DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-20 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on May 29, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on November 25, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
5. Step 1:
Claims 1-7 are directed to a system and fall within the statutory category of machines. Claims 8-14 are directed to a method and fall within the statutory category of processes. Claims 15-20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium and fall within the statutory category of articles of manufacture. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
6. Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1, 8, and 15: The limitations of “determining to combine a first function that executes in a first container and a second function that executes in a second container in a third container; determining a first runtime of the first function based on a first container configuration of the first container; determining a second runtime of the second function based on a second container configuration of the second container; deploying the third container that comprises the first function matched to the first runtime and the second function matched to the second runtime; directing a first call to the first function to the third container; and directing a second call to the second function to the third container”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate that there is a first function that executes in a first container and a second function that executes in a second container. A person can moreover think and observe, judge and evaluate the runtime of the fist and second functions based on their container configurations. For example, a person can observe the configurations and see that the runtime is in a Java environment based on syntax. Additionally, a person can think and judge, observe and evaluate that a third container comprises the first function and second function matched to the first and second runtimes respectively. This is a mere comparison. For example, a person can observe that the new container contains the first and second functions by comparing the functions and seeing that they are the same. Lastly, directing calls to the first and second functions respectively are instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, see Step 2B for more.
Therefore, Yes, claim 1 recites judicial exceptions.
The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
7. Step 2A Prong 2:
Claims 1, 8, and 15: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional elements – “A system, comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor, comprising instructions that, in response to execution by the processor, cause the system to perform operations, comprising:” which is merely recitations of generic computing components and functions merely being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into practical application. Additionally, the claim recites the following additional elements – “directing a first call to the first function to the third container; and directing a second call to the second function to the third container” which 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, thus is not a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that the claim 1 not only recites a judicial exception but that the claim is directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
8. Step 2B:
Claims 1, 8, and 15: The claims do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components and field of use/technological environment which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, Claims 1, 8, and 15 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
9. With regard to claims 2 and 16, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein a first type of the first runtime differs from a second type of the second runtime”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate that the type of the first runtime differs from a second type of the second runtime. This is a mere comparison. Further, claims 2 and 16 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 2 and 16 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more Therefore, Claims 2 and 16 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
10. With regard to claims 3 and 17, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein the first runtime comprises a computer language in which the first function is written”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate that the first runtime comprises a computer language in which the first function is written. A person can see that a function is written in Java, for example, based on the syntax. Further, claims 3 and 17 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 3 and 17 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more Therefore, Claims 3 and 17 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
11. With regard to claims 4 and 18, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein the first runtime comprises a version of the computer language in which the first function is written”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate that the first runtime comprises a version of the computer language that the first function is written. A person can observe that the runtime is written in the latest version of Java based on the syntax. Further, claims 4 and 18 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 4 and 18 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more Therefore, Claims 4 and 18 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
12. With regard to claims 5 and 19, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein determining the first runtime of the first function based on the first container configuration of the first container comprises: scanning a fusion configuration that corresponds to a fusion of the first function and the second function, wherein the first container configuration comprises the fusion configuration”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate that the first container configuration comprises the fusion configuration. A person can look at the configuration and see that the fusion configuration is included in it. Further, claims 5 and 19 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 5 and 19 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more Therefore, Claims 5 and 19 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
13. With regard to claims 6 and 20, they recite additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein determining the second runtime of the second function based on the second container configuration of the first container comprises: scanning the fusion configuration that corresponds to the fusion of the first function and the second function, wherein the second container configuration comprises the fusion configuration”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate that the second container configuration comprises the fusion configuration. A person can look at the configuration and see that the fusion configuration is included in it. Further, claims 6 and 20 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 6 and 20 also fail both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claims 6 and 20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
14. With regard to claim 7, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein determining the first runtime of the first function based on the first container configuration of the first container comprises: performing a code scan of a container configuration file of the first container configuration”, as drafted, is a process that but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate that in order to determine the first runtime of the first function, a scan of the container configuration file should be done. A person can look at the configuration file of the function and observe that the runtime is a Java environment, for example. Further, claim 7 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 7 fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claim 7 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
