Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/30/2026 has been entered; wherein:
claims 1 – 3, 5, 8 – 10, 12, 15, 17, and 19 – 20 have been amended; and
claim 16 has been canceled.
DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1 – 15 and 17 – 20 remain pending and have been examined.
Response to Amendment
Objection for specification is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment for claim 17.
Claim Interpretation
112(f) interpretation for “a processing device” in claim 8 is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments dated 07/30/2026 with respect to claims 1 – 15 and 17 – 20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection as necessitated by amendments.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 – 15 and 17 – 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1
Change all occurrences of “client-side component” to --client-side update component--.
Claim 2
Change all occurrences of “client-side component” to --client-side update component--.
Claim 3
Change all occurrences of “client-side component” to --client-side update component--.
Line 8; insert --the-- before “one mor more policy definitions”
Claim 4
The claim is dependent claim of claim 3; therefore, it inherits issue of claim 3.
Claim 5
Change all occurrences of “client-side component” to --client-side update component--.
Claim 6
The claim is dependent claim of claim 1; therefore, it inherits issue of claim 1.
Claim 7
The claim is dependent claim of claim 2; therefore, it inherits issue of claim 2.
Claim 8
Change all occurrences of “client-side component” to --client-side update component--
Claim 9
Change all occurrences of “client-side component” to --client-side update component--.
Claim 10
Change all occurrences of “client-side component” to --client-side update component--.
Line 8; insert --the-- before “one mor more policy definitions”
Claim 11
The claim is dependent claim of claim 10; therefore, it inherits issue of claim 10.
Claim 12
Change all occurrences of “client-side component” to --client-side update component--.
Claims 13 – 14
Claims 13 – 14 are dependent claim of claim 8 and 9 respectively; therefore, they inherit issues of claims 8 and 9.
Claim 15
Change all occurrences of “one or more client-side components” to --one or more client-side update component--
Change all occurrences of “client-side component” to --client-side update component--.
Change all occurrences of “one or more server-side component” to --one or more server-side update component--
Claim 17
Line 1; change “the client-side components” to --the one or more client-side update components--.
Claim 18
Claim 18 is dependent claim of claim 17; therefore, it inherits issues of claim 17.
Claim 19
Line 1; change “the server-side components” to --the one or more server-side components--.
Claim 20
Change all occurrences of “the server-side components” to --the one or more server-side update components--.
Line 1; change “the client-side components” to --the one or more client-side update components--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 – 15 and 17 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1
Step 1
The claim is statutory because it is directed to a method.
Step 2A, prong 1
The claim recites limitations
“identifying … one or more provisioned resources of a plurality of nodes of a remote data center;
applying … one or more policy definitions … to remove one or more update paths from the resource graph based on a configuration of the remote data center;
identifying … an available update in the resource graph for the at least one provisioned resource”
The “identifying” steps can be reasonably performed mentally by human observation and evaluation to identify provisioned resources and identify available update from observation of resource graph.
The “applying” step relies on human evaluation of policy definitions and configuration of the data center to modify update paths with an aid of paper and pen.
Thus, these limitations are directed to a mental process.
Step 2A, prong 2
The claim recites additional limitations
“responsive to identifying the available update, providing … a custom resource definition associated with the available update of the at least one provisioned resource … to update at least one node of the plurality of nodes of the data center … synchronize an actual state of the at least one provisioned resource at the at least one node to a target state of the at least one provisioned resource at the at least one node …”
The additional limitations amount to insignificant extra-solution activities because they amount to general post-solution activity to provide a custom resource definition a node and update resource and its state.
The claim further recites additional elements “a client-side update component, policy engine and a custom controller.” The additional elements are recited at high level of generality and used as tools to perform the limitations.
Thus, the additional limitations and the additional elements are not indicative of an integration into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim as a whole is not amounted to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea and is not patent eligible.
