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 .
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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.
Status of the Application
The following is a Final Office Action in response to Examiner's communication of 10/28/2025, Applicant, on 01/28/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending following this response.
New matter
No new matter has been added to the amended claims.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 101
The arguments have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Examiner notes that Applicant's specification specifies the computer storage medium “is not to be construed as storage in the form of transitory signals per se” in paragraph 0020. The Examiner requests a non-transitory language to be explicitly added to the preamble of claim 15.
In conclusion, the Examiner maintains the rejections of the pending claims under 35 USC § 101 in the present office action.
Response to Arguments - 35 USC § 103
The arguments have been fully considered and they are persuasive.
Accordingly, the Examiner is submitting this instant final action with the newly cited reference Jha.
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 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims is directed to signals per se. Applicant has claimed one or more computer program product comprising: one or more computer readable storage media. Applicant's specification specifies “is not to be construed as storage in the form of transitory signals per se” in paragraph 0020. The Examiner requests a non-transitory language to be added to the preamble of claim 15. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a machine-readable medium device includes transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of machine-readable medium device, which are non-statutory subject matter. As a result, this claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In order to overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they depend from claim 15 and therefore inherent the same rejection for the same reasons mentioned in claim 11 (above).
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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 non-obviousness.
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being un-patentable over Ni (US 11861415 B1) in view of Jha et al. (US 10719363 B2).
Regarding claim 1. Ni teaches A computer-implemented method comprising: providing an application running in a cluster of a containerized system, wherein the application includes at least one sidecar container, and wherein the at least one sidecar container has configuration data including a first size of the at least one sidecar container; [Ni, claim 1, Ni teaches “A computer-implemented method for routing requests to an application that is executed on two or more nodes in a heterogenous cluster of a container orchestration system” wherein a cluster of containerized system. Further, Ni’ column 7 lines 46-52 teaches “In some examples, the destination rule 224 defines policies that apply to traffic intended for a service (e.g., the service 214 of the cluster 204) after routing has occurred. These rules specify one or more configurations. Example configurations include, without limitation, load balancing, connection pool size from a sidecar” wherein container size cofiguration]
Ni does not specifically teach, however, Jha teaches monitoring requests for the application over time and usage data for the application over time, wherein the usage data includes at least one of memory consumption or central processing unit (CPU) consumption; evaluating the first size of the at least one sidecar container and determining a second size of the least one sidecar container, based on the monitored requests for the application and the monitored usage data for the application; [Jha, claim 1, Jha teaches “A method comprising: obtaining resource utilization data associated with at least one container for a period; training a set of forecasting models based on the resource utilization data associated with a portion of the period; predicting resource utilization of the at least one container for a remaining portion of the period using the set of trained forecasting models; comparing the predicted resource utilization with the obtained resource utilization data for the remaining portion of the period; and determining a forecasting model from the set of trained forecasting models based on the comparison to optimize resource claims for the at least one container” wherein obtaining resource utilization data associated with at least one container for a period is equivalent to monitoring requests for the application over time and usage data for the application over time. Wherein predicting resource utilization of the at least one container for a remaining portion of the period using the set of trained forecasting models; comparing the predicted resource utilization with the obtained resource utilization data for the remaining portion of the period; and determining a forecasting model from the set of trained forecasting models based on the comparison to optimize resource claims for the at least one container is equivalent to evaluating the first size of the at least one sidecar container and determining a second size of the least one sidecar container, based on the monitored requests for the application and usage data for the application] and providing updated configuration data for the at least one sidecar container, wherein the updated configuration data includes the second size of the at least one sidecar container [Jha, column 6 lines 11-18, Jha teaches “Then a threshold margin (e.g., 10% or any other value) may be added to the CPU and memory utilizations to accommodate the fluctuations for the upcoming period. Then, a report may be created for the recommended CPU and memory claims for the containers, which may be used by a script/program (e.g., management unit 108) to update the resource claims for each of containers C1-CN” wherein a threshold margin (e.g., 10% or any other value) may be added to the CPU and memory utilizations to accommodate the fluctuations for the upcoming period is equivalent to updated configuration data includes the second size of the at least one sidecar container]
Ni teaches service load balancing strategy implemented by the container orchestration system and Jha teaches techniques for optimizing resource claims for containers. The two references are in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention of managing application’s workload. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine utilizing determining a load balancing strategy of Ni with evaluating the first size of the at least one sidecar container and determining a second size of the least one sidecar container, based on the monitored requests for the application and usage data for the application and updated configuration data includes the second size of the at least one sidecar container of Jha since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, with the predictable results of optimizing the utilization of sidecar within the heterogeneous cluster
Regarding claim 2. Ni in view of Jha teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Ni does not specifically teach, however, Jha teaches further comprising: creating a mapping of the requests for the application over time and the usage data for the application over time [Jha, column 6 lines 11-18, Jha teaches “Then a threshold margin (e.g., 10% or any other value) may be added to the CPU and memory utilizations to accommodate the fluctuations for the upcoming period. Then, a report may be created for the recommended CPU and memory claims for the containers, which may be used by a script/program (e.g., management unit 108) to update the resource claims for each of containers C1-CN” wherein a threshold margin (e.g., 10% or any other value) may be added to the CPU and memory utilizations to accommodate the fluctuations for the upcoming period is equivalent to creating a mapping of the requests for the application over time and the usage data for the application over time]
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine utilizing determining a load balancing strategy of Ni with creating a map for future requests of Jha since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, with the predictable results of optimizing the utilization of sidecar within the heterogeneous cluster
Regarding claim 3. Ni in view of Jha teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Ni does not specifically teach, however, Jha teaches further comprising: directing the application to retrieve and apply the updated configuration data [Jha, column 6 lines 11-18, Jha teaches “Then, a report may be created for the recommended CPU and memory claims for the containers, which may be used by a script/program (e.g., management unit 108) to update the resource claims for each of containers C1-CN” wherein a report may be created for the recommended CPU and memory claims for the containers, which may be used by a script/program (e.g., management unit 108) to update the resource claims for each of containers C1-CN is equivalent to directing the application to retrieve and apply the updated configuration data]
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine utilizing determining a load balancing strategy of Ni with directing the application to retrieve and apply the updated configuration data of Jha since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, with the predictable results of optimizing the utilization of sidecar within the heterogeneous cluster
Regarding claim 4. Ni in view of Jha teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Ni does not specifically teach, however, Jha teaches further comprising: associating the monitored requests with at least one API path of the application data [Jha, column 6 lines 11-18, Jha teaches “Then, a report may be created for the recommended CPU and memory claims for the containers, which may be used by a script/program (e.g., management unit 108) to update the resource claims for each of containers C1-CN.” wherein update the resource claims is equivalent to associating the monitored requests with at least one API path of the application data]
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine utilizing determining a load balancing strategy of Ni with associating the monitored requests with at least one API path of the application of Jha since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, with the predictable results of optimizing the utilization of sidecar within the heterogeneous cluster
Regarding claim 5. Ni in view of Jha teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Ni does not specifically teach, however, Jha teaches further comprising: providing the updated configuration data to a reconciler of the cluster of the containerized system [Jha, column 6 lines 11-18, Jha teaches “Then, a report may be created for the recommended CPU and memory claims for the containers, which may be used by a script/program (e.g., management unit 108) to update the resource claims for each of containers C1-CN.” wherein update which may be used by a script/program (e.g., management unit 108) to update the resource claims for each of containers C1-CN is equivalent to updated configuration data to a reconciler of the cluster of the containerized system]
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine utilizing determining a load balancing strategy of Ni with updated configuration data to a reconciler of the cluster of the containerized system of Jha since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, with the predictable results of optimizing the utilization of sidecar within the heterogeneous cluster
Regarding claim 6. Ni in view of Jha teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Ni does not specifically teach, however, Jha teaches further comprising: applying the updated configuration data in response to an action selected from the group consisting of a subsequent start of the application, a restart of the application, and a configuration data update policy being met [Jha, column 6 lines 24-29, Jha teaches “FIG. 3 is an example graph 300, depicting an actual CPU utilization data 302 and a forecasted CPU utilization data 304 for the at least one container for the remaining/validation period. Since the CPU utilizations are non-linear in nature, the forecasting model “artificial neural network” may have high accuracy amongst the set of forecasting models for forecasting the CPU utilization” wherein depicting an actual CPU utilization data 302 and a forecasted CPU utilization data 304 for the at least one container for the remaining/validation period is equivalent to applying the updated configuration data for subsequent start of the application]
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine utilizing determining a load balancing strategy of Ni with applying the updated configuration data for subsequent start of the application of Jha since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, with the predictable results of optimizing the utilization of sidecar within the heterogeneous cluster
Regarding claim 7. Ni in view of Jha teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 (as above). Ni does not specifically teach, however, Jha teaches wherein the containerized system provides serverless services to multiple tenants and/or wherein the at least one sidecar container is a traffic handling sidecar container [Jha, Background, Jha teaches “container or containerized application is an instance of a user-space running an application within an operating system (OS) of a host device (e.g., a server) or a virtual machine being executed by the host device” wherein containerized application is an instance of a user-space running an application within an operating system (OS) of a host device (e.g., a server) is equivalent to containerized system that provides serverless services to multiple tenants]
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify/combine utilizing determining a load balancing strategy of Ni with the containerized system of Jha since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, with the predictable results of optimizing the utilization of sidecar within the heterogeneous cluster.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Claim 1 is a method claim while claim 8 is directed to a system which is anticipated by Ni claim 15.
Regarding claims 9-14, claims 9-14 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 2-7, respectively; therefore, claims 9-14 are rejected with the same rationale, reasoning, and motivation provided above for claims 2-7, respectively. Claims 2-7 are method claims while claims 9-14 are directed to a system which is anticipated by Ni claim 15.
Regarding claim 15, the claim recites analogous limitations to claim 1 above, and is therefore rejected on the same premise. Claim 1 is a method claim while claim 15 is directed to a computer program product comprising: one or more computer readable storage media which is anticipated by Ni claim 8.
Regarding claims 16-20, claims 16-20 recite substantially similar limitations as claim 2-7, respectively; therefore, claims 16-20 are rejected with the same rationale, reasoning, and motivation provided above for claims 2-7, respectively. Claims 2-7 are method claims while claims 16-20 are directed to a computer program product comprising: one or more computer readable storage media which is anticipated by Ni claim 8.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendments and arguments dated 01/28/2026 necessitated the updating of the 35 USC § 101 and the 35 USC § 103 rejections of the pending claims presented in the present 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).
Any inquiry concerning this communication from the Examiner should be directed to Abdallah El-Hagehassan whose contact information is (571) 272-0819 and Abdallah.el-hagehassan@uspto.gov The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday- Friday 8 am to 5 pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Rutao Wu can be reached on (571) 272-6045. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the patent application information retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information of published applications may be obtained from either private PAIR or public PAIR. Status information of unpublished applications is available through private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the private PAIR system, contact the electronic business center (EBC) at (866) 271-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO customer service representative or access to the automated information system, call (800) 786-9199 (in US or Canada) or (571) 272-1000.
/ABDALLAH A EL-HAGE HASSAN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623