (
Mangtani discloses, “Deployment plan generator 122 of application director 106 generates a deployment plan 128 based on blueprint 126 that includes deployment settings for blueprint 126 (e.g., virtual computing resources' cluster size, CPU, memory, networks).” ¶ 0023.).
Claim 15 is a system claim corresponding to the method Claim 2. Therefore, Claim 15 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 3, Mangtani in view of Lewis, Persson, and Oracle teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising obtaining an identifier of the operator, wherein the operator is added to the group of operators based on the identifier of the operator. (
Mangtani discloses, “For each application component in blueprint 126, application director 106 determines one or more tasks that include execution of action scripts corresponding to each application lifecycle stage defined for the application component. For example, for a load balancer application component, application director 106 determines tasks corresponding to execution of an installation script (e.g. "INSTALL"), a configuration script (e.g. "CONFIGURE"), and a launch script (e.g. "START"),” ⁋ 0061, and “In step 512, application director 106 generates a deployment plan 128 for executing the tasks according to the dependencies determined in step 510, and in turn, in step 514, the user may review the generated deployment plan 128,” ⁋ 0065.
The claimed “obtaining an identifier of the operator” is mapped to the disclosed “determines tasks corresponding to execution of an installation script (e.g. "INSTALL"), a configuration script (e.g. "CONFIGURE"), and a launch script (e.g. "START")”.
Claim 16 is a system claim corresponding to the method Claim 3. Therefore, Claim 16 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 8, Mangtani teaches installing, by a processing device, a meta-operator comprising instructions for managing installation of a group of operators on a containerized computing services platform (
Mangtani discloses, “A method of managing deployment of an application in a cloud environment having virtual computing resources, according to an embodiment, includes determining tasks to be executed for deploying application components on virtual computing resources for supporting execution of the application; and generating a deployment plan for executing the tasks according to a topology of the virtual computing resources, the application components, and one or more dependencies between application components,” ¶ 0007),
wherein the instructions include installation phase instructions that control an ordering of operator installation (
Mangtani discloses, “Blueprint 126 may define one or more dependencies between application components to indicate an installation order of the application components during deployment,” ¶ 0022),
wherein the meta-operator is generated based on a set of meta-operator parameters comprising a meta-operator (
Mangtani discloses, “A method of managing deployment of an application in a cloud environment having virtual computing resources, according to an embodiment, includes determining tasks to be executed for deploying application components on virtual computing resources for supporting execution of the application; and generating a deployment plan for executing the tasks according to a topology of the virtual computing resources, the application components, and one or more dependencies between application components,” ¶ 0007.
The claimed “meta-operator” is mapped to the disclosed “deployment plan”, which manages each task.
and wherein each operator of the group of operators added to the group of operators based on a respective operator identifier (
Mangtani discloses, “For each application component in blueprint 126, application director 106 determines one or more tasks that include execution of action scripts corresponding to each application lifecycle stage defined for the application component,” ¶ 0061.
The claimed “operator” and “group of operators” are mapped to the disclosed “one or more tasks”, which execute action scripts for managing each application component. The mapping is consistent with the specification of the present application, because said specification provides a definition, stating “an operator is an application for packaging, deploying, and managing another application within a containerized computing services platform associated with a container-orchestration system,” ¶ 0014. The one or more tasks are responsible for managing each lifecycle stage of the application components within a containerized computing services platform.
In addition, Mangtani provides examples for its disclosed tasks, mapped to “operators,” stating “For example, for a load balancer application component, application director 106 determines tasks corresponding to execution of an installation script (e.g. "INSTALL"), a configuration script (e.g. "CONFIGURE"), and a launch script (e.g. "START"). In another example, for an SQL script that initializes a database (e.g., "init_db_script"), application director 106 determines a single task corresponding to execution of the script (e.g., "INSTALL"),” ¶ 0061.
The claimed “identifier of the operator” is mapped to the disclosed “INSTALL,” “CONFIGURE,” or “START,” that identify scripts which conduct “packaging, deploying, or managing” of other application(s).
obtaining, by the processing device, installation data for installing the group of operators on the containerized computing services platform using the meta-operator (
Mangtani discloses, “Deployment plan 128 provides an IT administrator with a process-oriented view of blueprint 126 that indicates discrete steps to be performed to deploy application 108.” ⁋ 0023);
and managing, by the processing device, installation of the group of operators on the containerized computing services platform in view of the installation data using the meta-operator (Mangtani discloses, “A method of managing deployment of an application in a cloud environment having virtual computing resources, according to an embodiment, includes determining tasks to be executed for deploying application components on virtual computing resources for supporting execution of the application; and generating a deployment plan for executing the tasks according to a topology of the virtual computing resources, the application components, and one or more dependencies between application components,” ⁋ 0007).
Although Mangtani discloses “deployment plan,” mapped to claimed “meta-operator,” Mangtani does not explicitly disclose an identifier is used to reference the “deployment plan.”
However, Lewis teaches the use of an identifier to reference a deployment plan (
Lewis discloses, “Container retrieval engine 112a may have instructions that direct and/or cause container configuration computing platform 110 to identify, over a network, a deployment identifier associated with a request to deploy one or more machine learning models, wherein the deployment identifier is indicative of the one or more machine learning models, and pre-processing scripts and post-processing scripts associated with the one or more machine learning models, as discussed in greater detail below.” ¶ 0039.
The claimed “identifier” is mapped to deployment identifier.)
Mangtani and Lewis are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of application management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mangtani to incorporate the teachings of Lewis and provide generating based on a set of meta-operator parameters comprising a meta-operator identifier. Doing so would make it easier to reference and execute the deployment plan.
Mangtani in view of Lewis does not teach instructions that include pre-installation validations that validate conditions prior to installation and post-installation phase instructions that validate successful installation of the installation phase instructions, wherein the pre-installation validations include at least checking that the operator is compatible with a cluster, wherein the post-installation phase instructions include at least checking that the cluster is healthy after the adding of the operator to the group of operators.
However, Persson teaches instructions that include pre-installation validations that validate conditions prior to installation and post-installation phase instructions that validate successful installation of the installation phase instructions (
Persson discloses, “receiving installation instructions from a remote server; validating a received data package; validating pre-installation conditions of the vehicle determining if a software installation can be performed; installing software in the vehicle; validating post-installation conditions of the vehicle determining if the software is correctly installed; and providing an installation report to the remote server,” ¶ 0010.).
Mangtani in view of Lewis, and Persson are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of software installation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mangtani in view of Lewis to incorporate the teachings of Persson and provide instructions that include pre-installation validations that validate conditions prior to installation and post-installation phase instructions that validate successful installation of the installation phase instructions. Doing so would make it easier to check for errors in installation and notify a user accordingly, and enhance reliability of software installation, to reduce possibility of system failure (Persson discloses, “The notification may also comprise information describing the status of the installation, such as if the installation is successful or not,” ¶ 0027.).
Mangtani in view of Lewis and Persson does not teach wherein the pre-installation validations include at least checking that the operator is compatible with a cluster, wherein the post-installation phase instructions include at least checking that the cluster is healthy after the adding of the operator to the group of operators.
However, Oracle teaches wherein the pre-installation validations include at least checking that the operator is compatible with a cluster (
Oracle discloses, “Use the cluvfy stage -pre nodeadd command to verify the specified nodes are configured correctly before adding them to your existing cluster, and to verify the integrity of the cluster before you add the nodes. Use the cluvfy stage -post nodeadd command to verify that the specified nodes have been successfully added to the cluster at the network, shared storage, and clusterware levels,” Page 20,
“The cluvfy stage -pre nodeadd command verifies that the system configuration, such as the operating system version, software patches, packages, and kernel parameters, for the nodes that you want to add, is compatible with the existing cluster nodes, and that the clusterware is successfully operating on the existing nodes. Run this command on any node of the existing cluster,” Page 20.
Here, pre-installation validations include checking that the node is compatible with the cluster. After the combination of Mangtani in view of Lewis and Persson, with Oracle, the pre-installation validations now include checking that the operator is compatible with the cluster.),
wherein the post-installation phase instructions include at least checking that the cluster is healthy after the adding of the operator to the group of operators (
Oracle discloses, “cluvfy comp healthcheck
Checks your Oracle Clusterware and Oracle Database installations for their compliance with mandatory requirements and best practices guidelines, and to ensure that they are functioning properly,” Page 10.
Here, the health check can be performed after the nodes have been added to the cluster. After the combination of Mangtani in view of Lewis and Persson, with Oracle, the post-installation health check is performed after the operator is added to the cluster.).
Mangtani in view of Lewis and Persson, and Oracle are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of software installation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mangtani in view of Lewis and Persson to incorporate the teachings of Oracle and provide wherein the pre-installation validations include at least checking that the operator is compatible with a cluster, wherein the post-installation phase instructions include at least checking that the cluster is healthy after the adding of the operator to the group of operators. Doing so would help ensure stability and integrity of the cluster (Oracle discloses, “Cluster Verification Utility (CVU) performs system checks in preparation for installation, patch updates, or other system changes. Using CVU ensures that you have completed the required system configuration and preinstallation steps so that your Oracle Grid Infrastructure or Oracle Real Application Clusters (Oracle RAC) installation, update, or patch operation, completes successfully,” Page 2.).
Regarding Claim 11, Mangtani in view of Lewis, Persson, and Oracle teaches the method of claim 8, wherein managing installation of the group of operators comprises triggering installation of the group of operators using resources associated with an operator lifecycle manager. (
Mangtani discloses, “Actions generally include a script comprised of one or more lines of scripting logic that, when executed by a virtual machine on which the application component is hosted, perform operations for an application lifecycle stage (e.g., install, configure, start, stop, upgrade, migrate, etc.),” ⁋ 0039).
Claims 4-5 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Mangtani (US 20130232498 A1) in view of Lewis (US 20220083363 A1), Persson (US 20180321929 A1), Oracle (Cluster Verification Utility Reference), Willson (US 11216303 B1), and Jerding (US 20070233999 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, Mangtani in view of Lewis, Persson, and Oracle teaches the method of claim 3. Mangtani in view of Lewis, Persson, and Oracle does not teach further comprising: obtaining, by the processing device, a list of operators matching the identifier of the operator by querying an image registry; receiving, by the processing device, a selected operator from the list.
However, Willson teaches further comprising: obtaining, by the processing device, a list of operators matching the identifier of the operator by querying an image registry; receiving, by the processing device, a selected operator from the list. (
Willson discloses, “The pipeline execution service may obtain the task image by submitting a query to the task image registry (e.g., the query may include an identifier corresponding to task T),” ⁋ Col 7, Lines 19-22.).
Mangtani in view of Lewis, Persson, and Oracle, and Willson are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of application management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mangtani in view of Lewis, Persson, and Oracle to incorporate the teachings of Willson and provide further comprising: obtaining, by the processing device, a list of operators matching the identifier of the operator by querying an image registry; receiving, by the processing device, a selected operator from the list. Doing so would help ensure faster and more efficient retrieval of the operator.
Mangtani in view of Lewis, Persson, Oracle, and Willson does not teach obtaining, by the processing device, a set of operator parameters associated with the selected operator.
However, Jerding teaches obtaining, by the processing device, a set of operator parameters associated with the selected operator (
Jerding discloses, “When a service provided by the application is subsequently activated by the subscriber, SAM 37, prior to activating the application's service, retrieves the current version parameter for the application to be activated from the service database 40, as in step 123,” ⁋ 0072.).
Mangtani in view of Lewis, Persson, Oracle, and Willson, and Jerding are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of application management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mangtani in view of Lewis, Persson, Oracle, and Willson to incorporate the teachings of Jerding and provide obtaining, by the processing device, a set of operator parameters associated with the selected operator. Doing so would help manage the lifecycle of the application more efficiently. (Jerding discloses, “The SAM server 56 and client 37 also handle the life cycle of the applications on the system, including the definition, initialization, activation, suspension, and un-installation of services they provide and the downloading of the application into the DHCT 16 as necessary,” ¶ 0032).
Claim 17 is a system claim corresponding to the method Claim 4. Therefore, Claim 17 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 5, Mangtani in view of Lewis, Persson, Oracle, Willson, and Jerding teaches the method of claim 4, wherein obtaining the set of operator parameters comprises downloading the set of operator parameters from the image registry (
Willson discloses, “The pipeline execution service may obtain the task image by submitting a query to the task image registry (e.g., the query may include an identifier corresponding to task T),” ⁋ Col 7, Lines 19-22.
Jerding discloses, “The SAM server 56 (FIG. 3) maintains version information in service database 40 containing information of a most current version for each application currently available on the BFS 41, 55 (FIGS. 2 and 3 respectively),” ⁋ 0071, and “SAM receives the current version parameter related to all applications and stores the current version parameter in service database 40 in association to the downloaded application,” ⁋ 0072.).
Mangtani in view of Lewis, Persson, and Oracle, and Willson are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of application management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mangtani in view of Lewis, Persson, and Oracle to incorporate the teachings of Willson and provide downloading from the image registry. Doing so would help ensure that the data that is being downloaded is more easily accessible through the task image.
Mangtani in view of Lewis, Persson, Oracle, and Willson, and Jerding are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of application management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mangtani in view of Lewis, Persson, Oracle, and Willson to incorporate the teachings of Jerding and provide downloading the set of operator parameters from the image registry. Doing so would help ensure that the set of operator parameters can be used for additional configuration of the operator.
Claim 18 is a system claim corresponding to the method Claim 5. Therefore, Claim 18 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 5.
Claims 6-7 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Mangtani (US 20130232498 A1), in view of Lewis (US 20220083363 A1), Persson (US 20180321929 A1), Oracle (Cluster Verification Utility Reference), Willson (US 11216303 B1), Jerding (US 20070233999 A1), and Morley (US 20160162275 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Mangtani in view of Lewis, Persson, Oracle, Willson, and Jerding teaches the method of claim 4. Mangtani in view of Lewis, Persson, Oracle, Willson, and Jerding does not teach further comprising receiving, by the processing device, additional installation information in view of the set of operator parameters.
However, Morley teaches further comprising receiving, by the processing device, additional installation information in view of the set of operator parameters (
Morley discloses, “As a parameter in the request, the generated application list of installed applications on the current platform version with app ID, version number, and build number are transmitted to the App Store Server,” ⁋ 0040).
Mangtani in view of Lewis, Persson, Oracle, Willson, and Jerding, and Morley are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of application management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mangtani in view of Lewis, Persson, Oracle, Willson, and Jerding to incorporate the teachings of Morley and provide further comprising receiving, by the processing device, additional installation information in view of the set of operator parameters. Doing so would help determine the compatibility of the application with the platform for installation. (Morley discloses, “The generated application list of installed applications on the current platform version with app ID, version number, and build number is compared to the application catalog of the target platform version on an iterative basis to find out whether each of the currently installed applications is or is not compatible with the target platform version.,” ¶ 0043).
Claim 19 is a system claim corresponding to the method Claim 6. Therefore, Claim 19 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 7, Mangtani in view of Lewis, Persson, Oracle, Willson, Jerding, and Morley teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the additional installation information comprises at least one of: a version to be installed, an installation namespace, an installation scope, or an upgrade strategy (
Morley discloses, “an application registry of the mobile device 15 is pulled and a list is created that includes the unique application identifier ("app ID"), such as an iOS App ID, as well as version and build numbers of the installed applications,” ⁋ 0040).
Mangtani in view of Lewis, Persson, Oracle, Willson, and Jerding, and Morley are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of application management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mangtani in view of Lewis, Persson, Oracle, Willson, and Jerding to incorporate the teachings of Morley and provide wherein the additional installation information comprises at least one of: a version to be installed, an installation namespace, an installation scope, or an upgrade strategy. Doing so would help reduce the possibility of an error during installation.
Claim 20 is a system claim corresponding to the method Claim 7. Therefore, Claim 20 is rejected for the same reason set forth in the rejection of Claim 7.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Mangtani (US 20130232498 A1), in view of Lewis (US 20220083363 A1), Persson (US 20180321929 A1), Oracle (Cluster Verification Utility Reference), and Fuse (US 20130268925 A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Mangtani in view of Lewis, Persson, and Oracle teaches the method of claim 8. Mangtani in view of Lewis, Persson, and Oracle does not teach further comprising determining, by the processing device, whether the group of operators is installable prior to installing the group of operators.
However, Fuse teaches further comprising determining, by the processing device, whether the group of operators is installable prior to installing the group of operators (
Fuse discloses, “whether the application can be used is determined from the product information of the target application before the application is installed, and thus it is determined whether to install the application. In this case, if it is determined that the application is cannot be used by an installer, eventually the application cannot be installed,” ⁋ 0007).
Mangtani in view of Lewis, Persson, and Oracle, and Fuse are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of application management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mangtani in view of Lewis, Persson, and Oracle to incorporate the teachings of Fuse and provide further comprising determining, by the processing device, whether the group of operators is installable prior to installing the group of operators. Doing so would help detect problems with installation more easily. (Fuse discloses, “According to the technique, since whether the application properly operates can be determined during installation processing, and thus, an issue such that the installation target application does not properly operate can be prevented,” ¶ 0006).
Regarding Claim 10, Mangtani in view of Lewis, Persson, Oracle, and Fuse teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the installation data further comprises pre-installation validation instructions, and wherein determining whether the group of operators is installable comprises executing the pre-installation validation instructions (
Fuse discloses, “As the usage of the environment check application 220, the environment check application 220 is executed to check whether the application 230 properly operates, before the application 230 is actually installed, and operation verification is performed,” ⁋ 0036).
Mangtani in view of Lewis, Persson, and Oracle, and Fuse are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of application management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mangtani in view of Lewis, Persson, and Oracle to incorporate the teachings of Fuse and provide wherein the installation data further comprises pre-installation validation instructions, and wherein determining whether the group of operators is installable comprises executing the pre-installation validation instructions. Doing so would help test the operators more rigorously to see if they can be installed correctly.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Mangtani (US 20130232498 A1), in view of Lewis (US 20220083363 A1), Persson (US 20180321929 A1), Oracle (Cluster Verification Utility Reference), and Saluja (US 20200379742 A1).
Regarding Claim 12, Mangtani in view of Lewis, Persson, and Oracle teaches the method of claim 8. Mangtani in view of Lewis, Persson, and Oracle does not teach wherein the installation data further comprises post-installation validation instructions, and wherein managing installation of the group of operators comprises determining that installation of the group of operators was successful by executing the post-installation validation instructions.
However, Saluja teaches wherein the installation data further comprises post-installation validation instructions, and wherein managing installation of the group of operators comprises determining that installation of the group of operators was successful by executing the post-installation validation instructions (
Saluja discloses, “…the validation application 243 can check to see if a client application installer 223 exited with an error, or completed installation successfully,” ⁋ 0027).
Mangtani in view of Lewis, Persson, and Oracle, and Saluja are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of application management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mangtani in view of Lewis, Persson, and Oracle to incorporate the teachings of Saluja and provide wherein the installation data further comprises post-installation validation instructions, and wherein managing installation of the group of operators comprises determining that installation of the group of operators was successful by executing the post-installation validation instructions. Doing so would help prevent errors with installation. (Saluja discloses, “Prior to providing the newly created package file 229 to the OEM, the user can test the package file 229 in order to verify that the package file 229, when applied to a new computing device, correctly installs each client application and configures the applications and operating system correctly,” ¶ 0026).
Regarding Claim 13, Mangtani in view of Lewis, Persson, Oracle, and Saluja teaches the method of claim 8, further comprising: rendering, via a graphical user interface, at least one of: an installation progress indicator or an installation result indicator (
Saluja discloses, “If no errors are detected, the validation application 243 can indicate within the user interface 100 that the package file 229 or the configuration file 226 can be provided to the OEM. If any errors are detected, the validation application 243 can instead indicate within the user interface 100 the type of error and the cause of the error,” ⁋ 0027.
The claimed “graphical user interface” is mapped to the disclosed “user interface 100”.
The claimed “at least one of: an installation progress indicator or an installation result indicator” is mapped to the disclosed “indicate within the user interface 100 the type of error and the cause of the error”.).
Mangtani in view of Lewis, Persson, and Oracle, and Saluja are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of application management. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Mangtani in view of Lewis, Persson, and Oracle to incorporate the teachings of Saluja and provide further comprising: rendering, via a graphical user interface, at least one of: an installation progress indicator or an installation result indicator. Doing so would help better visualize the results of the installation and provide more information for debugging.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wu et al. (CN 103176688 A): Method and Device for Classification Application
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 ANDREW SUN whose telephone number is (571)272-6735. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Aimee Li can be reached at (571) 272-4169. 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.
/ANDREW NMN SUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2195
/Aimee Li/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2195