Remarks
Applicant presents a communication dated 4 February 2026 in response to the 4 November 2025 non-final rejection (the “Previous Action”).
Claims 1, 5-6, 8-10, 14-15 and 17-19 are amended, as are various paragraphs of the specification.
Claim 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 10 and 19 are the independent claims.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant asserts that it believes all objections to the drawings are addressed by its amendments. (Remarks, p. 14 par. 1).
Examiner respectfully submits in response, however, that additional objections remain. For example, the specification already incorrectly used reference character “524” to refer to memory “544” in Figure 4 and Applicant simply added missing character “544” to the specification when it should have changed “524” to “544.” Applicant similarly added “1332” to the specification when it should have amended the incorrect references to “3132” in paragraph [0160] instead. The drawings thus lack reference characters “524” and “3132” mentioned in the written description.
Applicant asserts that it has amended the specification to address the Previous Action’s objection to improper use of trademarks in the specification. (Remarks, p. 13)
Examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that Applicant has only capitalized a portion of the trademarks appearing in the specification. For example, paragraph [0049] even as amended still uses the trademarks LINUX and DOCKER in multiple locations without capitalization of every letter of those marks. Every letter of the trademarks should be capitalized wherever they appear, or where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce. See M.P.E.P. § 608.01(v). The objection is accordingly maintained.
Applicant asserts with respect to the § 112 rejections of claims 10-18 that the rejections are believed to be no longer applicable. (Remarks, p. 14).
Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out that the generic placeholder for the § 112(f) limitations of claim 10 is the “computing system”, not the orchestrator. Clarifying that the orchestrator executes on a processing circuitry thus does not alter the result of the three-prong test applied to each of those limitations. The limitations thus still invoke § 112(f) without sufficient corresponding structure in the specification.
Applicant’s remaining arguments are moot in view of the withdrawn objection, withdrawn rejections or new ground(s) of rejection below, necessitated by Applicant’s amendments.
Specification
The Previous Action’s specification objections are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s specification amendments unless reproduced herein.
The specification is objected to because it uses at least the trademarks DOCKER, KUBERNETES, CONTRAIL, LINUX, MESOS, OPENSHIFT, OPENSTACK, VMWARE, MICROSOFT, UNIX and WINDOWS without capitalizing every letter of the mark(s). See M.P.E.P. § 608.01(v).
The amendment filed 4 February 2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: reference to element 540 in paragraph [0137] as a “connection or bus.” Nothing in the originally filed specification describes element 540 as a bus.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Drawings
The Previous Action’s drawing objections are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s specification amendments unless reproduced herein.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 524 (see paragraph [0127-0132]), 3132 (see paragraph [0160])
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The Previous Action’s interpretations of certain claim limitations are invoking 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s claim amendments unless reproduced herein below.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are:
The “…creating, by a computing system, a readiness custom resource…” in claim 10;
The “…creating, by the computing system…a readiness test custom resource…” in claim 10;
The “…deploying, by the computing system…” in claim 10;
The “…setting, by the computing system…” in claim 10;
The “…by the computing system, deploying a workload…” in claim 10;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The Previous Action’s § 112 rejections are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s claim amendments unless reproduced herein below.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 10, the limitations of these claims noted above invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph as noted. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed functions of the limitations and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the claimed functions. For computer-implemented means plus function limitations, the disclosed structure must include an algorithm for performing the function claimed. See MPEP § 2181(II)(B). And the specification provides no algorithm sufficient for performing the claimed functions here. It does little more than repeat the language of the claims.
Since the specification lacks sufficient corresponding structure, the claims reciting these limitations are indefinite and an equivalent is any element that performs the specified function. See M.P.E.P. §§ 2181(II)(B) and 2185.
As to claims 11-18, the claims are dependent on claim 10, do not cure the deficiencies of that claim and are rejected for the same reasons.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claims 10-18 the claims include means-plus function limitations lacking sufficient corresponding structure as noted above. Such limitations also lack written description. See M.P.E.P. § 2163.03(VI).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The Previous Action’s § 101 rejections are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s claim amendments.
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 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lan et al. (US 2024/0028370) (art of record – hereinafter Lan) in view of Lee et al. (US 2020/0344144) (art made of record – hereinafter Lee).
As to claim 1, Lan discloses a system, comprising:
a plurality of servers; (e.g., Lan, Fig. 1 and associated text) and
a container orchestrator executing on processing circuitry included in at least one of the plurality of servers and (e.g., Lan, par. [0019]: a container orchestrator (CO) such as Kubernetes. The CO control plane 148 includes a master server executing in host(s) 120 [software necessarily executes on processing circuitry]) configured to:
create a readiness custom resource in the container orchestrator, the readiness custom resource configured to receive a specification that specifies one or more tests (e.g., Lan, Fig. 3 and associated text, par. [0019]: a container orchestrator (CO) such as Kubernetes. The CO control plane 148 includes a master server executing in host(s) 120; par. [0022]: a user can interact with API 304 to define a test suite custom resource (CR) 308 [on master servers 148, see figure]. Test suite CR 308 defines diagnoses [tests] to be performed on sites 180) for a software-defined networking (SDN) architecture system, (e.g., Lan, par. [0018]: sites can include container network functions (CNFs); par. [0015]: system 100 is configured with a software-defined network layer) each test of the one or more tests having a corresponding container image (e.g., Lan, par. [0022]: test suite CR defines an image to be used for a diagnosis runner) configured to implement the test on a server and output a status for the test; (e.g., Lan, par. [0041]: diagnosis runner(s) 310 deploy diagnosis pods 312 to servers 182; par. [0043]: the test data includes results of the checks diagnosis checks. The test data can include status information (e.g., pass/fail for each test). The test controller 302 receives the test data from diagnosis runner(s) 310) the SDN architecture system (e.g., Lan, par. [0018]: sites can include container network functions (CNFs); par. [0015]: system 100 is configured with a software-defined network layer)
create, in the container orchestrator, a readiness test custom resource for each test of the one or more tests; (e.g., Lan, par. [0018]: a container orchestrator (CO) such as Kubernetes; par. [0003]: in a Kubernetes system, containers are grouped into “pods”; par. [0022]: test suite CR defines an image to be used for a diagnosis runner. Diagnosis runners 310 in pod(s). Diagnosis runner(s) 310 deploy diagnosis pods 312)
deploy, for each test of the one or more tests, the corresponding container image for the test to execute on at least one server of the plurality of servers; (e.g., Lan, par. [0040]: test controller 302 can deploy diagnosis runner(s) 310 based on an image specified in test suite CR 308; par. [0022]: test controller deploys diagnosis runners 310 in pod(s) on host(s))
set, based on respective statuses output by the respective container images for the one or more tests, a status for the readiness custom resource; (e.g., Lan, par. [0041]: diagnosis runner(s) 310 deploy diagnosis pods 312 to servers 182; par. [0043]: the test data includes results of the checks diagnosis checks. The test data can include status information (e.g., pass/fail for each test). The test controller 302 receives the test data from diagnosis runner(s) 310); and
the status for the readiness custom resource and the SDN architecture system (see above).
Lan does not explicitly disclose wherein each test of the one or more tests evaluates whether the plurality of servers is suitably configured for deployment of workloads in the SDN architecture system; based on the status indicating success, deploy a workload to at least one of the plurality of servers, wherein the workload implements at least one of: a component of the SDN architecture system, or an application requiring network configuration of the workload by the SDN architecture system.
However, in an analogous art, Lee discloses:
wherein each test of the one or more tests evaluates whether the plurality of servers is suitably configured for deployment of workloads in the system; (e.g., Lee, par. [0021]: virtualized environment 100; par. [0030]: the commissioning VM 110 may be located on a different physical machine [server] to the VIM component 140 or the VMs [all part of environment 100, so this environment comprises a plurality of servers]; par. [0065]: environment readiness testing 124 is performed before one or more VNCIs [workloads] are instantiated in [deployed to] the environment 100 to perform a given VNF [system]; par. [0083]: performing the readiness testing comprises interrogating component 140 to ascertain whether the virtualized environment 100 [plurality of servers] comprises sufficient resources to fulfill commissioning of the plurality of VNFs. In embodiments, performing the readiness testing comprises interrogating component 140 to ascertain whether desired configuration for the given VNF corresponds with configuration available on the VIM Component 140 [on a server, see above]).
based on the status indicating success, deploy a workload to at least one of the plurality of servers, wherein the workload implements at least one of: a component of the ystem, or an application requiring network configuration of the workload by the system (e.g., Lee, par. [0067]: in response to the environment readiness testing 124 determining that the virtualized environment 100 does comprise sufficient resources to fulfill commissioning of the VNF [status indicating success], the VIM component 140 is instructed to instantiate [deploy] one or more VNFCIs [workloads] in the virtualized environment 100 [plurality of servers]. The one or more VNFCIs are operable to perform at least part of the VNF [system]. In response to a positive result [status indicating success], one or more VNFCIs may be instantiated)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tests, SDN architecture system and status of the readiness custom resource of Lan to include each test evaluating whether the plurality of servers is suitably configured for deployment of workloads in the system and based on the status indicating success, deploying a workload to at least one of the plurality of servers, wherein the workload implements at least one of: a component of the system, or an application requiring network configuration of the workload by the system, as taught by Lee, as Lee would provide the advantages of a means of avoiding errors and poor performance of the system as well as means of reducing time wasted on re-configuring or redeployment. (See Lee, par. [0065])
As to claim 2, Lan/Lee discloses the system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), Lan further discloses:
wherein the SDN architecture system comprises a network controller and a network data plane (e.g., Lan, par. [0018]: the COP control plane includes a master server 148; par. [0015]: the virtualized infrastructure also supports logical network services. Logical network services include logical switches and routers [i.e., network data plane, see par. [0078] of the specification vRouters are data plane components]).
As to claim 3, Lan/Lee discloses the system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), Lan further discloses:
wherein each test of the one or more tests specified by the specification includes a reference to the corresponding container image configured to implement the test (e.g., Lan, par. [0022]: test suite CR defines an image to be used for a diagnosis runner; par. [0003]: containers are grouped into logical unit called “pods”; par. [0040]: diagnosis runner(s) as pods. Diagnosis runners are configured to deploy diagnosis pods at the sites and collect test data returned from the diagnosis pods; par. [0042]: each diagnosis pod 312 checks the components of its respective server).
As to claim 5, Lan/Lee discloses the system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), Lan further discloses:
wherein the container orchestrator executing on the processing circuitry (see below) is further configured to:
implement, through the readiness custom resource and the specification, a test suite to validate the system as suitable for the SDN architecture system (e.g., Lan, par. [0022]: a user can interact with API 304 to define [specify] a test suite custom resource (CR) 308. Test suite CR 308 defines diagnoses [tests] to be performed on sites 180; par. [0018]: sites can include container network functions (CNFs); par. [0042]: a diagnosis pod 312 checks configuration of CNF pods 314; par. [0043]: pass/fail for each check; par. [0019]: VMs include CO [container orchestrator] support software 142 [necessarily executing on processing circuitry] to support execution of pods).
Lan does not explicitly disclose a pre-deployment test suite.
However, in an analogous art, Lee discloses:
a pre-deployment test suite (e.g., Lee, par. [0083]: performing the readiness testing comprises interrogating component 140 to ascertain whether the virtualized environment 100 [plurality of servers] comprises sufficient resources to fulfill commissioning of the plurality of VNFs. In embodiments, performing the readiness testing comprises interrogating component 140 to ascertain whether desired configuration for the given VNF corresponds with configuration available on the VIM Component 140; par. [0065]: environment readiness testing 124 is performed before one or more VNCIs are instantiated in [deployed to] the environment 100 to perform a given VNF;).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the test suite of Lan to include a pre-deployment test suite, as taught by Lee, as Lee would provide the advantages of a means of avoiding errors and poor performance of the system as well as means of reducing time wasted on re-configuring or redeployment. (See Lee, par. [0065])
As to claim 7, Lan/Lee discloses the system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), Lan further discloses:
wherein the container orchestrator (see below) is configured to:
create a readiness controller to create one or more jobs on each of the plurality of servers, as specified in the specification; (e.g., Lan, Fig. 3 and associated text, par. [0019]: a container orchestrator (CO) such as Kubernetes. The CO control plane 148 includes a master server executing in host(s) 120; par. [0022] master server 148 include a test controller 302 [since it is included in the CO, it is created there]. Diagnosis runner(s) 310 deploy diagnosis pods 312 in sites 180 as instructed by test controller “(and specified by the user in test suite CR 308)”. In a server, a diagnosis pod is deployed) and
deploy, to each of the plurality of servers, a test pod comprising the respective container images configured to implement the one or more tests, (e.g., Lan, par. [0040]: test controller can deeply diagnosis runner(s) 310 based on an image specified in test suite CR 308; par. [0040]: diagnosis runners are configured to deploy diagnosis pods; par. [0042]: each diagnosis pod 312 checks the components of its respective server)
wherein the one or more jobs cause, by running the container images, the one or more tests to be performed (see immediately above).
