CTNF 18/424,319 CTNF 79571 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Detail Action The application 18/424,319 is filed on 1/26/2024 with claims 1-20. That is a Non-Final Action. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto- processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11/847,329 in view of Joshi US 2016/0314051. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because corresponding claims 1, 9, and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11/847,328 in view of Joshi US 2016/0314051 (Joshi teach Fault domain reflect topology of data center abstract and p0043- 45;) contain every element of claims 1, 8, and 15 of the instant application; and thus render obvious the claims of the instant application. Claims 1, 8, and 15 of the instant application therefore are not patentably distinct from the corresponding patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. An application claim is not patentably distinct from a patent claim if the application claim is obvious by the patent claim. 18/424,319 11/847,329 view of Joshi US 2016/0314051 Claim 1 Claim 1 A method comprising: providing, by a container management platform, a deployment service involving a cluster of nodes that comprises a plurality of topology domains having respective hardware resources; A method, comprising: providing, by a computer system, a deployment service involving a computer cluster that comprises a plurality of fault domains having respective hardware resources; Joshi teaches Fault domain reflect topology of data center abstract and p0043-0045; It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Josh’s teaching with method of ‘329 in order to replicates such data according to a user's defined data policy and based on the defined fault domains thereby avoiding the user having to keep track of changes in computing system configurations or update their data policy when virtual machines migrate from one host computing system to another. provisioning, by the container management platform, one or more pods to one or more of the plurality of topology domains, wherein the one or more pods implement an instance of an application; provisioning, by the computer system, one or more pods to one or more of the plurality of fault domains, wherein the one or more pods implement a service; accessing, by the container management platform, a deployment object indicating a desired state of allocation of the one or more pods across the plurality of topology domains; accessing, by the computer system, a fault domain set object comprising a value indicating that a new pod is to be interleaved with the one or more pods across the plurality of fault domains; determining, by the container management platform, a current distribution of which pods are provisioned in a corresponding topology domain; and causing, based on the current distribution of pods across the topology domains and the value of the deployment object, the container management platform to provision pods to one or more of the plurality of topology domains such that the cluster achieves the value of the deployment object for interleaving pods across the plurality of topology domains. determining, by the computer system, a current state of the computer cluster by iterating through a plurality of fault domain states, wherein a fault domain state is indicative of which pods are provisioned in a corresponding fault domain; and based on at least the current state of the computer cluster and the value of the fault domain set object, the computer system provisioning the new pod to one or more of the plurality of fault domains such that the computer cluster achieves the value of the fault domain set object for interleaving pods across the plurality of fault domains. Claim 8 Claim 15 A container management platform implemented using a server system, the container management platform configurable to cause: A system, comprising: at least one processor; and memory having program instructions stored thereon that are executable by the at least one processor to cause the system to perform operations comprising: Joshi teaches Fault domain reflect topology of data center abstract, p0026, and p0043-0045; It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Josh’s teaching with method of ‘329 in order to replicates such data according to a user's defined data policy and based on the defined fault domains thereby avoiding the user having to keep track of changes in computing system configurations or update their data policy when virtual machines migrate from one host computing system to another. providing a deployment service involving a cluster of nodes that comprises a plurality of topology domains having respective hardware resources; Josh teaches avoiding a fault occurring in one defined fault domain from affecting another defined fault domain thus ensuring the advantages of data replication. Further, unlike known data replication approaches, the present approach replicates such data according to a user's defined data policy (which need not specify specific target host computing systems, as explained further elsewhere herein), and based on the defined fault domains, thereby avoiding the user having to keep track of changes in computing system configurations or environment or update their data policy even when a virtual machine moves from one host to another. See Josh p0026 provisioning one or more pods to one or more of the plurality of topology domains, wherein the one or more pods implement an instance of an application; provisioning a plurality of pods across a plurality of fault domains, wherein a given one of the plurality of fault domains includes a respective set of computer nodes, and wherein the plurality of pods implement a service; accessing a deployment object indicating a desired state of allocation of the one or more pods across the plurality of topology domains; accessing a fault domain set object comprising a value indicating that a new pod is to be interleaved with the plurality of pods across the plurality of fault domains; determining a current distribution of which pods are provisioned in a corresponding topology domain; and determining a current state of a computer cluster that includes the plurality of fault domains by iterating through a plurality of fault domain states, wherein a fault domain state is indicative of which pods are provisioned in a corresponding fault domain; provisioning, based on the current distribution of pods across the topology domains and the value of the deployment object, pods to one or more of the plurality of topology domains such that the cluster achieves the value of the deployment object for interleaving pods across the plurality of topology domains. and based on at least the current state of the computer cluster and the value of the fault domain set object, provisioning the new pod to one of the plurality of fault domains such that the computer cluster achieves the value of the fault domain set object for interleaving pods across the plurality of fault domains. Claim 15 Claim 9 A computer program product comprising non-transitory computer-readable program code capable of being executed by one or more processors when retrieved from a non-transitory computer-readable medium, the program code comprising instructions configurable to cause the one or more processors to perform a method comprising: A non-transitory computer-readable medium having program instructions thereon that are capable of causing a computer system to perform operations comprising: Joshi teaches Fault domain reflect topology of data center abstract, p0026, and p0043-0045; It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Josh’s teaching with method of ‘329 in order to replicates such data according to a user's defined data policy and based on the defined fault domains thereby avoiding the user having to keep track of changes in computing system configurations or update their data policy when virtual machines migrate from one host computing system to another. providing, by a container management platform, a deployment service involving a cluster of nodes that comprises a plurality of topology domains having respective hardware resources; Josh teaches avoiding a fault occurring in one defined fault domain from affecting another defined fault domain thus ensuring the advantages of data replication. Further, unlike known data replication approaches, the present approach replicates such data according to a user's defined data policy (which need not specify specific target host computing systems, as explained further elsewhere herein), and based on the defined fault domains, thereby avoiding the user having to keep track of changes in computing system configurations or environment or update their data policy even when a virtual machine moves from one host to another. See Josh p0026 provisioning, by the container management platform, one or more pods to one or more of the plurality of topology domains, wherein the one or more pods implement an instance of an application; provisioning a plurality of pods across a plurality of fault domains, wherein a given one of the plurality of fault domains includes a respective set of computer nodes, and wherein the plurality of pods implement a service; accessing, by the container management platform, a deployment object indicating a desired state of allocation of the one or more pods across the plurality of topology domains; receiving an indication that a new pod is to be interleaved with the plurality of pods across the plurality of fault domains; determining, by the container management platform, a current distribution of which pods are provisioned in a corresponding topology domain; and determining a current state of a computer cluster comprising the plurality of fault domains by iterating through a plurality of fault domain states, wherein a fault domain state is indicative of which pods are provisioned in a corresponding fault domain; and causing, based on the current distribution of pods across the topology domains and the value of the deployment object, the container management platform to provision pods to one or more of the plurality of topology domains such that the cluster achieves the value of the deployment object for interleaving pods across the plurality of topology domains. based on at least the current state of the computer cluster, provisioning the new pod to one of the plurality of fault domains such that the current state is reconciled with a desired state defined by information associated with the service. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21, 29, and 35 of Patent No. 18/504,873 in view of Joshi US 2016/0314051. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because corresponding claims 21, 29, and 35 of Patent No. 18/504,873 in view of Joshi US 2016/0314051 (Joshi teach Fault domain reflect topology of data center abstract and p0043-45;) contain every element of claims 1, 8, and 15 of the instant application and thus anticipate the claims of the instant application. Claims 1, 8, and 15 of the instant application therefore are not patentably distinct from the corresponding patent claims and as such are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. An application claim is not patentably distinct from a patent claim if the application claim is anticipated by the patent claim. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. 08-37 AIA Claim s 1, 8, and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21, 28, and 35 of copending Application No. 18/504,873 in view of Joshi US 2016/0314051. 18/424,319 Application No. 18/504,873 in view of Joshi US 2016/0314051 Claim 1 Claim 21 A method comprising: providing, by a container management platform, a deployment service involving a cluster of nodes that comprises a plurality of topology domains having respective hardware resources; A method, comprising: providing, by a computer system, a deployment service involving a computer cluster that comprises a plurality of fault domains having respective hardware resources; Joshi teaches Fault domain reflect topology of data center abstract and p0043-0045; It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Josh’s teaching with method of ‘329 in order to replicates such data according to a user's defined data policy and based on the defined fault domains thereby avoiding the user having to keep track of changes in computing system configurations or update their data policy when virtual machines migrate from one host computing system to another. provisioning, by the container management platform, one or more pods to one or more of the plurality of topology domains, wherein the one or more pods implement an instance of an application; provisioning, by the computer system, one or more pods to one or more of the plurality of fault domains, wherein the one or more pods implement a service; accessing, by the container management platform, a deployment object indicating a desired state of allocation of the one or more pods across the plurality of topology domains; accessing, by the computer system, a fault domain set object comprising a value indicating that a new pod is to be interleaved with the one or more pods across the plurality of fault domains; determining, by the container management platform, a current distribution of which pods are provisioned in a corresponding topology domain; and determining, by the computer system, a current state of the computer cluster by iterating through a plurality of fault domain states, wherein a fault domain state is indicative of which pods are provisioned in a corresponding fault domain; and causing, based on the current distribution of pods across the topology domains and the value of the deployment object, the container management platform to provision pods to one or more of the plurality of topology domains such that the cluster achieves the value of the deployment object for interleaving pods across the plurality of topology domains. based on at least the current state of the computer cluster and the value of the fault domain set object, the computer system provisioning the new pod to one or more of the plurality of fault domains such that the computer cluster achieves the value of the fault domain set object for interleaving pods across the plurality of fault domains. Claim 8 Claim 35 A container management platform implemented using a server system, the container management platform configurable to cause: A system, comprising: at least one processor; and memory having program instructions stored thereon that are executable by the at least one processor to cause the system to perform operations comprising: Joshi teaches Fault domain reflect topology of data center abstract, p0026, and p0043-0045; It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Josh’s teaching with method of ‘329 in order to replicates such data according to a user's defined data policy and based on the defined fault domains thereby avoiding the user having to keep track of changes in computing system configurations or update their data policy when virtual machines migrate from one host computing system to another. providing a deployment service involving a cluster of nodes that comprises a plurality of topology domains having respective hardware resources; Josh teaches avoiding a fault occurring in one defined fault domain from affecting another defined fault domain thus ensuring the advantages of data replication. Further, unlike known data replication approaches, the present approach replicates such data according to a user's defined data policy (which need not specify specific target host computing systems, as explained further elsewhere herein), and based on the defined fault domains, thereby avoiding the user having to keep track of changes in computing system configurations or environment or update their data policy even when a virtual machine moves from one host to another. See Josh p0026 provisioning one or more pods to one or more of the plurality of topology domains, wherein the one or more pods implement an instance of an application; provisioning a plurality of pods across a plurality of fault domains, wherein a given one of the plurality of fault domains includes a respective set of computer nodes, and wherein the plurality of pods implement a service; accessing a deployment object indicating a desired state of allocation of the one or more pods across the plurality of topology domains; accessing a fault domain set object comprising a value indicating that a new pod is to be interleaved with the plurality of pods across the plurality of fault domains; determining a current distribution of which pods are provisioned in a corresponding topology domain; and determining a current state of a computer cluster that includes the plurality of fault domains by iterating through a plurality of fault domain states, wherein a fault domain state is indicative of which pods are provisioned in a corresponding fault domain; and provisioning, based on the current distribution of pods across the topology domains and the value of the deployment object, pods to one or more of the plurality of topology domains such that the cluster achieves the value of the deployment object for interleaving pods across the plurality of topology domains. based on at least the current state of the computer cluster and the value of the fault domain set object, provisioning the new pod to one of the plurality of fault domains such that the computer cluster achieves the value of the fault domain set object for interleaving pods across the plurality of fault domains. Claim 15 Claim 29 A computer program product comprising non-transitory computer-readable program code capable of being executed by one or more processors when retrieved from a non-transitory computer-readable medium, the program code comprising instructions configurable to cause the one or more processors to perform a method comprising: A non-transitory computer-readable medium having program instructions thereon that are capable of causing a computer system to perform operations comprising: It would have been obvious at the time of the invention for a person ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to include Josh’s teaching with method of ‘329 in order to replicates such data according to a user's defined data policy and based on the defined fault domains thereby avoiding the user having to keep track of changes in computing system configurations or update their data policy when virtual machines migrate from one host computing system to another. providing, by a container management platform, a deployment service involving a cluster of nodes that comprises a plurality of topology domains having respective hardware resources; Josh teaches avoiding a fault occurring in one defined fault domain from affecting another defined fault domain thus ensuring the advantages of data replication. Further, unlike known data replication approaches, the present approach replicates such data according to a user's defined data policy (which need not specify specific target host computing systems, as explained further elsewhere herein), and based on the defined fault domains, thereby avoiding the user having to keep track of changes in computing system configurations or environment or update their data policy even when a virtual machine moves from one host to another. See Josh p0026 provisioning, by the container management platform, one or more pods to one or more of the plurality of topology domains, wherein the one or more pods implement an instance of an application; provisioning a plurality of pods across a plurality of fault domains, wherein a given one of the plurality of fault domains includes a respective set of computer nodes, and wherein the plurality of pods implement a service; accessing, by the container management platform, a deployment object indicating a desired state of allocation of the one or more pods across the plurality of topology domains; receiving an indication that a new pod is to be interleaved with the plurality of pods across the plurality of fault domains; determining, by the container management platform, a current distribution of which pods are provisioned in a corresponding topology domain; and determining a current state of a computer cluster comprising the plurality of fault domains by iterating through a plurality of fault domain states, wherein a fault domain state is indicative of which pods are provisioned in a corresponding fault domain; and causing, based on the current distribution of pods across the topology domains and the value of the deployment object, the container management platform to provision pods to one or more of the plurality of topology domains such that the cluster achieves the value of the deployment object for interleaving pods across the plurality of topology domains. based on at least the current state of the computer cluster, provisioning the new pod to one of the plurality of fault domains such that the current state is reconciled with a desired state defined by information associated with the service . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Related Prior Art Here is a list of related prior art: Vallala US 2019/0215281: Fenced Clone Applications. Somaiya et al. US 2015/0229532: Graphical User Interface for displaying information related to a Virtual Machine Network. Mageswaran et al. US 2019/0220361: Monitoring Containers in A Distributed Computing System. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PENG KE whose telephone number is (571)272-4062. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30-5:00. 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, Kevin Young can be reached at (571) 270-3180. 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. PENG KE Primary Examiner Art Unit 2194 /PENG KE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/424,319 Page 2 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/424,319 Page 3 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/424,319 Page 4 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/424,319 Page 5 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/424,319 Page 6 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/424,319 Page 7 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/424,319 Page 8 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/424,319 Page 9 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/424,319 Page 10 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/424,319 Page 11 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/424,319 Page 12 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/424,319 Page 13 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/424,319 Page 14 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/424,319 Page 15 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/424,319 Page 16 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/424,319 Page 17 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/424,319 Page 18 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/424,319 Page 19 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/424,319 Page 20 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/424,319 Page 21 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/424,319 Page 22 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/424,319 Page 23 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/424,319 Page 24 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/424,319 Page 25 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/424,319 Page 26 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/424,319 Page 27 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/424,319 Page 28 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/424,319 Page 29 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/424,319 Page 30 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/424,319 Page 31 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/424,319 Page 32 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/424,319 Page 33 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/424,319 Page 34 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/424,319 Page 35 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/424,319 Page 36 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/424,319 Page 37 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/424,319 Page 38 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/424,319 Page 39 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/424,319 Page 40 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/424,319 Page 41 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/424,319 Page 42 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/424,319 Page 43 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/424,319 Page 44 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/424,319 Page 45 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/424,319 Page 46 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/424,319 Page 47 Art Unit: 2194
Prosecution Insights