DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination. Claims 1-4, 6-8, and 11-18 are amended.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vergara et al (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2022/0222079 A1, hereinafter Vergara) in view of McCrady et al (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2009/0112673 A1, hereinafter McCrady).
Vergara was cited in the previous office action.
As per claim 1, Vergara teaches the limitations substantially as claimed, including a method, the method comprising:
receiving, at a computer system, a declarative specification for a datacenter on a cloud platform (Paragraph [0025], “the system receives a cloud platform independent declarative specification of a data center”), wherein the datacenter includes a hierarchy of datacenter entities (Paragraph [0026], “The datacenter is generated based on a cloud platform independent declarative specification comprising a hierarchy of data center entities”), and wherein particular datacenter entities have associated execution dependencies that need to be completed before execution of an orchestration workflow for the particular datacenter entities (Paragraph [0090], “The cloud platform independent declarative specification specifies dependencies between services”; Paragraph [0026], “Each data center entity comprises one or more of (1) a service”);
initiating execution of the associated execution dependencies that need to be completed for the particular datacenter entities (Paragraph [0090], “ensure that the cloud platform starts the services in an order specified by the dependencies”); and
upon determining that the associated execution dependencies that need to be completed have been completed for all the particular datacenter entities (Paragraph [0090], “such that instructions for deploying the service ensure that the cloud platform starts the services in an order specified by the dependencies such that for each service, the services required to be started before the service are running when the service is started”), executing the orchestration workflow for the datacenter on the cloud platform according to the declarative specification (Figure 7, Element 760, “Executing the cloud platform specific deployment to deploy software artifacts using the generated pipeline”).
Vergara does not expressly teach wherein the execution dependencies include dependencies external to the datacenter entities and the orchestration workflow that the determination limitation includes such dependencies.
However, McCrady teaches wherein the execution dependencies include dependencies external to the datacenter entities and the orchestration workflow that the determination limitation includes such dependencies (Figure 2; Paragraph [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine the teachings of McCrady with those of Vergara in order to allow for Vergara’s method to consider a wider array of workflow structures, which could increase its usefulness in a wider variety of settings, thereby potentially increasing buy-in among prospective users.
As per claim 4, Vergara teaches initiating execution of the associated execution dependencies that need to be completed in response to a user request to execute the orchestration workflow received via an application programming interface (API) (Paragraphs [0046], [0115]).
As per claim 5, Vergara teaches that the user request is to execute a build of the datacenter, a destroy of the datacenter, or an update of the datacenter (Paragraph [0031]).
As per claim 6, Vergara teaches that at least one of the associated execution dependencies that need to be completed includes composition of metadata for representing one or more of the datacenter entities (Paragraph [0069]).
As per claim 7, Vergara teaches that at least one of the associated execution dependencies that need to be completed includes creation of an account on the cloud platform (Paragraph [0086]).
As per claim 8, Vergara teaches that at least one of the associated execution dependencies that need to be completed includes manifestation of workflows ordered by start dependencies of datacenter entities and their corresponding entities that need to be deployed in the datacenter entities (Paragraph [0069]).
As per claim 9, Vergara teaches that the declarative specification is a cloud platform independent declarative specification (Paragraph [0025]).
As per claim 10, Vergara teaches generating an aggregate pipeline for creating the datacenter based on the declarative specification, wherein the aggregate pipeline includes a hierarchy of pipelines for creating datacenter entities of the datacenter (Paragraph [0108]), generating a deployment manifest associating the datacenter entities of the datacenter with versions of software artifacts targeted for deployment on the datacenter entities (Paragraph [0049]), wherein a software artifact is associated with a datacenter entity of the datacenter being orchestrated (Paragraph [0027]), and executing the aggregate pipeline in conjunction with the deployment manifest to orchestrate the datacenter on the cloud platform according to the declarative specification (Paragraph [0055]).
As per claims 11, 14, and 15, they are medium claims with no further limitations beyond those rejected above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
As per claim 13, Vergara teaches that the execution dependencies include steps, events, or activities that need to be completed in order for the orchestration workflow to be executed (Paragraph [0069]).
As per claims 16, 19, and 20, they are system claims with no further limitations beyond those rejected above. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vergara in view of McCrady, and further in view of Bonwick et al (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2007/0174494 A1, hereinafter Bonwick).
Bonwick was cited in the previous office action.
As per claim 2, Vergara and McCrady do not expressly teach receiving, from at least one of the associated execution dependencies that need to be completed, an event completion notification.
However, Bonwick teaches receiving, from at least one of the associated execution dependencies, an event completion notification (Figure 4; Paragraph [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine the teachings of Bonwick with those of Vergara and McCrady in order to allow for Vergara’s and McCrady’s method to more efficiently execute by ensuring communication between the various elements so that events could start quickly, which could increase acceptance and buy-in for the method from prospective users.
As per claim 17, it is a system claim with no further limitations beyond those rejected above. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 3 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vergara in view of McCrady, and further in view of Mathur et al (U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0196048 A1, hereinafter Mathur).
Mathur was cited in the previous office action.
As per claim 3, Vergara and McCrady do not expressly teach determining an expiration of a predetermined time period for at least one of the associated execution dependencies, the predetermined time period being specified by a service level agreement for the at least one of the associated execution dependencies.
However, Mathur teaches determining an expiration of a predetermined time period for at least one of the associated execution dependencies, the predetermined time period being specified by a service level agreement for the at least one of the associated execution dependencies (Paragraph [0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine the teachings of Mathur with those of Vergara and McCrady in order to allow for Vergara’s and McCrady’s method to more efficiently execute by ensuring communication between the various elements so that events could start quickly, which could increase acceptance and buy-in for the method from prospective users.
As per claim 18, it is a system claim with no further limitations beyond those rejected above. Therefore, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vergara in view of McCrady and further in view of Bonwick and still further in view of Mathur.
As per claim 12, Vergara and McCrady do not expressly teach receiving, from at least one of the execution dependencies, an event completion notification and determining an expiration of a predetermined time period specified by a service level agreement for at least one other of the execution dependencies.
However, Bonwick teaches receiving, from at least one of the associated execution dependencies, an event completion notification (Figure 4; Paragraph [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine the teachings of Bonwick with those of Vergara and McCrady in order to allow for Vergara’s and McCrady’s method to more efficiently execute by ensuring communication between the various elements so that events could start quickly, which could increase acceptance and buy-in for the method from prospective users.
Vergara, McCrady, and Bonwick do not teach determining an expiration of a predetermined time period specified by a service level agreement for at least one other of the execution dependencies.
However, Mathur teaches determining an expiration of a predetermined time period specified by a service level agreement for the at least one of the associated execution dependencies (Paragraph [0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the application to combine the teachings of Mathur with those of Vergara, McCrady, and Bonwick in order to allow for Vergara’s, McCrady’s and Bonwick’s method to more efficiently execute by ensuring communication between the various elements so that events could start quickly, which could increase acceptance and buy-in for the method from prospective users.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 Gregory Kessler whose telephone number is (571)270-7762. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30 - 5, Alternate Fridays 8:30-4.
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.
/GREGORY A KESSLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2197
Prosecution Insights