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 .
Continued Examination
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/15/2026 has been entered.
The following is a non-final action in response to applicant's amendment and response dated 5/15/2026, responding to the 1/14/2026 office action provided in rejection of claims 1-20. Claims 1-2, 8 and 15 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and are addressed in this office action. New grounds of rejection are presented in view of the newly presented limitation(s).
Examiner notes
(A). Examiner interpreted “information handling system” as computing system spec per paragraph 0090 which have been recited in independent claims 1, 8, and15.
(B). Limitations have been provided with the Bold fonts in order to distinguish from the cited part of the reference (Italic).
(C). Examiner has cited particular columns, line numbers, references, or figures in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses to fully consider the reference in entirety, as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. See MPEP §§ 2141.02 and 2123.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111 (c).
Response to Amendments and Arguments
With respect to the rejection of claims 1, 8 and 15 under 35 USC 101, applicant argues that rejection is error in the FOA’s analysis under the controlling law, USPTO guidance. Applicant further contends that mischaracterizes the claim language.(Remarks, page 19-20)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner provided detail analysis and responded to applicant’s arguments in the previous office action. Examiner, again reiterate the analysis herein, in the Federal Register Notice: October 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance Update, the flowchart provides the current framework for properly establishing a 35 USC 101 rejection for abstract idea, first examiner must determine whether the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception (step 2A), if yes, the perform the next step of “does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?” (Step 2B). It is unclear the rejection is improper. Further, subject matter of claim 3 of Example 47 is not the same of the instant claims. The eligibility of claim 3 of Example 47, because the additional elements in steps ( d)-(f), when considered in combination, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim improves the functioning of a computer or technical field. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(l) and2106.05(a). The claimed invention reflects this improvement in the technical field of network intrusion detection. Thus, the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: YES), such that the claim is not directed to the judicial exception. (Step 2A: NO). Thus the claim is eligible. Further to note that the claim 2 of example 47 is for a method claim which is comparable to the pending method claims1-7 and the analysis of the claim 2 of example 47 is used for the 101 rejection below. Applicant’s argument have been considered but not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1, 8 and 15under 35 USC 101, applicant further contends that Enfish/McRO/DDR arguments contains the following statement: "In the instant application, the inventor has improved upon previous GUIs by dynamically relocating obscured textual information of an underlying window to become automatically viewable to the user." (Remarks, page 20)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Enfish claim is directed to an improvement to computer-related technology (i.e. computer functionality), where the improvement is likely not similar to claims that have previously been identify as abstract by the courts. McRO, claims, that recited an improvement in computer-related technology are not directed to an abstract idea, and thus fall Step 2A of the Mayo two-part framework. In conventional system, multiple windows may be displayed at the same time; due to limited display space, however, the windows may overlap and obscure the content of underlying windows. In the instant application, the inventor has improved upon previous GUIs by dynamically relocating obscured textual information of an underlying window to become automatically viewable to the user. Federal circuit case law clearly holds that improvement in computer related technology are § 101-eligible. Applicant argues that claim recites a In the current Application, embodiments directly address a technical problem by improving the functioning of computer systems by automating the complex technical process of software deployment, similar to DDR. However, the method for specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional element(s) as conventional (or an equivalent term); as a commercially available product; or, in a way that shows the element is widely prevalent or in common use. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that mere data gathering, such as those defined in the claim, are well-understood, routine, and convention computer functions which cannot serve as an inventive concept according to MPEP 21.06.05(d). As stated previously that when consider both individually and as combination does not amount to significantly more since it merely defines conventional or generic computer element for performing conventional or generic computer functions. The deployment and installation of software package that is present in a conventional manner and thus the deployment and auto installation amounts to insignificantly extra-solution activity that does not allude to a practical application or amount to an improvement to a technology or technical field. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g) - iii. Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; Applicant’s argument have been considered but not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1, 8 and 15under 35 USC 101, applicant further contends Step 2A, Prong One: The Claims Do Not Recite an Abstract Idea. (Remarks, page 21-23)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Prong 1, the limitations (i.e. a software package: analyzing the software package, using the SAD, to determine a type of software package from among a plurality of different software package types, the plurality of different software package types comprising at least two of: a virtualization application software package, and selecting, based upon the determined type of software package, a corresponding deployment methodology from a plurality of different deployment methodologies respectively associated with the different types of software packages) are functions that can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, thus it is reasonable to identify these limitation as reciting a mental process.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1, 8 and 15under 35 USC 101, applicant further contends that Step 2A, Prong Two: The Claims Integrate Any Alleged Exception into a Practical Application. (Remarks, page 23-25)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Prong 2, the additional elements (i.e. processor, , non-transitory computer-storage medium, target host information handling system and operating on an information handling system) merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. The additional elements (i.e. a computer-implemented method for automatically deploying a software application, wherein each deployment methodology of the plurality of different deployment methodologies comprises a distinct sequence of automated operations for installing a corresponding type of software package, launching, via the SAD, the corresponding deployment methodology that corresponds to the type of software package to install the software package and deployment-status information related to deployment of the software package) are merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Further, the additional element (i.e. issuing a report related to status of deployment of the software package) is merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea. Therefore, this additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
With respect to the rejection of claims 1, 8 and 15under 35 USC 101, applicant further contends that Step 2B: The Claims Amount to Significantly More Than Any Alleged Abstract Idea. (Remarks, page 25)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under step 2B, the additional elements (i.e. processor, , non-transitory computer-storage medium, target host information handling system and operating on an information handling system) and (i.e. issuing a report related to status of deployment of the software package) is merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea) merely recite generic computer and computer components, and merely applying the abstract idea, respectively, thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As for the limitation (i.e. a computer-implemented method for automatically deploying a software application, wherein each deployment methodology of the plurality of different deployment methodologies comprises a distinct sequence of automated operations for installing a corresponding type of software package, launching, via the SAD, the corresponding deployment methodology that corresponds to the type of software package to install the software package and deployment-status information related to deployment of the software package), the courts have identified functions such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting and storing data as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, thus do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, none of the additional elements recite an inventive concept, thus, the claimed invention is patent ineligible under 35 USC 101.
With respect to the newly amended features applicant argues that as cited prior art does not disclose such. (Remarks, page 26-30)
Applicant arguments have considered but moot in view new ground(s) of rejection/ Applicant’s argument have been considered but not persuasive.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3, 9, 10, and 16-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, line 2-3, before “virtualization application software package”, “a” should be --the--.
Claim 3, line 2, before “emulator-based virtual disk”, “an” should be --the--.
Claim 9, line 5, before “virtualization application software package”, “a” should be --the--.
Claim 10, line 5, before “emulator-based virtual disk”, “an” should be --the--.
Claim 16, line 4, before “virtualization application software package”, “a” should be --the--.
Claim 17, line 4, before “emulator-based virtual disk”, “an” should be --the--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 8, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: Claims 1-7 are directed to computer implemented methods, claims 8-14 are directed to system, and claims 15-20 are directed to a medium and fall within the statutory category of processes. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes. With Step 1 being directed to a statutory category, the 2019 Interim Eligibility Guidance flowchart is directed to Step 2.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim 1 recites multiple limitations that recite an abstract idea. The limitations “analyzing the software package, using the SAD, to determine a type of software package from among a plurality of different software package types, the plurality of different software package types comprising at least two of: a virtualization application software package,” recites a mental process since “analyzing and determining … defining” is a concept that can be reasonably performed in the human mind (with the aid of pen and paper), which include observation, evaluation, judgement and/or opinion. The limitation “selecting, based upon the determined type of software package, a corresponding deployment methodology from a plurality of different deployment methodologies respectively associated with the different types of software packages,” The limitations requires performing selection and determination. Therefore, since the BRI of the claim requires bases on selection and determination concept which is a judicial exception that is not patent eligible. It is a concept that can be reasonably performed in the human mind (with the aid of pen and paper), which include observation, evaluation, judgement and/or opinion.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements “a target host information handling system, operating on an information handling system, the target host information handling system;” merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
The additional elements “A computer-implemented method for automatically deploying a software application, responsive to receiving, at a software application deployer (SAD) an emulator-based virtual disk image format software package, a containerized image, and an upgrade software package; responsive to the SAD determining the type of the software package, wherein each deployment methodology of the plurality of different deployment methodologies comprises a distinct sequence of automated operations for installing a corresponding type of software package, launching, via the SAD, the corresponding deployment methodology that corresponds to the type of software package to install the software package receiving, deployment-status information related to deployment of the software package” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting/deploying and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
The additional element “issuing a report related to status of deployment of the software package” is merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea. Therefore, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under step 2B, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As stated above (deploying and installing), the claimed invention merely recites generic computer system for carrying out or applying the abstract idea. Further, based on an express statement in the specification (e.g., par. 0004, Manual software installations, whether updates or new installations; par. 9941, an administrator may manually perform additional functions such as triggering the regression suites, performing security scans, capturing the code coverage, etc.) that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s). A specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional element(s) as conventional (or an equivalent term); as a commercially available product; or, in a way that shows the element is widely prevalent or in common use. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that mere data gathering, such as those defined in the claim, are well-understood, routine, and convention computer functions which cannot serve as an inventive concept according to MPEP 21.06.05(d).
For the above reasons, the claims of this application are not patentable under 35 USC 101.
Independent claim 8: Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim recites multiple limitations that recite an abstract idea. The limitations “analyzing the software package, using the SAD, to determine a type of software package from among a plurality of different software package types, the plurality of different software package types comprising at least two of: a virtualization application software package,” recites a mental process since “analyzing and determining … defining” is a concept that can be reasonably performed in the human mind (with the aid of pen and paper), which include observation, evaluation, judgement and/or opinion. The limitation “selecting, based upon the determined type of software package, a corresponding deployment methodology from a plurality of different deployment methodologies respectively associated with the different types of software packages,” The limitations requires performing selection and determination. Therefore, since the BRI of the claim requires bases on selection and determination concept which is a judicial exception that is not patent eligible. It is a concept that can be reasonably performed in the human mind (with the aid of pen and paper), which include observation, evaluation, judgement and/or opinion.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements “An information handling system comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory computer-readable medium or media comprising one or more sets of instructions which, when executed by at least one of the one or more processors, causes steps to be performed, operating on an information handling system, the target host information handling system;” merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
The additional elements “A computer-implemented method for automatically deploying a software application, responsive to receiving, at a software application deployer (SAD) an emulator-based virtual disk image format software package, a containerized image, and an upgrade software package; responsive to the SAD determining the type of the software package, wherein each deployment methodology of the plurality of different deployment methodologies comprises a distinct sequence of automated operations for installing a corresponding type of software package, launching, via the SAD, the corresponding deployment methodology that corresponds to the type of software package to install the software package receiving, deployment-status information related to deployment of the software package” merely recite insignificant extra solution activity such as gathering, displaying, updating, transmitting/deploying and storing data which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
The additional element “issuing a report related to status of deployment of the software package” is merely applying the judicial exception or abstract idea. Therefore, this additional element does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under step 2B, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As stated above (deploying and installing), the claimed invention merely recites generic computer system for carrying out or applying the abstract idea. Further, based on an express statement in the specification (e.g., par. 0004, Manual software installations, whether updates or new installations; par. 9941, an administrator may manually perform additional functions such as triggering the regression suites, performing security scans, capturing the code coverage, etc.) that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s). A specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional element(s) as conventional (or an equivalent term); as a commercially available product; or, in a way that shows the element is widely prevalent or in common use. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that mere data gathering, such as those defined in the claim, are well-understood, routine, and convention computer functions which cannot serve as an inventive concept according to MPEP 21.06.05(d).
For the above reasons, the claims of this application are not patentable under 35 USC 101.
Independent claim 15 is not patent eligible for the same reasons given for claim 8, wherein the “A non-transitory computer-readable medium or media comprising one or more sequences of instructions which, when executed by at least one processor, causes steps to be performed comprising: responsive to receiving, at a software application deployer (SAD), … launching, via the SAD, the corresponding deployment methodology that corresponds to the type of software package to install the software package on the target host information handling system.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 7-9, 14-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (US 20190129709 A1, hereinafter Zhu) in view of Bronheim et al. (US 9569192 B2, hereinafter Bronheim), Mukherjee et al. (US 201900235850 A1, hereinafter Mukherjee), Mellor et al. (US 20070294676 A1, hereinafter Mellor), and Knepper et al. (US 20120117532 A1, hereinafter Knepper).
As to claim 1, Zhu discloses a computer-implemented method for automatically deploying a software application on a target host information handling system, the method comprising:
responsive to receiving, at a software application deployer (SAD) operating on an information handling system, a software package (par. 0009 and 0032, receiving an application deployment request, where the application deployment request includes a deployment package of a to-be-deployed application, … sending the application deployment request to an application deployment server [i.e. SAD], Note server herein consider as an operating on an information handling system. Applicant spec per par. 0090 defined information handling system computing system):
analyzing the software package, using the SAD, to determine a type of software package (par. 0076 and 0182, the deployment package of the to-be-deployed application further includes a node type implementation corresponding to the node template of the to-be-deployed application … the application deployment server [i.e. SAD] checks [i.e. analyzing] the deployment description file appA.tosca of the application deployment package A, and finds that the description file appA.tosca includes an upgrade identifier “PatchFor”, and/or a deployment artifact type “Patch” of a source application node template appPatch (namely the node template of the to-be-deployed application) … );
responsive to the SAD determining the type of the software package (par. 0117 and 0121, Each application deployment package further includes a plan (Plan), as shown in FIG. 1B. FIG. 1B … When the plan is executed [i.e. launching], an application deployment server runs, according to a definition in the plan, a method artifact corresponding to a method corresponding to each task in sequence. For example, referring to FIG. 1B, the plan includes tasks c1, c2, and c3. According to the definition in the plan, when the plan is executed … The method in this embodiment is executed by an application deployment server [i.e. SAD]),
wherein each deployment methodology of the plurality of different deployment methodologies comprises a distinct sequence (par. 0117, Each application deployment package further includes a plan (Plan), as shown in FIG. 1B. FIG. 1B is a schematic structural diagram of a plan corresponding to FIG. 1A … a method artifact corresponding to a method corresponding to each task in sequence. For example, referring to FIG. 1B, the plan includes tasks c1, c2, and c3) (par. 0137, … the OVA may include tools for exporting a virtual appliance as an OVA from a virtual machine, tools for installing OVAs so that a VMM may execute them, tools for cloning, modifying, and specializing an OVA to suit an end-user's particular site or deployment scenario, tools for the testing of OVAs, in particular automated test of install and upgrade of OVAs … );
launching, via the SAD, the corresponding deployment methodology that corresponds to the type of software package to install the software package on the target host information handling system (par. 0183, Step 406. The application deployment server upgrades [i.e. install] a deployed application node [i.e. target host information handling system] according to the deployment[i.e. launching] package of the to-be-deployed application);
receiving, from the target host information handling system, deployment-status information related to deployment of the software package on the target host information handling system (par. 0130, the application deployment server stores a version or a capability of each node of each deployed application. The application deployment server acquires, from stored version information of each platform node [i.e. target host information handling system] of the deployed application and according to the identifier of the deployed application, the version of the first platform node corresponding to the identifier of the first platform node template. Moreover, according to the version requirement of the node template of the to-be-deployed application for the first platform node template … );
Zhu does not explicitly disclose the following limitation but,
Bronheim discloses from among a plurality of different software package types, the plurality of different software package types comprising at least two of (col. 3, ll. 24-27, he hardware resources 110 may be used to execute software, including one or more operating systems, virtual machines, or other applications [i.e. plurality of different software package types]):
a virtualization application software package (col. 2, ll. 1-4, , a software library provided by the host system may include, but is not limited to, libvirt, which may refer to a software library to provide virtualization management software functions.), an emulator-based virtual disk image format software package (col. 3, ll. 62-63, The VMM 124A-124C may include a virtualization API and a multi-platform emulator. Further, col. 4, ll. 16-19, A storage domain may contain complete images of templates and virtual machines (including snapshots)),
Mukherjee discloses selecting, based upon the determined type of software package, a corresponding deployment methodology from a plurality of different deployment methodologies respectively associated with the different types of software packages (par. 0030, … multiple domains (e.g. a distributed application executing on multiple computing device). … Further, par. 0061, the one or more packaging rules may organize source code deliverables into packages based on a size threshold for each deliverable (e.g., indicating that a package is to include a single deliverable … a package is to include a single deliverable [i.e. deployment] when the deliverable exceeds the frequency threshold) a type of deliverable (e.g., indicating that a package is to include the deliverables that are of the same type), a type of package (e.g., indicating that a package is to include the deliverables associated with the package's type), as software application or tool associated with the group of source code deliverables (e.g., indicating that a package is to include the deliverables associated with the software application or tool), the presence or absence of one or more particular metadata identifiers (e.g., indicating certain source code deliverables associated with certain identifiers. Further, par. 0063, … In some examples, the deployment data identifies a plurality of package transmissions such that each source code deliverable in the group of source code deliverables is included in at least one package transmission. In other examples, only a portion of the source code deliverables in the group of source code deliverables are included in package transmissions);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Zhu to include selecting, based upon the determined type of software package, a corresponding deployment methodology from a plurality of different deployment methodologies respectively associated with the different types of software packages, as disclosed by Mukherjee, to identify associated with the modified one or more source code delivery includes a subset of the set of source code with the one or more particular metadata identifiers (see abstract of Mukherjee).
Mellow discloses (par. 0137, … the OVA may include tools for exporting a virtual appliance as an OVA from a virtual machine, tools for installing OVAs so that a VMM may execute them, tools for cloning, modifying, and specializing an OVA to suit an end-user's particular site or deployment scenario, tools for the testing of OVAs, in particular automated test of install and upgrade of OVAs … );
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Zhu to include automated operations for installing a corresponding type of software package on the target host information handling system, as disclosed by Mellow, for the purpose of contemplating vulnerability and automatically check and update software (see paragraph 0051 of Mellor).
Knepper discloses issuing a report related to status of deployment of the software package (par. 0102, the CPD module 78 may associate visible indicia such as, for example, one or more colors with information displayed via the user interface dashboard 91. The visible indicia may be utilized to indicate a status of a deployment. … the CPD module 78 may generate visible indicia associated with a color such as, for example, red that may denote that the CPD module 78 detected an error during deployment. … a deployment is in process (also referred to herein as promoting now), an incomplete deployment or any other suitable information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Zhu to include issuing a report related to status of deployment of the software package, as disclosed by Knepper, because such inclusion will denote that a deployment is status whether complete or incomplete/error (see paragraph 0102 of Knepper).
As to claim 2, Mellor discloses the computer-implemented method wherein: responsive to the software package being a virtualization application software package, causing steps to be performed comprising:
determining whether a virtual machine on the target host information handling system is reachable (Mellor Fig. 4, par. 0022, … FIG. 4, includes a system for exercising an OVA 401. Where the system includes the OVA 403, installed on a VMM 420 that is communicatively coupled with a network 430 that may provide the components of the VM. Further, par. 100, …each VM in an appliance will in general need to be able to contact [i.e. reachable] each other. In order to achieve this, the user interface enforces the fact that every VM is attached to at least one network in common across the appliance);
responsive to the virtual machine being reachable (pars. 0022, 0100), deleting the virtual machine (pars. 0153, 0156, Any VMs present in the old OVA but not the new one may be deleted. … The virtual appliance may ensure the integrity of user data even when the VMs are forcibly destroyed. …);
creating a new virtual machine on the target information handling system using the virtualization application software package (pars. 0153 and 0156); and
performing an initial configuration of the new virtual machine (par. 0153, Some virtual disk images may be preserved, carrying user data across the upgrade. New disk images may be created and populated, as provided in the new OVA. Each of the appliance's disk images may be configured to be attached to their VMs, as specified in the new OVA … . Further, see par. 0029, 0102, 0116-0117).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Zhu to include determining whether a virtual machine on the target host information handling system is reachable; responsive to the virtual machine being reachable, deleting the virtual machine creating a new virtual machine on the target information handling system using the OVA and performing an initial configuration of the new virtual machine, as disclosed by Mellor, for the purpose of providing a common, flexible packaging format for virtual machines that guide their management throughout all stages of a virtual machines life cycle (see abstract).
As to claim 7, Knepper discloses the computer-implemented method wherein the step of issuing a report related to status of the deployment of the deployment method of the software package comprises one or more of:
issuing an alert that the deployment terminated before successful completion of the deployment of the software application (Knepper par. 0102).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Zhu to include issuing an alert that the deployment terminated before successful completion of the deployment of the software application, as disclosed by Knepper, because such inclusion will denote that a deployment is status whether complete or incomplete/error (see paragraph 0102 of Knepper).
As to claim 8, Zhu in view of Bronheim, Mukherjee, Mellow, and Knepper disclose an information handling system comprising:
one or more processors (Zhu Fig. 12, element 121); and
a non-transitory computer-readable medium or media comprising one or more sets of instructions which, when executed by at least one of the one or more processors, causes steps to be performed comprising (Knepper par. 0010, … The computer program product may include at least one computer-readable storage medium having computer-executable program code instructions stored therein):
For remaining limitations see remarks regarding claim 1.
As to claim 9, it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claim 2. Thus, claim 9 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2.
As to claim 14, Knepper discloses the information handling system wherein the non-transitory computer-readable medium or media further comprises one or more sets of instructions which, when executed by at least one of the one or more processors, causes at least one of the following steps to be performed comprising:
issuing a report related to the launching of the deployment method of the software package (par. 0102, the CPD module 78 may associate visible indicia [i.e. report] such as, for example, one or more colors with information displayed via the user interface dashboard 91. The visible indicia may be utilized to indicate a status of a deployment. … the CPD module 78 may generate visible indicia associated with a color such as, for example, red that may denote that the CPD module 78 detected an error during deployment. … a deployment is in process (also referred to herein as promoting now), an incomplete deployment or any other suitable information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Zhu to include issuing a report related to status of deployment of the software package, as disclosed by Knepper, because such inclusion will denote that a deployment is status whether complete or incomplete/error (see paragraph 0102 of Knepper).
As to claim 15, it is a medium claim, having similar limitations of claim 8. Thus, claim 15 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 8.
As to claim 16, it is the medium claim, having similar limitations of claim 2. Thus, claim 16 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 2.
As to claim 20, it is the medium claim, having similar limitations of claim 7. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 7.
Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Bronheim, Mukherjee, Mellow, and Knepper as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Bazargan et al. (US 20210060244 A1, hereinafter Bazargan), Hardy et al. (US 20170228245 A1, hereinafter Hardy), Kalmbach et al. (US 20140022985 A1, hereinafter Kalmbach) and Yang et al (CN 104113574 A, hereinafter Yang).
As to claim 3, Knepper discloses the computer-implemented method wherein:
performing initial configuration of the virtual machine (Knepper par. 0153).
Mellor discloses responsive to the software package being an emulator-based virtual disk image format software package, causing steps to be performed comprising (Mellor par. 0020, … FIG. 2, where a system with multiple VMs packaged in three different OVAs is illustrated. A first OVA 201 may be composed of three VMs … It is contemplated that the VMs may be formatted in different available formats. For example VMA 203, VMD, 210, and VMF 213 may be in a QCOW package):
, determining whether the target host information handling system supports virtualization (Mellor par. 0136, The user may use a machine with a VM already installed, or may carry [i.e. support] a VM on a portable storage device … );
determining whether a virtual machine already exists on the target host information handling system (Mellor par. 0136);
responsive to determining that a virtual machine already exists on the target host information handling system (Mellor par. 0136), deleting the virtual machine (Mellor pars. 0153, 0156);
creating a virtual machine using the emulator-based virtual disk image format software package (Mellor par. 0020);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Zhu to include responsive to the software package being a QCOW and determining whether a virtual machine already exists on the target host information handling system and responsive to determining that a virtual machine already exists on the target host information handling system, deleting the virtual machine; and creating a virtual machine using the QCOW, as disclosed by Mellor, for the purpose of providing an Open Virtual Appliance (OVA) that establishes a common, flexible packaging format for Virtual Machines (VMs). The OVA guides the VMs management (see abstract and paragraph 0003).
Zhu as modified by Bronheim, Mukherjee, Mellow, and Knepper does not explicitly disclose the following limitations but,
Bazargan discloses responsive to the target host information handling system having the correct operating system (Bazargan par. 0042, … downloading and installing an up-to-date version of the medical control application or an up-to-date version [i.e. correct] of an operating system when it is determined that the existing versions were not correct), determining whether the target host information handling system has a correct operating system (Bazargan par. 0042, … downloading and installing an up-to-date version of the medical control application or an up-to-date version [i.e. correct] of an operating system when it is determined that the existing versions were not correct;
responsive to the target host information handling system not having the correct operating system (Bazargan par. 0016, … downloading and installing an up-to-date version of the medical control application or an up-to-date version of an operating system when it is determined that the existing versions were not correct … ),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Zhu to include responsive to the target host information handling system having the correct operating system determining whether the target host information handling system has a correct operating system and responsive to the target host information handling system not having the correct operating system, as disclosed by Bazargan, for the purpose of determining that the one or more diagnostic checks have failed, the medical control application can attempt to initiate one or more remedial correction measures to restore the medical control application (see abstract and paragraph 0042)
Hardy discloses responsive to the target host information handling system not supporting virtualization (Hardy par. 0039, … the management service 113 can determine that the virtual machine 146 is required to execute the application by virtue of the application being incompatible [i.e. not supporting virtualization] with the host operating system 136 in the client device 106. … ), );
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Zhu to include responsive to the target host information handling system not supporting virtualization, as disclosed by Hardy, for the purpose of making sure that system can enforce compliance rules and policies that ensure that certain information and data security requirements are being satisfied by the user's device. (see abstract and paragraph 0003).
Kalmbach discloses responsive to the target host information handling system supporting virtualization, determining whether a Kernel-based Virtual Machine (KVM) is on the target host information handling system (Kalmbach par. 0140, … FIG. 33. Yet another check [i.e. determine] would be to compute a checksum on the edge application and send the checksum to MIOP@NMS to verify the checksum is correct. Note the check in step 3720 is optional depending on the level of security needed. When the image is not valid (step 3720=NO), an error message is sent (step 3730), and method 3700 is done. For example, MIOP@NodeB could send a message in step 3730 to MIOP@NMS indicating the edge application image package is not valid. When the image is valid (step 3720=YES), a kernel-based virtual machine (KVM) is instantiated for the edge application (step 3740). Note: when application is valid means KVM does not exist);
responsive to a KVM not being on the target host information handling system:
installing on the target host information handling system a KVM (Kalmbach par. 0133, … The edge application registry 3030 specifies edge applications that have been installed on MIOP@NodeB, along with meta-data describing the access rights, types of data, filters on data, rules of operation for the edge application, and other parameters that define upon which broken out data the edge application may operate. The edge application services 3040 are a set of services that an edge application … the edge applications 3050 and the edge application services 3040. The edge application services 3040 are essentially a library of functions supported by the system controller 2412 (and hence, by MIOP@NodeB). Each of the edge applications 3050 is preferably run in a suitable virtual machine, such as a kernel-based virtual machine (KVM) … ); and
responsive to the KVM installation on the target host information handling system not being successful, (Kalmbach par. 0140, … When the image is not valid (step 3720=NO), an error message is sent (step 3730), and method 3700 is done. For example, MIOP@NodeB could send a message in step 3730 to MIOP@NMS indicating the edge application image package is not valid [i.e. not being successful]. When the image is valid (step 3720=YES), a kernel-based virtual machine (KVM);
responsive to the KVM installation on the target host information handling system not being successful, (Kalmbach par. 0140, … When the image is not valid [i.e. not being successful] (step 3720=NO), an error message is sent (step 3730), and method 3700 is done. For example, MIOP@NodeB could send a message in step 3730 to MIOP@NMS indicating the edge application image package is not valid. When the image is valid (step 3720=YES [i.e. successful]), a kernel-based virtual machine (KVM));
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Zhu to include responsive to the KVM installation on the target host information handling system not being successful, as disclosed by Kalmbach, for the purpose of making for the type of image is a KVM image that will cause the edge application to run in its own kernel-based virtual machine. (see paragraph 0135).
Yang discloses terminating deployment of the emulator-based virtual disk image format software package on the target host information handling system (Yang par. 0020, … virtual machine enters the stop copy [i.e. terminating], xc-domain-TC-select the remaining page, CPU state, disk file copy. xC-domain-Visa Ve will complete the remaining copy of the page, and then copy the CPU state. the disk file copy to the xc-domain-TC-select adding function of transmitting the Qcow disk file);
(Yang par. 0020);
(Yang par. 0020);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Zhu to include terminating deployment of the QCOW as disclosed by Yang, for the purpose of selecting and adding function of transmitting the Qcow disk file, the destination end xc-domain-R-restore adding the Qcow file receiving function.. (see paragraph 0169).
As to claim 10, it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claim 3. Thus, claim 10 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3.
As to claim 17, it is the medium claim, having similar limitations of claim 3. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 3.
Claims 4, 6, 11, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Bronheim, Mukherjee, Mellow, and Knepper as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of and Bazargan et al.
As to claim 4, Zhu discloses the computer-implemented method wherein:
responsive to adding the one or more files for the upgrade software package to the virtual machine not being successful (Zhu, par. 0215, … it is likely that the user equipment introduces an error [i.e. one or more files for the upgrade software package] not being successful] in a process of constructing an application node upgrade package [i.e. . In this case, a CSP may return error information to the user equipment, where the error information includes an identifier of an application node on which an error occurs … ),
Knepper discloses terminating deployment of the upgrade software package on the target host information handling system (Knepper par. 0087); and
r, terminating deployment of the upgrade software package on the target host information handling system (Knepper par. 0087, … . Additionally or alternatively, when the CPD module 78 detects a problem and assigns an error status, the CPD module 78 may stop the deployment and may send a device (e.g., electronic device 100) of a user that may be responsible for initiating the deployment process a notification that an error(s) (also referred to herein as error notification) was detected. … );
responsive to the upgrade software package not being a valid input version, terminating deployment of the upgrade software package on the target host information handling system (Knepper par. 0087);
(Knepper par. 0087);
(Knepper par. 008);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Zhu to include responsive to the upgrade software package not being a valid input version, terminating deployment of the upgrade software package on the target host information handling system, as disclosed by Knepper, because such inclusion will denote that a deployment is status whether complete or incomplete/error (see paragraph 0102 of Knepper).
Mellor discloses responsive to the software package being an upgrade software package for an application, causing steps to be performed comprising (Mellor par. 0033, an appliance's lifetime is spent in the Maintenance stage. In this stage, the virtual appliance runs in the system providing functionality to users. The OVA of the present invention allows patching and upgrade of installed applications … ):
determining whether the target host information handling system has a virtual machine that is reachable (Mellor Fig. 4, par. 0022, … FIG. 4, includes a system for exercising an OVA 401. Where the system includes the OVA 403, installed on a VMM 420 that is communicatively coupled with a network 430 that may provide the components of the VM. Further, par. 100, …each VM in an appliance will in general need to be able to contact each other. In order to achieve this, the user interface enforces the fact that every VM is attached to at least one network in common across the appliance);
responsive to the target host information handling system having the virtual machine that is reachable (Mellor Fig. 4, pars. 0022 and 0100),
responsive to the upgrade software package being a valid input version, copying one or more files related to the upgrade software package on the target host information handling system (Mellor pars. 0031 and 0052, he use of an OVA package to instantiate a new application virtual appliance instance on a given VMM-based system. This stage may involve a number of phases. In a preferred embodiment, the Deployment stage is a three phase process. In a first phase, the OVA is validated for integrity and the OVA compatible [i.e. valid] … During upgrade(s) of the OVA, the < appliance> < name>< label> values of the new OVA may be compared with the OVA used previously. Note: value of new OVA considered copy file);
responsive to copying one or more files related to the upgrade software package on the target host information handling system being unsuccessful (Mellor par. 0052, If the values do not match [i.e. unsuccessful], the user may receive a warning and may be asked to confirm that these are indeed compatible virtual appliances. Different labels for each product reduce the likelihood of encountering this type of problem),
responsive to copying one or more files related to the upgrade software package on the target host information handling system being successful (Mellor, par. 0154, … Once the post-upgrade phase is completed, the virtual appliance may start again, this time in the normal boot mode, and the upgrade is complete), adding one or more files for the upgrade software package to the virtual machine (Mellor par. 0129-0130, The upgraded filesystems for the appliance may be created in the same way they were created during the install phase. The user filesystems may be preserved, allowing user data to be carried across the upgrade. [0130] (5) Each of the virtual machines may be launched using the new system filesystems, for the post-upgrade phase. … );
responsive to adding the one or more files for the upgrade software package to the virtual machine being successful (Mellor, par. 0154, … Once the post-upgrade phase is completed, the virtual appliance may start again, this time in the normal boot mode, and the upgrade is complete), upgrading the virtual machine on the target host information handling system using the one or more files (Mellor par. 0129-0130, The upgraded filesystems for the appliance may be created in the same way they were created during the install phase. The user filesystems may be preserved, allowing user data to be carried across the upgrade. [0130] (5) Each of the virtual machines may be launched using the new system filesystems, for the post-upgrade phase. … ).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Zhu to include responsive to copying one or more files related to the upgrade software package on the target host information handling system being successful, adding one or more files for the upgrade software package to the virtual machine as disclosed by Mellor, for the purpose of providing a common, flexible packaging format for virtual machines that guide their management throughout all stages of the virtual machines life cycle (see abstract).
Zhu as modified by Bronheim, Mukherjee, Mellow, and Knepper does not explicitly disclose the following limitations but,
Bazargan discloses determining whether the application is running at the target host information handling system (Bazargan par. 0016, automatically closing and restarting the medical control application; prompting the user to change restart the medical control application of the non-medical client device when it is determined that the medical control application is not loading or is not running properly … );
responsive to the application not running at the target host information handling system (Bazargan par. 0016),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Zhu to include responsive to the application not running at the target host information handling system, as disclosed by Bazargan, for the purpose of determining that the one or more diagnostic checks have failed, the medical control application can attempt to initiate one or more remedial correction measures to restore the medical control application (see abstract and paragraph 0042)
As to claim 6, Zhu as modified by Bronheim, Mukherjee, Mellow, and Knepper does not explicitly disclose the following limitations but,
Bazargan discloses the computer-implemented method further comprising performing at least one of the following steps:
(par. 0100, At 514, the application attempts to initiate one or more remedial correction measures in an attempt to correct issues that are causing it to run improperly so that the application will function correctly and/or have access to required computing resources … );
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Zhu to include performing one or more functionality validation tests of the deployed software application, as disclosed by Bazargan, for the purpose of determining that the one or more diagnostic checks have failed, the medical control application can attempt to initiate one or more remedial correction measures to restore the medical control application (see abstract and paragraph 0042)
As to claim 11, it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claim 4. Thus, claim 11 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4.
As to claim 13, it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claim 6. Thus, claim 13 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 6.
As to claim 18, it is the medium claim, having similar limitations of claim 4. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 4.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu in view of Bronheim, Mukherjee, Mellow, and Knepper as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Kirkpatrick et al. (US 20170206123 A1, hereinafter Kirkpatrick), Biskup et al. (US 20200117434 A1, hereinafter Biskup), Bazargan et al., and Ross et al. (US 20250036401 A1, hereinafter Ross).
As to claim 5, Zhu as modified by Bronheim, Mukherjee, Mellow, and Knepper does not explicitly disclose the following limitations but,
Kirkpatrick discloses the computer-implemented method wherein:
responsive to the software package being a containerized i(Kirkpatrick abstract, a method includes, receiving, by a supervisor component, a request to execute particular functionality of an application and, responsive to receiving the request, identifying, by an application container for maintaining installable sub-packages of the application):
determining whether the target host information handling system has a virtual machine that is reachable (Kirkpatrick par. 0014, FIG. 1, computing device 100 includes application containers 102, system runtime 126, operating system 136, and hardware components 138. Computing device 100 may communicate [i.e. reachable] with one or more other remote computing devices 142A-142C (“remote computing devices 142”) via network 140 … );
responsive to the target host information handling system having the virtual machine that is reachable (Kirkpatrick par. 0014, FIG. 1), determining whether the (Kirkpatrick par. 0058, … the container runtime may determine whether one or more parameters of the application programming interface call are valid parameters, in response to determining that the one or more parameters are valid … );
responsive to the (Kirkpatrick par. 0069, … container runtime 124 may determine if the parameters are malformed (e.g., include invalid characters, include too many characters, etc.). If the parameters of the API call are not valid (“NO” branch of 318), container runtime 124 may drop the API call (316), preventing the problematic API call from being executed by operating system 136), );
responsive to the containerized(Kirkpatrick par. 0025, … , container runtime 124 may determine whether one or more parameters of the application programming interface call are valid parameters, in response to determining that the one or more parameters are valid, pass the API call to operating system 136. That is, if the API call is permitted, container runtime 124 may validate the parameters of the API call, and if the parameters are valid, container 124 may actually perform the API call by passing the API call to operating system 126. … ), determining whether the application is running on the target host information handling system (Kirkpatrick par. 0019, … The particular application container from application container pool 132 receives instructions from supervisor component 128A to begin loading and running the application code for the particular application. … );
responsive to the application running on the target host information handling system (Kir par. 0019), copying the containerized (Kir par. 0067, … installed the updated version of the library (308). If the version of the library installed at container runtime 124 satisfies the minimum version (“YES” branch of 304) or after the updated version is installed, application container 102A executes the application using the version of the library installed at container runtime 124 (310). Note: update considered copying);
stopping the running container image (Kirkpatrick par. 0021 and 0023, … When an application is terminated [i.e. stopping], supervisor component 128A may clean up any application containers 102 that are no longer needed. … A sub-package may include resources (e.g., images [i.e. container image], text, videos or any other non-compiled data), security and/or signing information, version information and/or dependency information (e.g., minimum version of a library required), or any other information for an application. ….,);
determining whether the new containerized (Kirkpatrick par. 0067, application container 102A retrieves an updated version of the library that has at least the minimum version (306) and installed the updated version of the library (308). If the version of the library installed at container runtime 124 satisfies the minimum version (“YES” branch of 304) or after the updated version is installed, application container 102A executes the application using the version of the library installed at container runtime 124 (310));
responsive to the new containerized(Kirkpatrick par. 0021 and 0023),
responsive to the new containerized Kirkpatrick par. 0067), deeming the containerized(Kirkpatrick par. 0067, application container 102A retrieves an updated version of the library that has at least the minimum version (306) and installed the updated version of the library (308). If the version of the library installed at container runtime 124 satisfies [i.e. successful] the minimum version (“YES” branch of 304) or after the updated version is installed, application container 102A executes the application using the version of the library installed at container runtime 124 (310)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Zhu to include determining whether the application is running on the target host information handling system responsive to the application running on the target host information handling system, copying the containerized image to the virtual machine on the target host information handling system as a new container, as disclosed by Kirkpatrick, for the purpose to determining that the application container does not include the minimum version of the library: retrieving an instance of the library with a version that is greater than or equal to the minimum version; installing the instance of the library in the container runtime of the application container; and executing the application using the instance of the library in the container (see abstract)
Biskup discloses (Biskup par. 0056, If the container scanner 152 identifies one or more security concerns with the software container and/or container image, in some embodiments, the container scanner 152 provides an error message to the calling utility (e.g., build management system 128, build agent 130, and/or software container service 102), triggering halt [i.e. terminate] of the build, storage, or deployment);
(Biskup par. 0056);
(Biskup par. 0056);
(Biskup par. 0056);
(Biskup par. 0056);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Zhu to include terminating deployment of the container, as disclosed by Biskup, for the purpose of triggering halt of the build, storage, or deployment, as appropriate. (see paragraph 0056)
Bazargan discloses responsive to the application not running on the target host information handling system (Bazargan par. 0016), t
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Zhu to include responsive to the application not running on the target host information handling system, as disclosed by Bazargan, for the purpose of determining that the one or more diagnostic checks have failed, the medical control application can attempt to initiate one or more remedial correction measures to restore the medical control application (see abstract and paragraph 0042)
Ross discloses responsive to copying the containerized(Ross par. 0042, … the base container image corresponding to the new operand version 12.0.4.0-r1 and the custom container image (i.e., the image layers do not match). As a result, the updated [i.e. copying] operator sends a notification of the error to the user for the user to make an appropriate correction. … ),
responsive to copying the containerized(Ross par. 0045, the base container image corresponding to the new operand version 12.0.4.0-r1 and the custom container image (i.e., the image layers now match, except for the newly added custom extension layer). As a result, the updated operator determines that validation of the newly updated custom resource is successful … ): loading the new containerized(Ross par. 0041, apply [i.e. load] the updated custom resource to a cluster in the container orchestration architecture and trigger validation of the updated custom resource. Illustrative embodiments utilize the updated operator, which corresponds to the new operand version … );
tagging the new containerized(Ross par. 0045, … the updated operator reconciles the newly updated custom resource to generate the associated operand (i.e., the cluster runtime) using the custom [i.e. tagging] container image);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Zhu to include responsive to copying the containerized image to the virtual machine on the target host information handling system not being successful loading the new container, as disclosed by Ross, for the purpose of determining that no custom container images are specified in the custom resource, then custom resource validation is successful (see abstract and paragraph 0038)
Bronheim discloses responsive to the target host information handling system not having a virtual machine that is reachable (col. 4, ll. 51-62, the installation of the software package as an existing service used by the virtual machine may be changed (e.g., a configuration setting will be changed) in response to the configuration of the service that is performed in response to the installation of the software package. For example, the notification may identify the particular service that will be reconfigured in response to the installation of the software package on the host system. In some embodiments, the notification may further provide information associated with an amount of time that the service may be unavailable [i.e. not reachable]in response to the installation of the software package),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Zhu to include responsive to the target host information handling system not having a virtual machine that is reachable, as disclosed by Bronheim, for the purpose to reconfigure and/or restarted in response system not reachable/unavailable. (see col. 2, ll. 32-35)
As to claim 12, it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claim 5. Thus, claim 12 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5.
As to claim 19, it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claim 5. Thus, claim 19 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD H KABIR whose telephone number is (571)270-1341. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Sam Sough can be reached at 571-272-6799. 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.
/MOHAMMAD H. KABIR/
Examiner, Art Unit 2192
/S. Sough/SPE, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights