DETAILED ACTION
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/05/2026 has been entered.
1a. This communication is in response to the request for continued examination filed on 02/05/2026. The present application is being examined under the AIA first to invent provisions.
2. Status of the claims:
Claims 1, 6, 8, 13, 15, and 20 are amended.
Claim 7 is canceled.
Claims 1-5, and 7-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed 02/05/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4.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 of this title, 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.
4a. Claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elangovan et al. (hereinafter “Elangovan”) (WO 2018053122 A1), in view of Main et al. (hereinafter “Main”) (US 2022/0066755 A1), in view of Malfait et al. (hereinafter “Malfait”) (US 2022/0005558 A1), and further in view of ROBELL et al. (hereinafter “ROBELL”) (US 20230281604 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Elangovan discloses a method, comprising:
in response to a deployment event associated with a microservice, generating a descriptor corresponding to the microservice ( after a call associated with a microservice is received , the micro service is configured with a security gate that describes the microservice ( security gate is equated to descriptor that corresponds to the microservice , Elangovan, [0280])), wherein the descriptor comprises a metadata representation of properties associated with the microservice (a security gate that describes the microservice ( security gate that is the descriptor that corresponds to the microservice provides access to the microservice ( providing access to the microservice is the property of the security gate) , Elangovan, [0280])), wherein the properties comprise configurations for the microservice (a token is tied microservice that is tied to the module , Elangovan, [0119]; [0280])), generating a unit for the microservice (a microservice is disclosed being a self-container module module/container , Elangovan, [0280])).
Elangovan does not disclose dependencies of the microservice with respect to one or more other microservices, and feature toggles associated with the microservice; storing, in a registry, the unit in a chronological sequence based on the dependencies of the microservice with respect to one or more other microservices.
Main discloses dependencies of the microservice with respect to one or more other microservices, and feature toggles associated with the microservice (computation units based on dependencies of other computation unit ( microservice is equated to software that is a microservice), Main, [0023]; [0032]); storing, in a registry, the unit in a chronological sequence based on the dependencies of the microservice with respect to one or more other microservices ( microservice is equated to software, Main, [0023]; [0032]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Main’s teachings with Elangovan’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently store microservice based on dependencies by storing in chronological order.
Elangovan in view of Main and in view of Malfait do not disclose generating a non-fungible token to identify the micro service; wherein the unit is a data structure that integrates the metadata representation of the properties associated with the microservice with the non-fungible token ,such that the unit serves as a representation of the microservice, and the unit itself is deployed in response to a deployment request of the microservice.
ROBEL discloses generating a non-fungible token to identify the micro service ( a type of token being generated that is used for NFT-ID (microservice) , ROBELL, [0058]; in [0041] NFT-ID is disclosed being a microservice); wherein the unit is a data structure that integrates the metadata representation of the properties associated with the microservice with the non-fungible token ,such that the unit serves as a representation of the microservice ( a meta data provides the NTF framework that generates a data structure that represents the identification of a user, the data structure that is an information object including various data fields ( various data field are equated to properties associated with the microservice) , ROBELL, [0084]; because the data structure that integrates the metadata representation is not disclosed in [0084], others paragraphs are cited for doing that; in [0041]-[0042] it is disclosed that data/input is accepted by NFT ID framework; the association between metadata with data/input has to be made because [0041]-[0042] discloses only input/data; [0053] is brought because it is disclosed that metadata is input/data; based on what it says in [0041]-[0042] and [0053] one can say metadata can be integrated in NTF ID framework); and the unit itself is deployed in response to a deployment request of the microservice (an administration summits NFT ID configurations for deploying NTF ID that is a microservice [0050] ( the administrator by summitting NFT ID configurations associated with a microservice is summitting a request for the microservice associated with NFT ID also; a microservice that is deployed after an administration make a request for such deployment; , ROBELL, [0050]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate ROBELL’s teachings with Elangovan’s teachings in view of Main’s teachings and in view of Malfait’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently deploy a microservice unit by using generated non-fungible token having a data structure with various data fields for doing so .
Regarding claim 4, Elangovan, Main, Malfait, and ROBELL disclose the method of claim 1.
Elangovan does not disclose wherein the registry is a centralized registry that manages, based on a timeline ordered data structure, a plurality of units associated with a plurality of microservices.
Main discloses wherein the registry is a centralized registry that manages, based on a timeline ordered data structure, a plurality of units associated with a plurality of microservices ( storing in sequence over time computation units based on dependencies of one computation unit to another ( microservice is equated to software, Main, [0023]; [0032]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Main’s teachings with Elangovan’s teachings in view of Malfait’s teachings and in view of ROBELL’s teachings . One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently store microservice based on dependencies by storing in chronological order.
Regarding claim 8, Elangovan, Main, Malfait, and ROBELL disclose a system, in addition, Elangovan discloses comprising: at least one data processor, at least one memory, at least one memory may store instructions that result in operations when executed by the at least one data processor ( a processor executing instructions that are stored in a memory , Elangovan, [0272]); in addition, claim 8 is substantially similar to claim 1, thus the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 is substantially similar to claim 4, thus the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 15, Elangovan, Main, and Malfait disclose a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions, which when executed by at least one data processor ( a memory storing instructions that are executed by a processor , Elangovan, [0272]); in addition, claim 15 is substantially similar to claim 1, thus the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 18, claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 4, thus the same rationale applies.
4b. Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elangovan, in view of Main, in view of Malfait, in view of ROBELL, and further in view of HU et al. (hereinafter “HU”) (US 2024/0296408 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Elangovan, Main, Malfait, and ROBELL disclose the method of claim 1.
Elangovan in view of Main and in view of Malfait do not disclose further comprising providing a visualization of the microservice that indicates an impact of the microservice when a system failure occurs.
HU discloses further comprising providing a visualization of the microservice that indicates an impact of the microservice when a system failure occurs ( the impact scope of failure of a microservice is traced using Trace data 135 in fig 8 , HU, [0070]; [0071]; [0074]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate HU’s teachings with Elangovan’s teachings in view of Main’s teachings in view of Malfait’s teachings and in view of ROBELL’s teachings . One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently indicating the impact of failure of a microservice by using a monitoring display that traces the collected data for the microservice.
Regarding claim 9, claim 9 is substantially similar to claim 2, thus the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 is substantially similar to claim 2, thus the same rationale applies.
4c. Claims 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elangovan, in view of Main, in view of Malfait, in view of ROBELL, and further in view of XIAO et al. (hereinafter “XIAO”) (DE 112021000647 T5).
Regarding claim 3, Elangovan, Main, Malfait, and ROBELL disclose the method of claim 1.
Elangovan in view of Main and in view of Malfait do not disclose further comprising deploying the unit in response to a deployment request, wherein the deploying is in accordance with the dependencies of the microservice.
XIAO discloses further comprising deploying the unit in response to a deployment request, wherein the deploying is in accordance with the dependencies of the microservice (deployment of a component of a capturing the component based on assignment of a microsystem is done by in higher time dependencies where microservices are order in ordered in higher order time dependencies in casual dependencies based, XIAO, page 7 last paragraph starting with The second model component 204…; and page 10 paragraph 10 starting in a step 606…) .
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate XIAO’s teachings with Elangovan’s teachings in view of Main’s teachings and in view of Malfait’s teachings and in view of ROBELL’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently store a microservice unit by storing it in a casual dependency.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 is substantially similar to claim 3, thus the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 17, claim 17 is substantially similar to claim 3, thus the same rationale applies.
4d. Claims 5, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elangovan, in view of Main, in view of Malfait, in view of ROBELL, and further in view of Wang et al. (hereinafter “Wang”) (US 2020/0067800 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Elangovan, Main, Malfait, and ROBELL disclose the method of claim 1.
Elangovan in view of Main in view of Malfait and in view of ROBELL disclose do not disclose further comprising updating the properties within the descriptor of the microservice in response to changes in any of the configurations, the dependencies, or the feature toggles.
Wang discloses further comprising updating the properties within the descriptor of the microservice in response to changes in any of the configurations, the dependencies, or the feature toggles (replace the properties associated with a given function of a microservice based on new requirement of the service function , Wang, [0047]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Wang’s teachings with Elangovan’s teachings in view of Main’s teachings and in view of Malfait’s teachings and in view of ROBELL’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently replace the properties associated with given function of a microservice based on new requirement of the service function.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 is substantially similar to claim 5, thus the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 19, claim 19 is substantially similar to claim 5, thus the same rationale applies.
4e. Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elangovan, in view of Main, in view of Malfait, and in view of ROBELL, and further in view of JPdocument (JP 4147379 B2) and in view of Celestine et al. ( hereinafter “ Celestine”) (US 11228656 B1).
Regarding claim 6, Elangovan, Main, Malfait, and ROBELL disclose the method of claim 1.
Elangovan in view of Main in view of Malfait and in view of ROBELL do not disclose wherein the unit is stored in the registry in a sequence that reflects a temporal order in which deployment events associated with the microservice and one of the more microservices occurred.
JPdocument discloses wherein the unit is stored in the registry in a sequence that reflects a temporal order in which deployment events associated with the event task unit and one of the more event task units occurred (event stored in data structure is deployed in cycle defined by the order that executes the tasks of the event , based on the specification that discloses that the microservice views may be organized in a lineage-based hierarchical data structure one can says event stored in a data structure that is associated with microservices because the data structure is associated with the microservice; in addition in cycle defined by the sequence order that executes the tasks of the event is a cycle defined by the time sequence order because the tasks are executed in a time sequence, JPdocument, [0024]; [0033],[0042]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate JPdocument’s teachings with Elangovan’s teachings in view of Main’s teachings and in view of Malfait’s teachings and in view of ROBELL’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently deploy an event in a cycle defined by the order that event tasks are executed.
JPdocument discloses task being executed, JPdocument does not disclose that a microservice was executing the task.
Celestines discloses microservices (microservices processing tasks interacting with a wide variety of microservices other, Celestines , column 1, liners 27-36).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate celestine’s teachings with Elangovan’s teachings in view of Main’s teachings and in view of Malfait’s teachings and in view of ROBELL’s teachings and in view of JPdocument’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to respond to customer needs quickly by using microservices that make applications and services running faster.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 is substantially similar to claim 6, thus the same rationale applies.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 is substantially similar to claim 6, thus the same rationale applies.
4f. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elangovan, in view of Main, and further in view of Bailey et al. (hereinafter “Baley”) (US 2020/0099764 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Elangovan, Main, Malfait, and ROBELL disclose the method of claim 8.
Elangovan in view of Main in view of Malfait and in view of ROBELL disclose do not disclose wherein the feature toggles associated with the microservice enable or disable one or more functionalities for the microservice without altering code of the microservice.
Bailey discloses wherein the feature toggles associated with the microservice enable or disable one or more functionalities for the microservice without altering code of the microservice (without application code change in microservice enable data formats that are best suited a web application, Bailey, [0050]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Bailey’s teachings with Elangovan’s teachings in view of Main’s teachings and in view of Malfait’s teachings and in view of ROBELL’s teachings. One skilled in the art would be motivated to combine them in order to efficiently generate alerts without explicitly knowledge an unusual activity is associated with a particular threat by using a token for doing so.
Conclusion
5. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIEGEORGES A HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-3226. The examiner can normally be reached on 11:00am -8:00pm East M-F.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached on 571 272-8365. 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.
/MARIEGEORGES A HENRY/Examiner, Art Unit 2455
/ZI YE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455