Analyses of claims 2 – 6 as follow:
Claim 2
The claim recites limitations “periodically querying … the policy engine of a server-side update component of the update framework to obtain the resource graph …; returning … the resource graph associated with the at least one provisioned resource …”
The limitations, as drafted, query and return data. Thus, the limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, are an insignificant extra-solution activity, and elements “policy engine and a server-side update component” are tools to perform the limitations. Thus, the limitations and elements are not integrated into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 3
The claim recites limitations “requesting … the resource graph … from a graph builder of the client-side update component based on one or more release pointers…;
applying … one or more policy definitions to the resource graph; and
providing … the resource graph to the client-side component”
The limitations, as drafted, request the resource graph, apply policy definition to the resource graph, and provide the resource graph. Thus, the limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, are an insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, the limitations are not integrated into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 4
The claim recites limitations “retrieving one or more release pointers …; and
generating the resource graph by linearly ordering … the retrieved one or more release pointers …”
The limitations, as drafted, retrieve the release pointer, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity, and generate the source graph, which is reasonably created mentally by human with an aide of paper and pen. Thus, the limitations are not integrated into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 5
The claim recites limitations “identifying a current version of the at least one provisioned resource;
locating the current version of the at least one provisioned resource in the resource graph …; and
identifying a subsequent version of the at least one provisioned resource in the resource graph after the current version of the at least one provisioned resource.”
The limitations, as drafted, identify and locate version of the provisioned resource, which are reasonably performed mentally by human observation and evaluation of data. Thus, the limitations are not integrated into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 6
The claim recites limitations “the client-side update component is instantiated using one or more remote Kubernetes clusters of the remote data center.”
The limitations, as drafted, generate the client-side update component, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, the limitations are not integrated into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 7
The claim recites limitations “the server-side update component is separate from the remote data center.”
The limitations, as drafted, further separate the server-side update component, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, the limitations are not integrated into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 8
Step 1
The claim is statutory because it is directed to a system.
Step 2A, prongs 1 & 2
The claim recites limitation in the same manner as claim 1; therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Furthermore, the claim recites additional element “a processing device.” The additional element is recited as high level of generality and used as a tool to perform the limitations. Thus, the additional element is not indicative of an integration into a practical application.
Step 2B
The claim as a whole is not amounted to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 8 is directed to an abstract idea and is not patent eligible.
Claims 9 – 14
Claims 9 – 14 recite limitations in the same manner as claims 2 – 7 respectively; therefore, claims 9 – 14 are also rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 15
Step 1
The claim is statutory because it is directed to a device.
Step 2A, prong 1
The claim recites limitations
“…periodically check for updates of one or more resources of a remote data center ...;
… applies one or more policy definitions to a resource graph … to remove one or more update paths from the resource graph based on a configuration of the remote data center,
… identifies an available update in the resource graph for the provisioned resource …”
The “check” and “identifies” steps can be reasonably performed mentally by human observation and evaluation to check and identify update from observation of resource graph.
The “applies” step relies on human evaluation of policy definitions and configuration of the data center to modify update paths with an aid of paper and pen.
Thus, these limitations are directed to a mental process.
Step 2A, prong 2
The claim recites additional limitations
“perform over-the-air (OTA) updates to the one or more resources …;
synchronize an actual state of the provisioned resource to a target state of the provisioned resource … provisioning a dependent resource.”
The additional limitations amount to an insignificant extra-solution activities because they amount to general post-solution activity to provide a custom resource definition a node and update resource and its state.
The claim further recites additional elements “one or more processors, a policy engine, one or more client-side components and one or more server-side components.” The additional elements are recited at high level of generality and used as tools to perform the limitations.
Thus, the additional limitations and the additional elements are not indicative of an integration into a practical application.
Steps 2B
The claim as a whole is not amounted to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claim 15 is directed to an abstract idea and is not patent eligible.
Analysis of claims 17 – 20
Claim 17
The claim recites limitations
“the client-side components comprise at least one of:
a cluster version operator (CVO) to perform periodic checks for updates from the policy engine server; or
a second-level operator (SLO) to perform service updates.”
The limitations, as drafted, define functionalities of the client-side components, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, the limitations are not integrated into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 18
The claim recites limitations “the CVO is instantiated using one or more remote Kubernetes clusters.”
The limitations, as drafted, instantiate the CVO, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, the limitations are not integrated into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 19
The claim recites limitations “the server-side components comprise at least one of:
the policy engine to query a container artifact repository for one or more release pointers …; or
a graph builder to generate one or more directed graphs …”
The limitations, as drafted, define functionalities of the server-side components, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, the limitations are not integrated into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 20
The claim recites limitations “the client-side components communicate with the server-side components via a side car container of the server-side components.”
The limitations, as drafted, further define functionalities of the client-side components, which is an insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, the limitations are not integrated into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CUONG V LUU whose telephone number is (571)270-1733. The examiner can normally be reached 6:30 AM - 3:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hyung S. Sough can be reached at (571) 272-6799. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CUONG V LUU/Examiner, Art Unit 2192
/S. Sough/SPE, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights