DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to amendments filed on June 18, 2026.
Claims 1-6, 8-13 and 15-19 are pending.
Claims 1-5, 8-12 and 15-19 have been amended.
Claims 7, 14 and 20 have been canceled.
Response to Amendment
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6, 8-13 and 15-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the limitation "the standardized electronic forms" in lines 17, 13 and 13 respectively. In the interest of consistency, it is recommended that this limitation be amended to “the one or more standardized electronic forms”.
Claims 3, 10 and 17 contain abbreviation “IT”. It is recommended that the first instance of the abbreviation be spelled out such as “information technology (IT) user”.
Claims 2-6, 9-13 and 16-19 depend on the objected to claims and do not resolve the deficiencies and thus, are objected to for at least the same reasons.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-11, 14-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Elimelech (US 2023/0132877).
With respect to Claim 1, Elimelech discloses:
one or more processors; (see Figure 6A and 6B; Computer system 600 may be the same or similar to client 111 or compute node(s) 154 of FIG. 1, and may include one or more processors and one or more memory devices, Paragraphs 64-65)
one or more electronic networks; (see Figure 1; network 105)
and a memory having stored thereon instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to: (see Figure 6A and 6B; Computer system 600 may be the same or similar to client 111 or compute node(s) 154 of FIG. 1, and may include one or more processors and one or more memory devices, Paragraphs 64-65)
receive, via the one or more electronic networks, a user command from one of a plurality of users associated with the functional groups via one of: (see Figure 2A; The containerized cluster user interface can include a Graphical User Interface (“GUI”), which can display a “wizard” or other step-by-step sequence of forms in which the user can input configuration values. Each form may include one or more fields, each of which can have a descriptive label and an input component such as a text box or a selection list: for example, a GUI can include a wizard that creates a virtual machine in the containerized cluster. The GUI can display menus listing operations that can be performed by the containerized cluster. The user can select a menu item, such a “Create Virtual Machine,” (user command) and in response, the GUI can present a form that includes fields corresponding to the input parameters of the containerized cluster's Create Virtual Machine operation, Paragraph 16; Users, (plurality of users) such as computer program developer team members, system administrators, development operations team members, and so on (functional groups), can use a cluster management user interface 154 to perform operations on the containerized cluster 150, such as creating and managing applications and infrastructure used by the applications, Paragraph 25)
a graphical user interface (GUI) comprising one or more standardized electronic forms, (the GUI can present a form that includes fields corresponding to the input parameters of the containerized cluster's Create Virtual Machine operation (standardized electronic form), Paragraph 16; ) or
an application programming interface (API) configured for code-based interaction;
process, via the one or more processors, the user command, by:
translating requests received via the standardized electronic forms into one or more API calls that generate, modify, or delete one or more infrastructure-as-code configuration files when the user command is received via the GUI; (The example command text 226 (“oc create —f rhel-8-vm.yaml”) (user command is received via the GUI) is in a shell command format and specifies an operation that creates (translate request into one or more API calls) a virtual machine (“oc create”) and parameters that specify a configuration file for the operation (“−f rhel-8-vm.yaml”) (generate one or more infrastructure-as-code configuration files), Paragraph 37; see Figures 2A-2F; contents of the configuration file such as rhel-8-vm.yaml (infrastructure-as-code configuration file) can be modified and updated using the GUI which are then reflected (one or more API calls) in the YAML tab, Paragraphs 37-44) or
generating, modifying, or deleting one or more infrastructure-as- code configuration files based on the user command when the user command is received via the API,
wherein the processing causes one or more cloud functions to be performed
affecting the state of the one or more cloud environments; (The GUI can then invoke a containerized cluster API operation, which can create a VM (one or more cloud functions) using the parameter values provided by the user in the form fields (user command), Paragraph 16; The containerized cluster(s) 150 on which the container computing platform runs may be accessible via a network such as the Internet, and may be provided as cloud services. Thus, the cluster entities 156 may execute in a cloud environment., Paragraph 29)
and transmit, via the one or more electronic networks, a status code based on the processing of the user command. (display the status and results of the operation (status code), Paragraph 16)
With respect to Claim 2, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been addressed above; and Elimelech further discloses:
wherein the user command is an API command of a software development and information technology (IT) operations (DevOps) user. (The GUI can then invoke a containerized cluster API operation, (API command) which can create a VM using the parameter values provided by the user (DevOps user) in the form fields, Paragraph 16; Users, such as computer program developer team members, system administrators, development operations team members, (DevOps user) and so on, can use a cluster management user interface 154 to perform operations on the containerized cluster 150, such as creating and managing applications and infrastructure used by the applications, Paragraph 25)
With respect to Claim 3, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been addressed above; and Elimelech further discloses:
wherein the user command is a GUI command of an IT user. (The GUI can display menus listing operations that can be performed by the containerized cluster. The user (IT user) can select a menu item, such a “Create Virtual Machine,” (GUI command) and in response, the GUI can present a form that includes fields corresponding to the input parameters of the containerized cluster's Create Virtual Machine operation, Paragraph 16; Users, such as computer program developer team members, system administrators, development operations team members, (IT user) and so on, can use a cluster management user interface 154 to perform operations on the containerized cluster 150, such as creating and managing applications and infrastructure used by the applications, Paragraph 25)
With respect to Claim 4, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been addressed above; and Elimelech further discloses:
wherein the one or more cloud functions include at least one of (i) creating, modifying or deleting a virtual machine, (ii) creating modifying or deleting an electronic database, (iii) creating, modifying or deleting a messaging service, (iv) creating, modifying or deleting an electronic network, or (v) creating, modifying or deleting an Identity Access Management (IAM) role or policy. (a GUI can include a wizard that creates a virtual machine in the containerized cluster, Paragraph 16)
Claims 8-11 are non-transitory computer-readable medium claims corresponding to the system claims above (Claims 1-4) and, therefore, are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 1-4.
Claims 15-18 are method claims corresponding to the system claims above (Claims 1-4) and, therefore, are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 1-4.
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.
Claims 5-6, 12-13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elimelech (US 2023/0132877) in view of Deshpande et al. (US 2015/0032897).
With respect to Claim 5, all the limitations of Claim 1 have been addressed above; and Elimelech does not disclose:
the memory having stored thereon instructions that when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to:
generate one more visualizations of data corresponding to the one or more cloud environments.
However, Deshpande et al. disclose:
the memory having stored thereon instructions that when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to:
generate one more visualizations of data corresponding to the one or more cloud environments. (utilization visualization program 200 displays the visualization of resource utilization corresponding to the associated profile (one or more cloud environments), Paragraph 32; the visualization can include charts, data tables and graphical depictions that are populated with data from storage device 122 corresponding to resource utilization data 123 of resources 142, 152 and 162, which relate to profile 116 of the user of client device 110. Visualization of the resource utilization 124 indicates how server 140, 150 and 160 execute the workload distribution, Paragraph 30; server 140, 150 and 160 are part of a cloud computing environment and are utilized to execute workloads, Paragraph 23)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Deshpande et al. into the teaching of Elimelech to include generate one more visualizations of data corresponding to the one or more cloud environments in order to identify optimal usage of a cloud environment by determining additional workloads that can be deployed on servers in the cloud environment. (Deshpande et al., Paragraphs 7-8)
With respect to Claim 6, all the limitations of Claim 5 have been addressed above; and Elimelech does not disclose:
wherein the visualizations include at least one of (i) a workload visualization, (ii) an application traffic change visualization, or (iii) an interactive workload management panel.
However, Deshpande et al. disclose:
wherein the visualizations include at least one of (i) a workload visualization, (ii) an application traffic change visualization, or (iii) an interactive workload management panel. (the user of client device 110 to view resources 142, 152 and 162 of server 140, 150 and 160 that are executing workloads that are deployed on server 140, 150 and 160 (workload visualization), Paragraph 31; Utilization visualization program 200 allows for customization of visualization of resource utilization 124 (determined in step 208), which can include, but is not limited to determining different resources to include in the visualization (e.g., resources not associated with an individual’s profile), and applying filters to data in the visualization, Paragraph 32)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Deshpande et al. into the teaching of Elimelech to include wherein the visualizations include at least one of (i) a workload visualization, (ii) an application traffic change visualization, or (iii) an interactive workload management panel in order to identify optimal usage of a cloud environment by determining additional workloads that can be deployed on servers in the cloud environment. (Deshpande et al., Paragraphs 7-8)
Claims 12-13 are non-transitory computer-readable medium claims corresponding to the system claims above (Claims 5-6) and, therefore, are rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claims 5-6.
Claim 19 is a method claim corresponding to the system claim above (Claim 12) and, therefore, is rejected for the same reasons set forth in the rejections of Claim 12.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 10-11, filed June 18, 2026, with respect to the claim objections of claims 2, 9 and 16 and §101 rejection of claims 2 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of claims 2, 9 and 16 and §101 rejection of claims 2-3, 7, 9-10, 14, 16-17 and 20 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed June 16, 2026 with respect to claim objections of claims 3, 10 and 17 and §102/103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Claims 2-3, 9-10, and 16-17 were objected to because of certain informalities.
Appropriate correction has been made. Accordingly, the Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the objections.
Examiner’s Response:
Claims 3, 10 and 17 have not been appropriately corrected to overcome with claim objections. Specifically, claims 3, 10 and 17 depend on claims 1, 8 and 15 which have not spelled out the abbreviation “IT”. It appears that claims 2, 9 and 16 have “IT” spelled out but claims 3, 10 and 17 do not depend on these claims.
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Applicant amends claim 1, and similarly independent claims 8 and 15, to recite, inter alia, "process, via the one or more processors, the user command, by: (i) translating requests received via the standardized electronic forms into one or more API calls that generate, modify, or delete one or more infrastructure-as-code configuration files when the user command is received via the GUI; or (ii) generating, modifying, or deleting one or more infrastructure-as-code configuration files based on the user command when the user command is received via the API." Elimelech does not disclose this limitation, as agreed to by the Examiner during the interview held on June 11, 2026.
Examiner’s Response:
After further consideration of the claim amendments, it is the Examiner’s position that Elimelech discloses the applicant’s amendment of “process, via the one or more processors, the user command, by: (i) translating requests received via the standardized electronic forms into one or more API calls that generate, modify, or delete one or more infrastructure-as-code configuration files when the user command is received via the GUI; or (ii) generating, modifying, or deleting one or more infrastructure-as-code configuration files based on the user command when the user command is received via the API.” As can be seen in the updated §102 rejection above, Elimelech discloses in Paragraph 37 that a user can input into a GUI, the command to create a configuration file named “rhel-8-vm.yaml” (generate, modify, or delete one or more infrastructure-as-code configuration files). The user is then able modify/edit the configuration file using the GUI to add parameters or make changes to various fields of the configuration file (translating requests) which are reflected in the GUI/configuration file (API calls). When finished, the user can create the virtual machine using the configuration file by selecting the “create virtual machine” button. (see Paragraphs 37-47 and Figures 2A-2F)
In the Remarks, Applicant argues:
Claims 5-6, 12-13, and 19 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly unpatentable over Elimelech in view of Deshpande. Although the Applicant respectfully disagrees, the Applicant respectfully submits that the dependent claims are patentable over the applied references at least for the same reasons as their base claim.
The Applicant therefore requests reconsideration and withdrawal of these rejections.
Examiner’s Response:
Please see response to arguments above with respect to independent claims 1, 8 and 15.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LANNY N UNG whose telephone number is (571)270-7708. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 6:30am-3:30pm.
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, Bradley Teets can be reached at 571-272-3338. 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.
/LANNY N UNG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights