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 .
1. This is in response to communication filed on 2/16/24 in which claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant’s arguments 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
3. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
4. Claims 1, 11, 16 and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Publication No. 2023/0198959 to Martinez-Spessot et al.
a. As per claim 1, Martinez-Spessot et al teaches a method for managing services provided by data processing systems, the method comprising: obtaining a service access request from a service requestor (See paragraph [0104]). , the service access request specifying a service running on at least one of the data processing systems (See paragraph [0112]);
the service being one of multiple services running on the at least one of the data processing system (See paragraph [0112]), each of the multiple services being associated with one or more sidecars provisioned specifically for a respective one of the multiple services (See paragraph [0031], respective sidecars (e.g., sidecars 215a-n) have been associated with each microservice of the collection of microservices), and the one or more sidecars being configured to collect and store capability data and first context data for the respective one of the multiple services for which the one or more sidecars was instantiated (See paragraph [0003, 0033, 0047, 0054], discovered security features available to respective microservices are stored after completion of security feature discovery by their associated sidecars);parsing the service access request for second context data, the second context data comprising at least the first context data (See paragraph [0048-0052]); and servicing the service requestor using the service and the second context data (See paragraph [0048-0054]).
b. As per claim 11, Martinez-Spessot et al teaches a non-transitory machine-readable medium having instructions stored therein, which when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations for managing services provided by data processing systems, the operations comprising: obtaining a service access request from a service requestor (See paragraph [0104]), the service access request specifying a service running on at least one of the data processing systems (See paragraph [0112]); the service being one of multiple services running on the at least one of the data processing systems, each of the multiple services being associated with one or more sidecars provisioned specifically for a respective one of the multiple services (See paragraph [0031], respective sidecars (e.g., sidecars 215a-n) have been associated with each microservice of the collection of microservices), and the one or more sidecars being configured to collect and store capability data and first context data for the respective one of the multiple services for which the one or more sidecars was instantiated (See paragraph [0003, 0033, 0047, 0054], discovered security features available to respective microservices are stored after completion of security feature discovery by their associated sidecars); parsing the service access request for second context data, the second context data comprising at least the first context data (See paragraph [0048-0052]); and servicing the service requestor using the service and the second context data (See paragraph [0048-0054]).
c. As per claim 16, Martinez-Spessot et al teaches a data processing system comprising: a processor; and a memory coupled to the processor to store instructions, which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations for managing services provided by data processing systems including the data processing system, the operations comprising: obtaining a service access request from a service requestor (See paragraph [0104]), the service access request specifying a service running on the data processing system (See paragraph [0112]); the service being one of multiple services running on the at least one of the data processing systems, each of the multiple services being associated with one or more sidecars provisioned specifically for a respective one of the multiple services (See paragraph [0031], respective sidecars (e.g. sidecars 215a-n) have been associated with each microservice of the collection of microservices respective sidecars (e.g., sidecars 215a-n) have been associated with each microservice of the collection of microservices), and the one or more sidecars being configured to collect and store capability data and first context data for the respective one of the multiple services for which the one or more sidecars was instantiated(See paragraph [0003, 0033, 0047, 0054], discovered security features available to respective microservices are stored after completion of security feature discovery by their associated sidecars); parsing the service access request for second context data, the second context data comprising at least the first context data (See paragraph [0048-0052]); and servicing the service requestor using the service and the second context data (See paragraph [0048-0054]).
d. As per claim 21, Martinez-Spessot et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Martinez-Spessot et al teaches wherein the one or more sidecars store the first context data in a context repository of the data processing systems, the context repository comprising fourth context data of an infrastructure boundary that delimits the at least one of the data processing systems on which the service is running (See paragraph [0033]).
e. As per claim 22, Martinez-Spessot et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Martinez-Spessot et al teaches wherein the context repository is remote to the data processing systems including the at least one of the data processing systems on which the service is running (See paragraph [0033 and 0037]).
f. AS per claim 23, Martinez-Spessot et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Martinez-Spessot et al teaches further comprising and before the obtaining of the service access request from the service requestor: providing, from the context repository, the first context data of the service to the service requestor (See paragraph [0054]).
g. As per claim 24, Martinez-Spessot et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Martinez-Spessot et al teaches wherein the fourth context data of the infrastructure boundary comprises the first context data of all services running within the infrastructure boundary including the first context data of multiple services running on the at least one of the data processing systems, and the fourth context data being dynamically using the first context data (See paragraph [0032-0033 and 0035, 0038]).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
5. Claims 2-5, 8-9, 12-14 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2023/0198959 to Martinez-Spessot et al in view of U.S. Patent No. 2014/0344425 to Varney et al.
a. As per claims 2, 12, 17, Martinez-Spessot et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Martinez-Spessot et al fails to teach wherein the servicing the service requestor using the service and the second context data comprises: determining, based on the second context data, that one or more adjustments to the service is required for the service to be able to service the service requestor; and in response to the determining, performing the one or more adjustments to the service to obtain a modified instance of the service adapted for the service requestor, wherein the service requestor is serviced using the modified instance of the service adapted for the service requestor.
Varney et al teaches wherein the servicing the service requestor using the service and the second context data comprises: determining, based on the second context data, that one or more adjustments to the service is required for the service to be able to service the service requestor (See paragraph [0245 and 0264]); and in response to the determining, performing the one or more adjustments to the service to obtain a modified instance of the service adapted for the service requestor, wherein the service requestor is serviced using the modified instance of the service adapted for the service requestor (See paragraph [0245 and 02845]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Varney et al in the claimed invention of Martinez-Spessot et al in order to provide service specific dynamic configuration (See paragraph [0245]).
b. As per claims 3, 13 and 18, Martinez-Spessot et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Martinez-Spessot et al fails to teach wherein: the second context data included in the service access request is an aggregated context data that comprises the first context data of the service and a third context data of the service requestor, the context data of the service comprises information specifying, at least, where the service is provisioned within an infrastructure boundary that delimits the at least one of the data processing systems on which the service is running, and the context data of the service requestor comprises information specifying, at least, an origin of the service access request, a target of the service access request, and a type of the service access request.
Varney et al teaches wherein: the second context data included in the service access request is an aggregated context data that comprises the first context data of the service and a third context data of the service requestor, the context data of the service comprises information specifying, at least, where the service is provisioned within an infrastructure boundary that delimits the at least one of the data processing systems on which the service is running (See paragraph [0137-0138]), and the context data of the service requestor comprises information specifying, at least, an origin of the service access request, a target of the service access request, and a type of the service access request (See paragraph [00137]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Varney et al in the claimed invention of Martinez-Spessot et al in order to provide service specific dynamic configuration (See paragraph [0245]).
c. As per claims 4 and 14, Martinez-Spessot et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Martinez-Spessot et al fails to teach wherein the information specifying the type of the service access request includes information that indicates a deployment stage of the infrastructure boundary and a deployment stage of the service.
Varney et al teaches wherein the information specifying the type of the service access request includes information that indicates a deployment stage of the infrastructure boundary and a deployment stage of the service (See paragraph [0137-0138]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Varney et al in the claimed invention of Martinez-Spessot et al in order to provide service specific dynamic configuration (See paragraph [0245]).
d. As per claim 5, Martinez-Spessot et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Martinez-Spessot et al fails to teach wherein the information specifying the target of the service access request includes the service and information that indicates whether the service requestor is within or external to the infrastructure boundary.
Varney et al teaches wherein the information specifying the target of the service access request includes the service and information that indicates whether the service requestor is within or external to the infrastructure boundary (See paragraph [0667, 1943]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Varney et al in the claimed invention of Martinez-Spessot et al in order to provide service specific dynamic configuration (See paragraph [0245]).
e. As per claim 19, Martinez-Spessot et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Martinez-Spessot et al fails to teach wherein the one or more adjustments comprise, at least, an adjustment to a behavior of the service and an adjustment to a service flow of the service (See paragraph [0245, 0568]).
Varney et al teaches wherein the one or more adjustments comprise, at least, an adjustment to a behavior of the service and an adjustment to a service flow of the service (See paragraph [0245, 0568]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Varney et al in the claimed invention of Martinez-Spessot et al in order to provide service specific dynamic configuration (See paragraph [0245]).
f. As per claim 8, Martinez-Spessot et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Martinez-Spessot et al fails to teach determining that the one or more adjustments to the service resulted in a change in context for the service; recording the change in context as context data of the service; and storing the context data of the service in a context repository.
Varney et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Varney et al teaches determining that the one or more adjustments to the service resulted in a change in context for the service (See paragraph [0214, 0284]); recording the change in context as context data of the service; and storing the context data of the service in a context repository (See paragraph [0284-0285, 0289]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Varney et al in the claimed invention of Martinez-Spessot et al in order to provide service specific dynamic configuration (See paragraph [0245]).
j. As per claim 9, Martinez-Spessot et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. However, Martinez-Spessot et al fails to teach wherein the context repository is remote to the data processing systems including the at least one of the data processing systems on which the service is running
Varney et al teaches the claimed invention as described above. Furthermore, Varney et al teaches wherein the context repository is remote to the data processing systems including the at least one of the data processing systems on which the service is running (See paragraph [0284-0285, 0289]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the teaching of Varney et al in the claimed invention of Martinez-Spessot et al in order to provide service specific dynamic configuration (See paragraph [0245]).
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claim 10 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
7. 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.
9Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DJENANE BAYARD whose telephone number is (571)272-3878. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at (571)272-3964. 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.
/DJENANE M BAYARD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444