As to claim 8, Lan/Lee discloses the system of claim 7 (see rejection of claim 1 above), Lan further discloses:
wherein the readiness controller is custom controller for a custom resource (e.g., Lan, Fig. 3 and associated text, par. [0019]: a container orchestrator (CO) such as Kubernetes. The CO control plane 148 includes a master server executing in host(s) 120; par. [0022] master server 148 include a test controller 302 [readiness controller, custom because it performs functions specific to the system of Lan]; par. [0040]: test controller 302 detects test suite CR 308 and deploys one or more diagnosis runners 310 as pod(s) in the management cluster. Diagnosis runners are configured to deploy diagnosis pod at the sites).
As to claim 9, Lan/Lee discloses the system of claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7 above), Lan further discloses:
wherein the readiness controller executes on processing circuitry (e.g., Lan, par, [0040]: test controller 302; par. [0012]: CPUs 160 execute instructions that perform one or more operations described herein) and is configured to:
install the readiness custom resource and the readiness test custom resource (e.g., Lan, par. [0040]: test controller 302 detects test suite CR 308 and deploys one or more diagnosis runners 310 as pod(s) in the management cluster. Diagnosis runners are configured to deploy diagnosis pod at the sites).
As to claim 10, it is a method claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 11, it is a method claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 2. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 12, it is a method claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 3. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 14, it is a method claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 5. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 16, it is a method claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 7. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 17, it is a method claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 8. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 18, it is a method claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 9. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 19, it is a medium claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 1. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons. Further limitations, disclosed by Lan, include:
non-transitory computer readable media comprising instructions that, when executed by processing circuitry, cause the processing circuitry (e.g., Lan, par. [0046]: embodiments of the invention may be implemented as computer program modules embodied in computer readable media. Examples of computer-readable media include hard drives, RAM and non-optical storage devices) to: (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lan (US 2024/0028370) in view of Lee (US 2020/0344144) in further view of Tubaltsev et al. (US 2015/0263946) (art of record – hereinafter Tubaltsev).
As to claim 4, Lan/Lee discloses the system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the SDN architecture system comprises a containerized network router that includes a routing protocol process and a virtual router data plane.
However, in an analogous art, Tubaltzev discloses:
wherein the SDN architecture system comprises a containerized network router that includes a routing protocol process and a virtual router data plane (e.g., Tubaltzev, par. [0007]: logical routers within virtualized containers that have the ability to store a routine table [virtual router data plane]; par. [0048]: the L3 gateways 250-260 implement the portion of the routine table of the logical router 115 for north-south traffic; par. [0051]: the L3 gateways 250-260 are virtualized containers. Routine protocol applications operate within these containers; par. [0063]: different data places represented as tables).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the SDN architecture of Lan to include a containerized network router that includes a routing protocol process and a virtual router data plane, as taught by Tubaltzev, as Tubaltzev would provide the advantage of a means of connecting swtiches and virtual machines in a logical network. (See Tubaltzev, pars. [0004-0005]). Such a network router would also avoid the need for separate physical hardware to implement the router. (See Tubaltzev at Fig. 7 and par. [0104]).
As to claim 13, it is a method claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 4. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
Claims 6, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lan (US 2024/0028370) in view of Lee (US 2020/0344144) in further view of Leasck et al. (US 2022/0398188) (art made of record – hereinafter Leasck).
As to claim 6, Lan/Lee discloses the system of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), Lan further discloses wherein the container orchestrator executing on the processing circuitry (see below) is further configured to:
implement, through the readiness custom resource and the specification implement a test suite (e.g., Lan, par. [0022]: a user can interact with API 304 to define [specify] a test suite custom resource (CR) 308. Test suite CR 308 defines diagnoses [tests] to be performed on sites 180; par. [0018]: sites can include container network functions (CNFs); par. [0042]: a diagnosis pod 312 checks configuration of CNF pods 314; par. [0043]: pass/fail for each check; par. [0019]: VMs include CO [container orchestrator] support software 142 [necessarily executing on processing circuitry] to support execution of pods).
Lan/Lee does not explicitly disclose a post-deployment test-suite to validate network controller and network data plane operations of the SDN architecture system on the system.
However, in an analogous art, Leasck discloses:
a post-deployment test-suite to validate network controller and network data plane operations of the SDN architecture system on the system (e.g., Leasck, par. [0016]: the limited scope of test cases may result in the failure to detect certain problems in the code of the custom deployments; par. [0054]: par. [0041]: a resource test suite may test the data plane of the open standard cloud computing platform. An application programming interface (API) test suite may test the control plane [the suites together being the claimed test suite]; par. [0040] various areas of the application environment 302 are targeted by the different test suites; par. [0036]: the lowest layers of the target environment may include virtual local area networks (VLANS); par. [0039]: the layers above application layers may include tenant virtual network functions (VNFs)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the test-suite implemented by the readiness custom resource and specification of Lan to include a post-deployment test-suite to validate network controller and network data plane operations of the SDN architecture system on the system, as taught by Leasck, as Leasck would provide the advantage of a means of ensuring certain problems in the deployment are detected. (See Leasck, par. [0016]).
As to claim 15, it is a method claim having limitations substantially the same as those of claim 6. Accordingly, it is rejected for substantially the same reasons.
As to claim 20, Lan/Lee discloses the non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 19 (see rejection of claim 19 above), Lan further discloses:
wherein the readiness custom resource and the specification implement a test suite (e.g., Lan, par. [0022]: a user can interact with API 304 to define [specify] a test suite custom resource (CR) 308. Test suite CR 308 defines diagnoses [tests] to be performed on sites 180; par. [0018]: sites can include container network functions (CNFs); par. [0042]: a diagnosis pod 312 checks configuration of CNF pods 314; par. [0043]: pass/fail for each check) and
the SDN architecture system (e.g., Lan, par. [0018]: sites can include container network functions (CNFs); par. [0015]: system 100 is configured with a software-defined network layer)
Lan does not explicitly disclose a pre-deployment test suite to validate a cluster as suitable for the SDN architecture system, and a post-deployment test suite to validate network controller and network data plane operations of the SDN architecture system on the cluster.
However, in an analogous art Lee discloses:
a pre-deployment test suite to validate a cluster as suitable for the system, (e.g., Lee, par. [0021]: virtualized environment 100. The environment 100 includes a commissioning virtual machine (VM) 110; par. [0028]: the commissioning VM has access to a virtual infrastructure manager (VIM) component 140 of the virtualized environment 100; par. [0030]: the commissioning VM 110 may be located on a different physical machine to the VIM component 140 and/or the VMs [i.e., the virtualized environment is a cluster of machines]; par. [0083]: performing the readiness testing comprises interrogating component 140 to ascertain whether the virtualized environment 100 [cluster] comprises sufficient resources to fulfill commissioning of the plurality of VNFs. In embodiments, performing the readiness testing comprises interrogating component 140 to ascertain whether desired configuration for the given VNF corresponds with configuration available on the VIM Component 140 [part of the cluster, see above]).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the test suite of and SDN architecture system of Lan to include a pre-deployment test to validate a cluster as suitable for the system, as taught by Lee, as Lee would provide the advantages of a means of avoiding errors and poor performance of the system as well as means of reducing time wasted on re-configuring or redeployment. (See Lee, par. [0065])
Further, in an analogous art, Leask discloses:
a post-deployment test suite to validate network controller and network data plane operations of the SDN architecture system on the cluster (e.g., Leasck, par. [0016]: the limited scope of test cases may result in the failure to detect certain problems in the code of the custom deployments; par. [0054]: par. [0041]: a resource test suite may test the data plane of the open standard cloud computing platform. An application programming interface (API) test suite may test the control plane [the suites together being the claimed test suite]; par. [0040] various areas of the application environment 302 are targeted by the different test suites; par. [0036]: the lowest layers of the target environment may include networks [clusters] and virtual local area networks (VLANS); par. [0039]: the layers above application layers may include servers [a cluster], data plane virtual machines (VMs) [a cluster] and tenant virtual network functions (VNFs)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the test-suite implemented by the readiness custom resource and specification of Lan to include a post-deployment test suite to validate network controller and network data plane operations of the SDN architecture system on the cluster, as taught by Leasck, as Leasck would provide the advantage of a means of ensuring certain problems in the deployment are detected. (See Leasck, par. [0016]).
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 TODD AGUILERA whose telephone number is (571)270-5186. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 11AM - 7:30PM EST.
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.
/TODD AGUILERA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192