15. With regard to claim 9, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of “further comprising: in response to determining that language information of the first runtime is omitted from a fusion configuration that corresponds to a fusion of the first function and the second function, performing, by the system, a code scan of a container configuration file of the first container configuration”, as drafted, is a process that but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate that if the language information of the first runtime is omitted from a fusion configuration that a scan of the configuration file of the first container configuration can help determine the language information. A person can look at the configuration file of the first container and see that the language is Java, for example, based on the syntax. Further, claim 9 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 9 fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claim 9 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
16. With regard to claim 10, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of “further comprising: in response to determining that version information of the first runtime is omitted from a fusion configuration that corresponds to a fusion of the first function and the second function, performing, by the system, a code scan of a container configuration file of the first container configuration”, as drafted, is a process that but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate that if the version information of the first runtime is omitted from a fusion configuration that a scan of the configuration file of the first container configuration can help determine the version information. A person can look at the configuration file of the first container and see the version information, for example, based on the syntax. Further, claim 10 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 10 fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claim 10 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
17. With regard to claim 11, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein determining to combine the first function that executes in the first container and the second function that executes in the second container is based on determining that the first function invokes the second function”, as drafted, is a process that but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate that the first function invokes the second function. Further, claim 11 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 11 fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claim 11 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
18. With regard to claim 12, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein deploying the third container comprises: terminating the first container; and terminating the second container”, as drafted, is a process that but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate when the third container is deployed, the first and second containers are terminated. Further, claim 12 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 12 fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claim 12 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
19. With regard to claim 13, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein deploying the third container comprises: accessing first source code of the first function and second source code of the second function from a repository; packaging the first source code and the second source code into an image of the third container; and deploying the image of the third container”, as drafted, is a process that but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate that in order to deploy the image of the third container, the source codes of the first and second function have to be accessed and packaged. Additionally, accessed and packaging data is merely 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(g). 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). Further, claim 13 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 13 fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claim 13 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
20. With regard to claim 14, it recites additional abstract idea recitations of “wherein the packaging and the deploying are performed by a continuous integration and continuous deployment component”, as drafted, is a process that but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think about and observe, judge and evaluate that the packaging and deploying is done by a continuous integration and deployment component. This merely recites 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, thus is not a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, claim 14 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 14 fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claims are directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, Claim 14 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
21. Therefore, Claims 1-20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
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.
22. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8, 11, 13, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thoemmes US 20210373862 A1 in view of Gupta et al. US 20240160427 A1.
23. With regard to claim 1, Thoemmes teaches:
A system, comprising:
a processor ([0019] Each computing device 110 and 130 may include hardware such as processing device 115 (e.g., processors, central processing units (CPUs)), memory 120 (e.g., random access memory 120 (e.g., RAM)), storage devices (e.g., hard-disk drive (HDD), solid-state drive (SSD), etc.), and other hardware devices (e.g., sound card, video card, etc.).); and
a memory coupled to the processor, comprising instructions that, in response to execution by the processor, cause the system to perform operations ([0054] The data storage device 918 may include a machine-readable storage medium 928, on which is stored one or more sets of function compilation instructions 925 (e.g., software) embodying any one or more of the methodologies of functions described herein. The function compilation instructions 925 may also reside, completely or at least partially, within the main memory 904 or within the processing device 902 during execution thereof by the computer system 900; the main memory 904 and the processing device 902 also constituting machine-readable storage media.), comprising:
determining to combine a first function that executes in a first container and a second function that executes in a second container in a third container (Fig. 3A; [0028] FIG. 3A illustrates an application 310 that has been partially decomposed based on characteristics of some of its components. The application 310 may comprise a web application 315A, a service 315K which includes functions 315B-G, and service 315L which includes functions 315H-J. The runtime environments 305 and 306 (hereinafter “runtime”) may each provide a runtime and deployment environment and may each run on a separate container (not shown); [0029] Each of the functions 315B-J may be independently deployed (within its own container and with its own runtime), scaled, upgraded and replaced; [0041] When compiling a function with another function to generate a composition (or compiling the function into an existing composition, compiling an existing composition into a function, or compiling two compositions together to form a new composition), the computing device 110 may combine the code for both functions into a single run time... FIG. 5 illustrates the compilation of two functions fP( ) and fQ( ) into a composition. When compiling a function fP( ) with another function fQ( ), computing device 110 may combine the code for both fP( ) and fQ( ), and place the combined code into a single run-time 505 (e.g., a Java run-time).);
determining a first runtime of the first function based on a first container configuration of the first container (Fig. 3A; [0022] An image file may be stored by the container host 214 or a registry server. In some embodiments, the image file may include one or more base layers. An image file may be shared by multiple containers. When the container host 214 creates a new container, it may add a new writable (e.g., in-memory) layer on top of the underlying base layers. However, the underlying image file remains unchanged. Base layers may define the runtime environment as well as the packages and utilities necessary for a containerized application to run. Thus, the base layers of an image file may each comprise static snapshots of the container's configuration and may be read-only layers that are never modified. Any changes (e.g., data to be written by the application running on the container) may be implemented in subsequent (upper) layers such as in-memory layer. Changes made in the in-memory layer may be saved by creating a new layered image; [0029] Each of the functions 315B-J may be independently deployed (within its own container and with its own runtime), scaled, upgraded and replaced. The environment illustrated in FIG. 3B is fundamentally heterogeneous, so while frameworks and infrastructure services may be available to provide features and functions, each function is free to use its preferred runtime (e.g., a Java EE server); Examiner’s Note: Each function has its own deployment and runtime. Function 315B could be the first function.);
determining a second runtime of the second function based on a second container configuration of the second container (Fig. 3A; [0022] An image file may be stored by the container host 214 or a registry server. In some embodiments, the image file may include one or more base layers. An image file may be shared by multiple containers. When the container host 214 creates a new container, it may add a new writable (e.g., in-memory) layer on top of the underlying base layers. However, the underlying image file remains unchanged. Base layers may define the runtime environment as well as the packages and utilities necessary for a containerized application to run. Thus, the base layers of an image file may each comprise static snapshots of the container's configuration and may be read-only layers that are never modified. Any changes (e.g., data to be written by the application running on the container) may be implemented in subsequent (upper) layers such as in-memory layer. Changes made in the in-memory layer may be saved by creating a new layered image; [0029] Each of the functions 315B-J may be independently deployed (within its own container and with its own runtime), scaled, upgraded and replaced. The environment illustrated in FIG. 3B is fundamentally heterogeneous, so while frameworks and infrastructure services may be available to provide features and functions, each function is free to use its preferred runtime (e.g., a Java EE server); Examiner’s Note: Each function has its own deployment and runtime. Function 315C could be the first function.);
deploying the third container that comprises the first function matched to the first runtime and the second function matched to the second runtime ([0048] Referring also to FIG. 5, at block 805, the computing device 110 may combine the code for both fP( ) and fQ( ). More specifically, computing device 110 may generate a function fP,Q, which calls fP( ) and fQ( ) in sequence, i.e. fQ(fP( )). At block 810, computing device 110 may place this function fP,Q within a run-time 505 (e.g., a Java run-time). The run-time 505 may not be aware that such a combination is happening. At block 815, when an HTTP call for fP( ) is received (e.g., from the control plane 215), the run-time 505 adapts the code fQ(fP( )) to be executed. To do this, the run-time 505 translates the HTTP call into a function call to fP( ), which executes the function call and obtains a result P. Instead of sending the result P back to the run-time 505 however, fP( ) may then issue a function call to fQ( ) with the result P as an argument (e.g., fQ(P)) to obtain a result Q. The run-time 505 may convert the result Q into an HTTP response and send it to the control plane 215. Computing device 110 may utilize this process regardless of whether it is generating a composition by compiling a function with another function, compiling a function into an existing composition, compiling an existing composition into a function, or compiling two compositions together to form a new composition; Examiner’s Note: The new composition is the new third container that has the combined functions fP() and fQ().);
directing a first call to the first function to the third container ([0048] Referring also to FIG. 5, at block 805, the computing device 110 may combine the code for both fP( ) and fQ( ). More specifically, computing device 110 may generate a function fP,Q, which calls fP( ) and fQ( ) in sequence, i.e. fQ(fP( )). At block 810, computing device 110 may place this function fP,Q within a run-time 505 (e.g., a Java run-time). The run-time 505 may not be aware that such a combination is happening. At block 815, when an HTTP call for fP( ) is received (e.g., from the control plane 215), the run-time 505 adapts the code fQ(fP( )) to be executed. To do this, the run-time 505 translates the HTTP call into a function call to fP(), which executes the function call and obtains a result P; Examiner’s Note: The call to fP() is the call to the first function. This can happen in a new composition, which is the third container.); and
directing a second call to the second function to the third container ([0048] Instead of sending the result P back to the run-time 505 however, fP( ) may then issue a function call to fQ( ) with the result P as an argument (e.g., fQ(P)) to obtain a result Q. The run-time 505 may convert the result Q into an HTTP response and send it to the control plane 215. Computing device 110 may utilize this process regardless of whether it is generating a composition by compiling a function with another function, compiling a function into an existing composition, compiling an existing composition into a function, or compiling two compositions together to form a new composition; Examiner’s Note: The call to fQ() is the call to the second function. This can happen in a new composition, which is the third container.).
Although Thoemmes teaches of combining two functions into a new composition, Thoemmes fails to explicitly teach that this new composition is a third container.
However, in analogous art, Gupta teaches:
[0009] The container management device is configured to: in response to receiving the instruction from the computing device, retrieve, from the services stored in the service repository cloud network, the corresponding group of the services; create the container image using the retrieved group of the services; and deploy the container image to the container image repository cloud network. The container image repository cloud network is configured to: receive and store the container image from the container management device; and in response to receiving the request from the computing device, send the container image to the computing device.
[0071] The container management module 220 includes the computer executable code that may be executed at the processor 212 to provide a container management infrastructure, which is the central module of the system that may be used to perform container provisioning. Specifically, the container management infrastructure may be used to create a deployable container encapsulating the services required based on instructions of the users. FIG. 3 schematically depicts the operation of the container management infrastructure according to certain embodiments of the present disclosure. As shown in FIG. 3, the first cloud network 120, which functions as a service repository cloud network, stores a plurality of services 125, and each service 125 corresponds to a specific management functionality of a virtual management device (such as a virtual BMC). In certain embodiments, the container management infrastructure 300 may create the container image by a continuous integration (CI) pipeline. Specifically, the CI pipeline includes a series of steps as shown in FIG. 3 that must be performed in order to create and deploy the container image. When the container management infrastructure 300 receives an instruction to select a group of management functionalities, the container management infrastructure 300 selects the corresponding services 125 from the first cloud network 120 based on the instruction. In particular, the container management infrastructure 300 may receive the instruction from the computing device 110, either directly or indirectly (i.e., through other networks or intermediate devices). Once receiving the instruction, the container management infrastructure 300 determines a corresponding group of the services 125 corresponding to the selected group of management functionalities, and then retrieves the services 125 from the first cloud network 120. Once the required services 125 are retrieved, the container management infrastructure 300 then packages the retrieved group of the services 125 with a base Linux distribution system, and creates a container image using the retrieved group of the services 125. In certain embodiments, the retrieved group of the services 125 may be installed in the base Linux distribution system to create the container image. Examples of the base Linux distribution system may include, without being limited to, a Debian distribution system. Finally, the container management infrastructure 300 deploys the container image to the second cloud network 130. The second cloud network 130, which functions as a container image repository cloud network, receives and stores the container image 135 deployed by the container management infrastructure 300. In this case, the second cloud network 130 may store a plurality of container images 135 deployed by the container management infrastructure 300. When the second cloud network 130 receives a request for a specific container image from the computing device 110, the second cloud network 130 may send the container image being requested to the computing device 110. Thus, the computing device 110 may execute the container image in order to provide a virtual management device (such as a virtual BMC) thereon.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Thoemmes with the teachings of Gupta where the functions are combined and placed onto a third container that is deployed. Thoemmes teaches of combining functions into a single entity or new composition (Abstract; [0041]). Additionally, Thoemmes teaches that “the container host 214 may allow applications to be built as a set of functions, rather than large, monolithic applications” ([0027]), which indicates that containerized applications can be comprised of multiple functions. Similarly in Gupta, it is taught that a container image is created and deployed. The container image can be accessed later and executed. The container is created based on a group of management functionalities. These management functionalities are like the individual functions in Thoemmes. The created container; therefore, is like the third container. Together, Thoemmes and Gupta teach of combining a first function in a first container with a second function in a second container and deploying a third container that directs calls to both the first and second functions.
24. With regard to claim 2, Thoemmes further teaches:
wherein a first type of the first runtime differs from a second type of the second runtime ([0029] Each of the functions 315B-J may be independently deployed (within its own container and with its own runtime), scaled, upgraded and replaced. The environment illustrated in FIG. 3B is fundamentally heterogeneous, so while frameworks and infrastructure services may be available to provide features and functions, each function is free to use its preferred runtime (e.g., a Java EE server)).
25. With regard to claim 3, Thoemmes teaches:
wherein the first runtime comprises a computer language in which the first function is written ([0029] Each of the functions 315B-J may be independently deployed (within its own container and with its own runtime), scaled, upgraded and replaced. The environment illustrated in FIG. 3B is fundamentally heterogeneous, so while frameworks and infrastructure services may be available to provide features and functions, each function is free to use its preferred runtime (e.g., a Java EE server); Examiner’s Note: The runtime is written in Java.).
26. With regard to claim 5, Thoemmes further teaches:
wherein determining the first runtime of the first function based on the first container configuration of the first container comprises:
scanning a fusion configuration that corresponds to a fusion of the first function and the second function, wherein the first container configuration comprises the fusion configuration (Fig. 3A; [0022] An image file may be stored by the container host 214 or a registry server. In some embodiments, the image file may include one or more base layers. An image file may be shared by multiple containers. When the container host 214 creates a new container, it may add a new writable (e.g., in-memory) layer on top of the underlying base layers. However, the underlying image file remains unchanged. Base layers may define the runtime environment as well as the packages and utilities necessary for a containerized application to run. Thus, the base layers of an image file may each comprise static snapshots of the container's configuration and may be read-only layers that are never modified. Any changes (e.g., data to be written by the application running on the container) may be implemented in subsequent (upper) layers such as in-memory layer. Changes made in the in-memory layer may be saved by creating a new layered image; [0029] Each of the functions 315B-J may be independently deployed (within its own container and with its own runtime), scaled, upgraded and replaced. The environment illustrated in FIG. 3B is fundamentally heterogeneous, so while frameworks and infrastructure services may be available to provide features and functions, each function is free to use its preferred runtime (e.g., a Java EE server); [0041] When compiling a function fP( ) with another function fQ( ), computing device 110 may combine the code for both fP( ) and fQ( ), and place the combined code into a single run-time 505 (e.g., a Java run-time). More specifically, computing device 110 may generate a function fP,Q, which calls fP( ) and fQ( ) in sequence, i.e. fQ(fP( )); Examiner’s Note: The fusion configuration, which is fQ(fP( )), comprises the first function fP(). fP() has its own container configuration and runtime.).
27. With regard to claim 6, Thoemmes further teaches:
wherein determining the second runtime of the second function based on the second container configuration of the first container comprises:
scanning the fusion configuration that corresponds to the fusion of the first function and the second function, wherein the second container configuration comprises the fusion configuration (Fig. 3A; [0022] An image file may be stored by the container host 214 or a registry server. In some embodiments, the image file may include one or more base layers. An image file may be shared by multiple containers. When the container host 214 creates a new container, it may add a new writable (e.g., in-memory) layer on top of the underlying base layers. However, the underlying image file remains unchanged. Base layers may define the runtime environment as well as the packages and utilities necessary for a containerized application to run. Thus, the base layers of an image file may each comprise static snapshots of the container's configuration and may be read-only layers that are never modified. Any changes (e.g., data to be written by the application running on the container) may be implemented in subsequent (upper) layers such as in-memory layer. Changes made in the in-memory layer may be saved by creating a new layered image; [0029] Each of the functions 315B-J may be independently deployed (within its own container and with its own runtime), scaled, upgraded and replaced. The environment illustrated in FIG. 3B is fundamentally heterogeneous, so while frameworks and infrastructure services may be available to provide features and functions, each function is free to use its preferred runtime (e.g., a Java EE server); [0041] When compiling a function fP( ) with another function fQ( ), computing device 110 may combine the code for both fP( ) and fQ( ), and place the combined code into a single run-time 505 (e.g., a Java run-time). More specifically, computing device 110 may generate a function fP,Q, which calls fP( ) and fQ( ) in sequence, i.e. fQ(fP( )); Examiner’s Note: The fusion configuration, which is fQ(fP( )), comprises the first function fQ(). fQ() has its own container configuration and runtime.).
28. Regarding claim 8, it is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
29. With regard to claim 11, Thoemmes teaches:
wherein determining to combine the first function that executes in the first container and the second function that executes in the second container is based on determining that the first function invokes the second function ([0031] A sequence of functions may refer to two or more functions that form a dependency chain (i.e. are sequentially dependent). For example, the graph 400 includes five functions f1( )-f5( ). Functions f1( ), f2( ), and f3( ) form a first sequence 402 because the output from f1( ) is provided as an input to f2( ) (i.e. f2( ) depends on f1( ) so they are sequentially dependent) and the output from f2( ) is provided as an input to f3( ) (i.e. f3( ) depends on f2( ) so f1( )-f3( ) are all sequentially dependent or, stated differently, form a sequence). Because f1( )-f3( ) are sequentially dependent, they may also be said to be used together as a single entity. Similarly, functions f4( ), f5( ), and f3( ) form a second sequence 403. In some embodiments, computing device 110 may initially attempt to identify sequences having the largest number of sequentially dependent functions (e.g., upon identifying f1( )-f2( ) as a sequence, computing device 110 may determine whether there are functions that can further extend the sequence such as f3( ) until it can be extended no more); [0032] For each identified sequence, computing device 110 may attempt to determine groups of functions that form dependency chains without any of the functions being reused by another sequence (i.e. a function thereof) and automatically compile the functions of such groups into a composition. ).
30. With regard to claim 13, Gupta further teaches:
wherein deploying the third container comprises:
accessing first source code of the first function and second source code of the second function from a repository ([0071] As shown in FIG. 3, the first cloud network 120, which functions as a service repository cloud network, stores a plurality of services 125, and each service 125 corresponds to a specific management functionality of a virtual management device (such as a virtual BMC). In certain embodiments, the container management infrastructure 300 may create the container image by a continuous integration (CI) pipeline. Specifically, the CI pipeline includes a series of steps as shown in FIG. 3 that must be performed in order to create and deploy the container image. When the container management infrastructure 300 receives an instruction to select a group of management functionalities, the container management infrastructure 300 selects the corresponding services 125 from the first cloud network 120 based on the instruction. In particular, the container management infrastructure 300 may receive the instruction from the computing device 110, either directly or indirectly (i.e., through other networks or intermediate devices). Once receiving the instruction, the container management infrastructure 300 determines a corresponding group of the services 125 corresponding to the selected group of management functionalities, and then retrieves the services 125 from the first cloud network 120.);
packaging the first source code and the second source code into an image of the third container ([0071] Once the required services 125 are retrieved, the container management infrastructure 300 then packages the retrieved group of the services 125 with a base Linux distribution system, and creates a container image using the retrieved group of the services 125. ); and
deploying the image of the third container ([0071] Finally, the container management infrastructure 300 deploys the container image to the second cloud network 130. The second cloud network 130, which functions as a container image repository cloud network, receives and stores the container image 135 deployed by the container management infrastructure 300. In this case, the second cloud network 130 may store a plurality of container images 135 deployed by the container management infrastructure 300. When the second cloud network 130 receives a request for a specific container image from the computing device 110, the second cloud network 130 may send the container image being requested to the computing device 110. Thus, the computing device 110 may execute the container image in order to provide a virtual management device (such as a virtual BMC) thereon.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Thoemmes with the teachings of Gupta wherein deploying the third container comprises: accessing first source code of the first function and second source code of the second function from a repository; packaging the first source code and the second source code into an image of the third container; and deploying the image of the third container. Gupta teaches of deploying container images and retrieving a group of services for the to be deployed container (Abstract). Moreover, Gupta also teaches of the accessing, packaging, and deploying process. This essentially facilitates FaaS deployment. Overall, this process helps consolidate related functions into a single optimized container image.
31. Regarding claim 15, it is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
32. Regarding claim 16, it is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 2 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
33. Regarding claim 17, it is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 3 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
34. Regarding claim 19, it is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 5 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
35. Regarding claim 20, it is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 6 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
36. Claims 4 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thoemmes US 20210373862 A1 and Gupta et al. US 20240160427 A1, as applied in claim 1, in further view of Dunham et al. US 11531526 B1.
37. With regard to claim 4, Thoemmes and Gupta teach the system of claim 1 but fails to explicitly teach wherein the first runtime comprises a version of the computer language in which the first function is written.
However, in analogous art, Dunham teaches:
wherein the first runtime comprises a version of the computer language in which the first function is written (Col. 5, lines 1-14, The application transfer tool may read the serverless application template to identify definitions for serverless functions of the serverless application. A function definition may specify various properties of a respective serverless function, such as a runtime environment, source code information, function triggering events, memory requirements, environment variables, and others. The application transfer tool may then create a container file for the serverless function based at least in part on these definitions. For example, if a function definition specifies a given type of runtime environment (e.g., NodeJS, version 12), then the application transfer tool may employ a container image having the specified type of runtime environment as a base image for the container file.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Thoemmes and Gupta with the teachings of Dunham wherein the first runtime comprises a version of the computer language in which the first function is written. In order to deploy a container, it is important to have information that specifies runtime environment, source code information, etc. in order to ensure the container meets desired standards. By specifying a version of the computer language, the container can be properly deployed and ensure that it operates correctly.
38. Regarding claim 18, it is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 4 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale.
39. Claims 7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thoemmes US 20210373862 A1 and Gupta et al. US 20240160427 A1, as applied in claim 1, in further view of Jung et al. US 20200225917 A1.
40. With regard to claim 7, Thoemmes and Gupta teach the system of claim 1 but fails to explicitly teach wherein determining the first runtime of the first function based on the first container configuration of the first container comprises: performing a code scan of a container configuration file of the first container configuration.
However, in analogous art, Jung teaches:
wherein determining the first runtime of the first function based on the first container configuration of the first container comprises:
performing a code scan of a container configuration file of the first container configuration ([0021] To address these and other similar issues, FaaS service layer 104 of FIG. 1 is enhanced to include an admin image management tool 112, a developer image management tool 114, and an installed software catalog 116. Components 112, 114, and 116 may be implemented in software, hardware, or a combination thereof. At a high level, admin image management tool 112 can enable the administrators of FaaS infrastructure 100 to create curated base images and one or more curated lists of software (comprising, e.g., names and versions) that have been vetted and approved by the administrators as being safe for use/execution on the hosts of infrastructure 100. The curated base images can include system-level libraries, drivers, and a language runtime that are specific to the OS platform of FaaS hosts 102(1)-(N). The curated lists of software can include application and/or system-level libraries, packages, frameworks, etc. that are common dependencies for functions that are uploaded to FaaS infrastructure 100; [0022] By way of example, an administrator may create (1) a first base image B1 that includes system-level software and a language runtime for the Python programming language, (2) a second base image B2 that includes system-level software and a language runtime for the Java programming language, (3) a first list of curated software that is associated with base image B1 and comprises software components S1 (version 1.0), S2 (version 1.0), and S3 (version 1.5), and (3) a second list of curated software that is associated with base image B2 and comprises software components S4 (version 2.0) and S5 (version 1.1); [0036] In a particular embodiment, the determination at block 306 can be made by looking at the curated base image selected by the user for this custom image and identifying all of the administrator-defined curated software lists that are associated with the selected base image; Examiner’s Note: The curated base image (configuration file) includes a language runtime. The configuration file is looked at to identify things like runtime.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Thoemmes and Gupta with the teachings of Jung wherein determining the first runtime of the first function based on the first container configuration of the first container comprises: performing a code scan of a container configuration file of the first container configuration. Similarly to Thoemmes and Gupta, Jung teaches of implementing curated image management in a Functions-as-a-Service (FaaS) infrastructure (Abstract). Moreover, Jung teaches of looking at a configuration file in order to determine runtime information. This is help in image deployment because it ensures that containers are deployed correctly with all aspects in mind. These could include dependency, runtime environment, software versions, etc. Proper deployment of containers with all necessary aspects ensures smooth execution; therefore, preventing any faults that could inhibit consumer usage.
41. With regard to claim 9, Jung further teaches:
further comprising:
in response to determining that language information of the first runtime is omitted from a fusion configuration that corresponds to a fusion of the first function and the second function, performing, by the system, a code scan of a container configuration file of the first container configuration ([0021] To address these and other similar issues, FaaS service layer 104 of FIG. 1 is enhanced to include an admin image management tool 112, a developer image management tool 114, and an installed software catalog 116. Components 112, 114, and 116 may be implemented in software, hardware, or a combination thereof. At a high level, admin image management tool 112 can enable the administrators of FaaS infrastructure 100 to create curated base images and one or more curated lists of software (comprising, e.g., names and versions) that have been vetted and approved by the administrators as being safe for use/execution on the hosts of infrastructure 100. The curated base images can include system-level libraries, drivers, and a language runtime that are specific to the OS platform of FaaS hosts 102(1)-(N). The curated lists of software can include application and/or system-level libraries, packages, frameworks, etc. that are common dependencies for functions that are uploaded to FaaS infrastructure 100; [0022] By way of example, an administrator may create (1) a first base image B1 that includes system-level software and a language runtime for the Python programming language, (2) a second base image B2 that includes system-level software and a language runtime for the Java programming language, (3) a first list of curated software that is associated with base image B1 and comprises software components S1 (version 1.0), S2 (version 1.0), and S3 (version 1.5), and (3) a second list of curated software that is associated with base image B2 and comprises software components S4 (version 2.0) and S5 (version 1.1); [0036] In a particular embodiment, the determination at block 306 can be made by looking at the curated base image selected by the user for this custom image and identifying all of the administrator-defined curated software lists that are associated with the selected base image; Examiner’s Note: The curated base image (configuration file) includes a language runtime. The configuration file is looked at to identify things like language.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Thoemmes and Gupta with the teachings of Jung wherein determining the first runtime of the first function based on the first container configuration of the first container comprises: performing a code scan of a container configuration file of the first container configuration. Similarly to Thoemmes and Gupta, Jung teaches of implementing curated image management in a Functions-as-a-Service (FaaS) infrastructure (Abstract). Moreover, Jung teaches of looking at a configuration file in order to determine language information. This is help in image deployment because it ensures that containers are deployed correctly with all aspects in mind. These could include dependency, runtime environment, software versions, etc. Proper deployment of containers with all necessary aspects ensures smooth execution; therefore, preventing any faults that could inhibit consumer usage.
42. With regard to claim 10, Jung further teaches:
further comprising:
in response to determining that version information of the first runtime is omitted from a fusion configuration that corresponds to a fusion of the first function and the second function, performing, by the system, a code scan of a container configuration file of the first container configuration ([0021] To address these and other similar issues, FaaS service layer 104 of FIG. 1 is enhanced to include an admin image management tool 112, a developer image management tool 114, and an installed software catalog 116. Components 112, 114, and 116 may be implemented in software, hardware, or a combination thereof. At a high level, admin image management tool 112 can enable the administrators of FaaS infrastructure 100 to create curated base images and one or more curated lists of software (comprising, e.g., names and versions) that have been vetted and approved by the administrators as being safe for use/execution on the hosts of infrastructure 100. The curated base images can include system-level libraries, drivers, and a language runtime that are specific to the OS platform of FaaS hosts 102(1)-(N). The curated lists of software can include application and/or system-level libraries, packages, frameworks, etc. that are common dependencies for functions that are uploaded to FaaS infrastructure 100; [0022] By way of example, an administrator may create (1) a first base image B1 that includes system-level software and a language runtime for the Python programming language, (2) a second base image B2 that includes system-level software and a language runtime for the Java programming language, (3) a first list of curated software that is associated with base image B1 and comprises software components S1 (version 1.0), S2 (version 1.0), and S3 (version 1.5), and (3) a second list of curated software that is associated with base image B2 and comprises software components S4 (version 2.0) and S5 (version 1.1); [0036] In a particular embodiment, the determination at block 306 can be made by looking at the curated base image selected by the user for this custom image and identifying all of the administrator-defined curated software lists that are associated with the selected base image; Examiner’s Note: The curated base image (configuration file) includes software component versions. The configuration file is looked at to identify things like version information.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Thoemmes and Gupta with the teachings of Jung wherein determining the first runtime of the first function based on the first container configuration of the first container comprises: performing a code scan of a container configuration file of the first container configuration. Similarly to Thoemmes and Gupta, Jung teaches of implementing curated image management in a Functions-as-a-Service (FaaS) infrastructure (Abstract). Moreover, Jung teaches of looking at a configuration file in order to determine version information. This is help in image deployment because it ensures that containers are deployed correctly with all aspects in mind. These could include dependency, runtime environment, software versions, etc. Proper deployment of containers with all necessary aspects ensures smooth execution; therefore, preventing any faults that could inhibit consumer usage.
43. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thoemmes US 20210373862 A1 and Gupta et al. US 20240160427 A1, as applied in claim 8, in further view of Coleman et al. US 20160147529 A1.
44. With regard to claim 12, Thoemmes and Gupta teach the method of claim 8 but fails to explicitly teach wherein deploying the third container comprises: terminating the first container; and terminating the second container.
However, in analogous art, Coleman teaches:
wherein deploying the third container comprises:
terminating the first container; and terminating the second container ([0074] At block 443, the processing device can create a third container to host the source code. For example, the processing device can create the third container using the image. At block 445, the processing device can remove the second container. In some embodiments, the processing device can remove the second container upon creating and/or starting the third container from the image. Additionally, the processing device can remove one or more previously created application containers (e.g., “old containers” that were previously created for the application prior to the creation of the third container).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Thoemmes and Gupta with the teachings of Coleman wherein deploying the third container comprises: terminating the first container; and terminating the second container. Once the third container is deployed, it is important to terminate the previous containers in order to maintain and organized environment, as discussed in Coleman ([0013]; [0048]). Deleting old containers helps free memory, maintains an organized environment, and prevents conflicts by ensuring the latest version of the application is the one executing.
45. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thoemmes US 20210373862 A1 and Gupta et al. US 20240160427 A1, as applied in claim 13, in further view of Miller et al. US 20210342145 A1.
46. With regard to claim 14, Gupta teaches the method of claim 13 but fails to explicitly teach wherein the packaging and the deploying are performed by a continuous integration and continuous deployment component.
However, in analogous art, Miller teaches:
wherein the packaging and the deploying are performed by a continuous integration and continuous deployment component ([0027] Once a serverless function has been completed and tested, a build service can take platform source code 211 in a workspace 205 and performs appropriate build operations for the various platform components to prepare the serverless function for deployment. The build services outputs a buildpack that includes the serverless function and related metadata amongst other information. A deploy service 231 receives the buildpack and performs deployment operations for the various built platform components including installing metadata 251 into the multi-tenant platform 101 and the serverless function 253 into the elastic runtime 103. The metadata defines the interfaces, calls, triggers, event handling, and similar mechanisms by which the components of the multi-tenant platform 101 can access the serverless function 253 in the elastic runtime 103. The deployment service 231 deploys and configures exposure and secure connections for the appropriate substrate (e.g., Apex, elastic runtime for polyglot such as Java or Node.js). Serverless function metadata 251 is deployed to the function registry 113 of the elastic runtime 101 HTTPS/REST endpoints or similar interfaces are registered with the API Gateway 111. Core metadata within the metadata 251 is deployed to the appropriate org-based environment of the multi-tenant platform 101, including references to the serverless functions 253; [0028] In some implementations, continuous integration (CI)/continuous delivery (CD) integration support is provided, where the workspace CU and elastic runtime APIs can be integrated into CI/CD tools 261 (e.g., Circle CI, GitHub CI, Jenkins, and Spinnaker).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Thoemmes and Gupta with the teachings of Miller wherein the packaging and the deploying are performed by a continuous integration and continuous deployment component. Miller teaches of deploying a function in a polyglot serverless elastic runtime execution environment. Additionally, Miller teaches where the packaging and deploying is done by a CI/CD component ([0028]). Utilizing a CI/CD component is extremely beneficial because it automates the software delivery pipeline. This prevents manual errors and provides for faster and reliable application updates; therefore, ensuring improved consumer usage.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AN-AN N NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6147. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, AIMEE LI can be reached at (571) 272-4169. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AN-AN NGOC NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2195
/Aimee Li/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2195