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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to applicant’s amendment filed, 30 March 2026, of application filed, with the above serial number, on 13 July 2023 in which claims 1 and 11 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-17, 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou et al (hereinafter “Zou”, 11,848,910) in view of Sharma et al (hereinafter “Sharma”, 2024/0422107).
As per Claim 1, Zou discloses a cloud native application (CnApp) custom operator system, comprising:
one or more processors; a memory having stored thereon instructions that, upon execution by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to
implement a process to manage cloud native network service on a target application pod of a containerized software environment via a persistent network interface to a network external to the containerized software environment, the process including:
obtain a first resource definition data for a first custom resource managed by the CnApp custom operator system, the first resource definition data specifying attributes to use by the CnApp custom operator system to create the target application pod (at least col. 6:22-24, 7:5-65; CRDs defining attributes of custom resources; Each pod includes storage and network resources (e.g., ports for communications external to the pod) to be shared by the containers executing in the pod, as well as a specification for how to run those containers);
create the first custom resource based on the first resource definition data, including initialize the target application pod (at least col. 6:8-38, 5:25-47, 7:5-65; deploy custom resource as endpoint in stateful pod);
generate a second resource definition data for a second custom resource specifying attributes to use to create a virtual network interface to associate with the target application pod (at least col. 7:47-67, 10:10-20, 11:16-27; Virtual Network Interfaces (VIF) CRDs; using the first CRD to create the pod, networking to the pod is setup, eg with a Virtual Network Interfaces (VIF) CRD, allocating IP addresses, API server providing CRD, etc., based on attributes in the created pod in order to connect the pod with networking, and that these are based on the created pod and the various CRDs that are defined for networking with specified IP addresses);
apply the second resource definition data to initialize creation of the second custom resource (at least col. 8:26-46, 7:1-14; connectivity performed on deployed endpoint); and
dynamically manage the first custom resource (at least col. 4:33-51, 6:1-38; managed cluster).
Zou fails to explicitly disclose wherein generating the second resource definition data comprises creating a new resource definition not present prior to the creation of the first custom resource, the second resource definition data including attribute values received in the first resource definition data. However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Sharma. Sharma discloses, in an analogous virtual router configuration art, a user may select a set of values for application package that an orchestrator uses to create and configure a pod while also invoking a CNI to deploy and configure a virtual router with virtual network interfaces, with a virtual router CRD being created that the application package included a deployer pod for the VR CRD to deploy and configure the application package with a VR configured from the user’s application request (and thus attributes for the configuration for the VR) (at least paragraph 106, 138, 143-145, 121). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Sharma’s VR deployment with Zou as Sharma specifies “the administrator for the network or a distributed application, when performing virtual router 220 deployment and configuration, is able to rely on a cloud-native framework that leverages an orchestrator interface of orchestrator 223 to simplify configuring or reconfiguring virtual router 220, even for configurations that must occur at virtual router 220 initialization.”
As per Claim 2. The CnApp custom operator system of claim 1, further comprising instructions that, upon execution, cause the one or more processors to: generate the second resource definition data to include: a pod identifier (pod ID) associated with the target application pod; and a fixed internet protocol (IP) address to associate with the virtual network interface (at least col. 4:33-37; associating Internet Protocol (IP) addresses with pods that each have unique identifiers (IDs) in a managed cluster of worker nodes).
As per Claim 3. The CnApp custom operator system of claim 2, further comprising instructions that, upon execution, cause the one or more processors to: generate the second resource definition data to further include a virtual IP address to associate with the virtual network interface, the virtual IP address configured to route traffic to the fixed IP address (at least col. 4:34-45; 7:59-65; 8:26-34; virtual network mapped to IP address).
As per Claim 4. The CnApp custom operator system of claim 2, further comprising instructions that, upon execution, cause the one or more processors to: obtain an interface ID associated with the virtual network interface; and store metadata for the first custom resource associating the pod ID and the interface ID (at least col. 7:55-65, 8:26-34; CRDs can include network-attachment-definition (NDs), Virtual Network Interfaces (VIF) CRDs, Virtual Network CRDs; connectivity of stateful pod).
As per Claim 5. The CnApp custom operator system of claim 1, further comprising instructions that, upon execution, cause the one or more processors to: determine, from the first resource definition data, a replica count value indicating a number of application pods to initialize (at least col. 12:40-60; replicas and instantiated secondary pods).
As per Claim 6. The CnApp custom operator system of claim 5, further comprising instructions that, upon execution, cause the one or more processors to: initialize a StatefulSet object to create a number of application pods equal to the replica count value, each having a persistent identity, the number of application pods including the target application pod (at least col. 12:40-67; StatefulSet 410 includes three pods, a primary pod 411, and secondary pods 412 and 413. In this example, the StatefulSet is an application for handling read and write requests.).
As per Claim 7. The CnApp custom operator system of claim 6, further comprising instructions that, upon execution, cause the one or more processors to: evaluate a Service setting for the CnApp custom operator system, a Service being a system to make an application running on one or more pods available on a network; in response to the Service setting being set to a per pod setting, create a separate Service for each pod in the StatefulSet object; and in response to the Service setting not being set to the per pod setting, create a single Service for all pods in the StatefulSet object (at least col. 12:40-13:11, 14:14-53; eg. web application service; IP range for pods; service IP address for some embodiments, else service name).
As per Claim 9. The CnApp custom operator system of claim 1, further comprising the containerized software environment includes a Kubernetes cluster (at least col. 9:32-41; network connectivity and security services for a Kubernetes cluster).
As per Claim 10. The CnApp custom operator system of claim 9, further comprising instructions that, upon execution, cause the one or more processors to: obtain the first resource definition data based on detecting a first creation event for the first custom resource at a Kubernetes control plane; and apply the second resource definition data to the Kubernetes control plane to trigger a second creation event for the second custom resource at a second custom operator (at least col. 6:56-64; 4:33-51; 9:64-10:9; controller; control system includes a network controller plugin (NCP) for receiving parsed Application Programming Interface requests (APIs) from the API server and generating the API calls using one of the structures described above. Also, rather than including an NCP, the control system of some embodiments instead includes an adapter to receive the parsed APIs from the API server and generate the API calls).
Claims 11-17, 19-20 do not, in substance, add or define any additional limitations over claims 1-7, 9-10 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons, supra.
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.
Claim(s) 8, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zao in view of Sharma, further in view of Jain et al (hereinafter “Jain”, 2024/0291759).
Zao/Sharma fails to explicitly disclose obtain an updated resource definition data for the first custom resource; when the updated resource definition data increases the replica count value: initialize additional application pods corresponding to the increase in the replica count value; and generate an additional second resource definition data for creating additional second custom resources for the additional application pods; when the updated resource definition data decreases the replica count value: initialize deletion of a number of second resource definition data corresponding to the decrease in the replica count value; and mark a selected application pods for deletion corresponding to the second resource definition data set for deletion. However, the use and advantages for using such a system was well known to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention as evidenced by the teachings of Jain. Jain discloses, in an analogous art, scaling up or down the number of pods in StatefulSets (at least paragraph 64, 60). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the use of Jain’s scaling with Zao/Sharma as such scaling is well known in order to meet demand for the service provided by the pods, Jain teaches each pod must be able to communicate with other pods and then scaling pod count up or down would also scale communication with each new pod or released pod.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's submission of an information disclosure statement under 37 CFR 1.97(c) with the timing fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(p) on 26 February 2026 prompted the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 609.04(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is indicated in PTO form 892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY TODD whose telephone number is (303)297-4763. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30-5 MST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor Nicholas Taylor can be reached on 571-272-3889. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (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 USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/GREGORY TODD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights