DETAILED ACTION
1. The communication is in response to the application filed 9/25/2023 which claim 1-20 are pending in the application. Claim 1,2, and 11 are independent form.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. Claim 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 is directed to a system and therefore is a machine which is one of the statuary categories of inventions. Claim 2-10 are directed to a method (series of steps) and therefore is a process which is one the statuary categories of invention. Claim 11-20 are directed to a non-transitory machine-readable media and therefore is a manufacture which is one of the statutory categories of inventions.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
Claim 1,2 11 also recite the limitation “detecting, based on the set of commands, a first runtime identifier in first metadata associated with the first auxiliary application and a second runtime identifier in second metadata associated with the second auxiliary application;”, “detecting, based on the command, an identifier in metadata associated with the auxiliary application;”
and “detecting, in metadata associated with the second application, an identifier;” These limitations are a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components. In within the claim “detecting, based on the command” in the context of the claim encompasses a mental process which can be covers performed in the mind based on observation, evaluation judgement or opinion.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then its falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas the concepts performed in the minds including an observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion.
Step 2, Prong 2:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims 1, 2 and 11
recite the additional elements “in response to initializing an application in a first container runtime of a first container, obtaining, in the first container runtime, a set of commands to execute a first auxiliary application and a second auxiliary application, wherein the first auxiliary application and the second auxiliary application are software dependencies of the application;” , “obtaining a command to execute an auxiliary application, wherein the command is caused by an execution of a primary application executing in a first container runtime of a first container;” and “obtaining, in a first runtime of a first application executing in the first runtime, a command to execute a second application;” These limitation amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g);
Claims 1,2 and 11 further recite the additional limitation “executing a second container runtime based on a first runtime build identified by the first runtime identifier and a third container runtime based on a second runtime build identified by the second runtime identifier by: initializing a second container and a third container; and executing the second container runtime in the second container and the third container runtime in the third container; and executing the first auxiliary application in the second container runtime and the second auxiliary application in the third container runtime” , “executing a second container runtime in a second container based on a runtime build identified by the identifier; and executing the auxiliary application in the second container runtime.” and “executing a second runtime in a container based on a runtime build identified by the identifier; and executing the second application in the second runtime.” These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to no more than insignificant extra solution activity. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)
The processor, non-transitory media storage media, container, runtime builds, metadata and runtime repository are recited across a high level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation of “obtaining” is considered mere data gathering which the court have identified as well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d). The limitation of “executing” and “initializing” is considered mere instruction which the court have identified as well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the “processor”, “non-transitory, machine-readable media storage”, “container”, “runtime builds”, “metadata “and “runtime repository” are merely a generic computer or generic computer components to apply the judicial exception which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Dependent claim 3 recite the limitations “obtaining, in the first container runtime, a second command to execute a second auxiliary application;” This amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) “detecting, in metadata of the second auxiliary application, a second identifier of a second runtime build;” This is a mental process and amounts to an abstract idea under the mental processes grouping (observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion). (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)), “executing a third container runtime based on the second runtime build” This additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a genetic computer components. (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Dependent claim 4 recite the limitation “The method of claim 3, wherein the first container runtime is configured with a first set of credentials associated with a first account, and wherein the second container runtime is configured with a second set of credentials associated with a second account.” This additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claim 5 recite the limitations “obtaining an anticipated computing resource cost associated with a second auxiliary application;” This amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) “executing the second container runtime in response to a result indicating that a computing resource threshold is not exceeded based on the anticipated computing resource cost.” This additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a genetic computer component. (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Dependent claim 6 recite the limitations “comprising storing application data of the auxiliary application into a cache accessible by the primary application” This amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) “wherein executing the auxiliary application comprises loading the application data of the auxiliary application from the cache.” This additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a genetic computer component. (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Dependent claim 7 recite the limitations “wherein the runtime build is a first runtime build, further comprising: building the first runtime build based on first source code; building a second runtime build based on second source code;” This additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). “storing the first runtime build and the second runtime build in a repository,” This amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) “wherein executing the second container runtime comprises selecting the first runtime build from the repository based on the identifier.” This additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a genetic computer component. (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Dependent claim 8 recite the limitation “further comprising deploying the first runtime build to be accessible to a user account without deploying the second runtime build to the user account.” This additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Dependent claim 9 recite the limitations “wherein the command is a first command, wherein the auxiliary application is a first auxiliary application, further comprising: obtaining, in the first container runtime,” This amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) “a second command to execute a second auxiliary application; and executing the second auxiliary application in a third container runtime.” This additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a genetic computer component. (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Dependent claim 10 recite the limitation “executing the second auxiliary application comprises transferring data generated by the second auxiliary application to the first auxiliary application.” This additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to no more than insignificant extra solution activity. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)
Dependent claim 12 recite the limitation “wherein the first application comprises at least one of an orchestrator component, a ledger component, and a mapping component.” This additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to no more than insignificant extra solution activity. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)
Dependent claim 13 recite the limitation “wherein the container is a first container, further comprising executing a third runtime in a second container based on the runtime build.” This additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Dependent claim 14 recite the limitation “wherein obtaining the command comprises obtaining the command in association with an account indicated to have credentials associated with the command.” This amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g);
Dependent claim 15 recite the limitation “wherein executing the second runtime comprises searching a repository to retrieve the runtime build based on the identifier of the runtime build.” This additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Dependent claim 16 recite the limitation “establishing an interoperability layer connecting the first runtime to the second runtime; and passing values from the second runtime to the first runtime via the interoperability layer.” This additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Dependent claim 17 recite the limitations “wherein: the runtime build is a first runtime build; executing the second application comprises executing a third application; and the operations further comprise:” This additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a genetic computer components. (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) “detecting, in metadata associated with the third application, an identifier of a second runtime build;” This is a mental process and amounts to an abstract idea under the mental processes grouping (observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion). (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)) “executing a third runtime based on the runtime build; and executing the third application in the third runtime.” This additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a genetic computer component. (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Dependent claim 18 recite the limitation “encoding the runtime build based on a set of language bindings compatible with the first application.” This additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. (see MPEP 2106.05(f))
Dependent claim 19 recite the limitation “the metadata of the second application indicates multiple runtime builds; the runtime build is a selected runtime build; and the operations further comprise determining, as the selected runtime build, a most recent runtime build or a most recent stable runtime build of the multiple runtime builds.” This is a mental process and amounts to an abstract idea under the mental processes grouping (observation, evaluation, judgement, and opinion). (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2))
Dependent claim 20 recite the limitation “retrieving a first record history to obtain a second version of the first record history, wherein the first record history is managed by operations occurring in the first runtime; This amounts to data gathering which is considered to be insignificant extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g); “generating a second record history by updating the second version of the first record history to indicate a first event associated with a first timepoint, wherein the first timepoint is not a most recent timepoint of the first record history; and updating the first record history based on the second record history.” This additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to no more than insignificant extra solution activity. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. Claim 2 is being claim under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) and (a)(1) as being anticipated by White et al (US 20160173281 A1) (hereinafter White).
As per claim 2 White disclose
A method comprising: obtaining a command to execute an auxiliary application, wherein the command is caused by an execution of a primary application executing in a first container runtime of a first container; “ [0040] upon discovery of the secondary application, the primary application sends an activation message to the secondary application over the communications link to prompt the secondary application to participate in the activation process and [0047] upon receipt of the activation command, the secondary application authenticates the associated signature using the link key, extracts the activation data, and activates or creates a secure container using the secondary application secret included in the activation data; fig. 1E primary application 111, runtime process 112, secure container 113);”
detecting, based on the command, an identifier in metadata associated with the auxiliary application; “[0040] upon initiation of the activation process, the primary application searches for the secondary application running on the secondary computing device using, for example, a service discovery protocol provided by an operating system running on the secondary computing device; [0043] upon authentication of activation request, the primary application generates a secondary application secret for the purpose of activating a container for the secondary application, and stores the generated application secret in its respective container to prevent unauthorized access to the application secret when the container is in a locked state. The secondary application secret may be generated on the basis of an application identifier and unique information sent to the primary application; [0046] the activation request and the activation command may be encrypted using a shared secret key established during a Diffie-Hellman key exchange between the primary application and the secondary application; [0052] the primary application and the secondary application each derives a pair of keys i.e., “communication keys on the basis of the session key, a device identifier, and a direction Tx/Rx identifier);
executing a second container runtime in a second container based on a runtime build identified by the identifier; and [0042] the secondary application 121 is not yet associated with a secure container at this stage of the activation process, so the corresponding runtime process 122 stores the link key in an obfuscated or masked authentication data 125 in the non-volatile memory associated with the secondary computing device 120; [0047] the runtime process 122 associated with the secondary application 121 generates or derives a secondary container key from the secondary application secret 116 received from the primary application 111 for use in activating a secure container for the secondary application. Once the container key has been generated, the runtime process 122 for the secondary application 121 encrypts application data associated with the secondary application 121 to create a secure container 123);
executing the auxiliary application in the second container runtime. “[0037] secondary application 121 includes a runtime process 122 which runs in volatile memory associated with the secondary computing device 120; [0048] secondary application 121 may receive policy data from the activation command and securely store the policy data in the secure container 123. The policy data defines one or more policies which control execution of the secondary application and fig. 1E secondary application 121, runtime process 122, second container 123).”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson et al. (US 20150277939), in view of Simeon et al (US20230176839 A1), in view of Leigh et al (US 20250036489 A1), in view of Madhumita et al. (US20190370046 A1) and in view of Lin et al. (CN117193735 A)
As per claim 1 Johnson disclose “A system for decoupling runtimes of software dependencies by using application metadata of auxiliary applications to initialize different runtimes for the auxiliary applications, the system comprising one or more processors and one or more non-transitory media storing program instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, perform operations comprising: [0027] “Embodiments of the invention decouple code and configuration. Application configuration is externalized, allowing configuration to be composed at runtime based on client context” [0029] “Computing device 100 includes one or more processor(s) 102, one or more memory device(s) 104, one or more interface(s) 106, one or more mass storage device(s) 108….” [0038] “As depicted, application 202 includes code 203 and annotations 204. Code 203 is executable code that, when executed, causes application 202 to perform various designed functionality. Annotations 204 represent one or more variables in metadata. The one or more variables can be assigned values to configure application 202 at runtime (e.g., for mobile vs Web). The metadata (and thus the one or more variables) is discoverable to other software modules with appropriate functionality.”
Johnson does not disclose “initialize different runtimes” as recited in the claim.
However, Simeon does disclose “initializing different runtime for the auxiliary applications” [0003] “The complexity of managing the software development lifecycle process may be associated with executing lifecycle management tasks related to executing operations to deploy a software application on different runtime environments.”
Johnson and Simeon are both combinable because they are in the similar fields.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of Johnson, with the teaching of Simeon to provide a system that decouples an application runtime from its software dependencies using the application metadata to initialize a different runtime of auxiliary application. Motivation to combine would be to a improve the system decoupling by separating an application runtime from its metadata and by initializing a different runtime for the auxiliary application.
Johnson does not further disclose “in response to initializing an application in a first container runtime of a first container, obtaining, in the first container runtime, a set of commands to execute a first auxiliary application and a second auxiliary application, wherein the first auxiliary application and the second auxiliary application are software dependencies of the application;
detecting, based on the set of commands, a first runtime identifier in first metadata associated with the first auxiliary application and a second runtime identifier in second metadata associated with the second auxiliary application;
executing a second container runtime based on a first runtime build identified by the first runtime identifier and a third container runtime based on a second runtime build identified by the second runtime identifier by: initializing a second container and a third container; and executing the second container runtime in the second container and the third container runtime in the third container;
and executing the first auxiliary application in the second container runtime and the second auxiliary application in the third container runtime.”
However, Leigh does disclose “in response to initializing an application in a first container runtime of a first container, obtaining, in the first container runtime, a set of commands to execute a first auxiliary application and a second auxiliary application, wherein the first auxiliary application and the second auxiliary application are software dependencies of the application; “ [0033] “Once the routing container 130 determines a suitable container to handle the application request 132, the routing container 130 can forward the application request 132 to the suitable container. For example, if the routing container 130 determines that the first container 104a is suitable to handle a first application request 132a, the routing container 130 may forward the first application request 132a to the first container 104a. Additionally or alternatively, the routing container 130 may receive a second application request 132b associated with the software package 108. If the routing container 130” determines that the second container 104b is suitable to handle the second application request 132b, the routing container 130 can forward the second application request 132b to the second container 104b.”
“detecting, based on the set of commands, a first runtime identifier in first metadata associated with the first auxiliary application and a second runtime identifier in second metadata associated with the second auxiliary application;”
[0043] “In block 404, the processing device 302 determines whether the application request 132 corresponds to the first set 118a of APIs 102 or the second set 118b of APIs 102…. In some examples, the processing device 302 may determine that the application request 132 corresponds to the first set 118a of APIs 102 based on a configuration file (e.g., a specification file) or metadata transmitted with the application request 132.” [0044] “In block 406, in response to determining that the application request 132 corresponds to the first set 118a of APIs 102, the processing device 302 identifies a first container 104a of one or more containers 104 used to deploy the software package 108.”
Johnson and Leigh are combinable because they are in similar fields.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of Johnson, with the teaching of Leigh so that, in response to initializing an application in the first container runtime to have the runtime obtain commands to execute a first and second auxiliary application that are software dependencies of the application. Motivation to combine would be to have more flexibility when decoupling an application in a first and second auxiliary application.
Johnson in view of Simeon, in view of Leigh does not explicitly disclose “executing a second container runtime based on a first runtime build identified by the first runtime identifier and a third container runtime based on a second runtime build identified by the second runtime identifier by: initializing a second container and a third container; and executing the second container runtime in the second container and the third container runtime in the third container;
and executing the first auxiliary application in the second container runtime and the second auxiliary application in the third container runtime.”
However, Madhumita does disclose “initializing a second container and a third container; and executing the second container runtime in the second container and the third container runtime in the third container;” [0012] “Analytics applications may be run in containers to provide a consistent runtime environment to the analytics applications regardless of computing nodes on which the analytics applications are hosted.”
[0059] “Subsequently, the container orchestrator may deploy the second container 108 to process the first data D1. The second container 108 may be deployed in the second computing node 112 and may run the second analytics application 104.” [0066] “Similarly, when the container orchestrator deploys the third container 302 to process the first data D1, the third analytics application 301 performs the processing step 4′ alone.”
Johnson and Madhumita are combinable because they are in similar fields.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of Johnson, with the teaching of Madhumita to initializing a second and third container and having each runtime run in their own container. Motivation to combine would be to have a two distinct container that can store their own runtime.
Johnson in view of Simeon, in view of Leigh, and in view Madhumita does not explicitly disclose executing a second container runtime based on a first runtime build identified by the first runtime identifier and a third container runtime based on a second runtime build identified by the second runtime identifier
and executing the first auxiliary application in the second container runtime and the second auxiliary application in the third container runtime.”
However, Lin discloses “executing a second container runtime based on a first runtime build identified by the first runtime identifier and a third container runtime based on a second runtime build identified by the second runtime identifier and executing the first auxiliary application in the second container runtime and the second auxiliary application in the third container runtime.”
“The first container unit is configured by a first application and a first data object, and the second container unit is configured by a second application and associated information of the first data object.”
“In some implementations, the processing unit is further configured to run a third application, access a third container unit to which the third application belongs, create the second data object or access the first data object.” “It should be noted that the third container unit is configured by the third application and the second data object, that is, the configuration information of the third container unit may include: the configuration information of the third application and the configuration information of the second data.”
Johnson, and Lin are combinable because they are in similar fields.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of Johnson, with the teaching of Lin to execute second container based on the first runtime/configuration and a third container based on the second runtime/configuration. And have the first auxiliary application in the second container and the second auxiliary application in the third container. Motivation to combine two distinct container that would be store one application in another runtime container.
11. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over White et al (US 20160173281 A1), in view Strode et al (US 11586455 B2), in view Schejter et al. (US PGPub 20130263139 A1)
As per claim 3 White teaches a method in claim 2 detailed above.
White does not explicitly disclose “wherein the auxiliary application is a first auxiliary application, and wherein the runtime build is a first runtime build, and wherein the command is a first command, further comprising:
obtaining, in the first container runtime, a second command to execute a second auxiliary application;”
detecting, in metadata of the second auxiliary application, a second identifier of a second runtime build; and
executing a third container runtime based on the second runtime build.”
However, Strode does disclose “wherein the auxiliary application is a first auxiliary application, and wherein the runtime build is a first runtime build, and wherein the command is a first command,” [ col 9 lines 24-30] “Specifically, executing 304 the instructions on the processor causes the primary device 202 to execute 306 the application 212 on a processor of the primary device 202. Executing the instructions also causes the primary device 202 to partition 308 the application 212 into a primary application portion 214 and an auxiliary application portion 216.” [col 9 lines 30- 38] “Executing the instructions also causes the primary device 202 to present 310 the primary application portion 214 within a primary computing environment 204 of the primary device 202. Executing the instructions also causes the primary device 202 to insert 312 the auxiliary application portion 216 into an auxiliary computing environment 208 that is adapted from the primary computing environment 204 according to a device property 210 of the auxiliary device”
and “detecting, in metadata of the second auxiliary application, a second identifier of a second runtime build;” [col 11 lines 14-17] “As another example, the container fork module 430 can identify a user identifier associated with the first container and may associate the user identifier with the second container.” [col 7 lines 25-35] “The container management component 132 may accept user inputs (e.g., commands) concerning containers corresponding to multiple operating systems via the user interface and may then execute the commands. As such, the user interface may enable a user to manage containers across multiple operating systems in the same terminal for execution. As an example, the container management component 132 may provide a CLI for managing the first container. More specifically, for example, the container management component 132 may receive one or more commands concerning the first container” [col 9 lines 2-11] “To switch from the first container to the second container, the switch module 210 may configure the second container in view of one or more configurations of the first container (e.g., by attaching a current working directory related to the first container to the second container…” [col 14 lines 19-25] “The second container may also be created in view of the container image in some embodiments. The second container may include an installation of the second operating system. The second operating system may be different than the first operating system. The one or more commands may include, for example, a command for switching to the second operating system and/or the second container.”
White and Strode are combinable because they are in similar fields.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of White, with the teaching of Strode obtain the first container and the second command to execute a second auxiliary application then detecting the metadata with the identifier’s runtime build within the second auxiliary application. Motivation to combine would be improving runtime builds based on the auxiliary applications.
White in view of Strode does not explicitly disclose “executing a third container runtime based on the second runtime build”
However, Schejter does disclose “executing a third container” [0046] “…. For example, the example processes 300 can proceed to identify a third portion of the application code associated with the identified logic, determining, based on the policy or the characteristic associated with the application code, a third runtime container to execute the third portion of the application code, and dispatching a request and the identified logic to the third runtime container for executing the third portion of the application code.”
White and Schejter are combinable because they are in similar fields.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of White and with the teaching of Schejter to execute a third container based on the second runtime. Motivation to combine would be to properly have a separate third container that is based off the second runtime build.
12. Claims 4 ,6 ,7, 10, 11, 12, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over White et al (US 20160173281 A1), in view of Strode et al (US 11586455 B2).
As per claim 4 White does not explicitly teaches “wherein the first container runtime is configured with a first set of credentials associated with a first account, and wherein the second container runtime is configured with a second set of credentials associated with a second account.”
However, Strode disclose [col 6 lines 11 -18] “The container management component 132 may further associate a user identifier of the user and/or one or more SSH keys with the first container… the container management component 132 may further associate a user identifier of the user and/or one or more SSH keys with the first container. In one implementation, the container management component 132 may configure the first container by configuring a file including the home directory, the user identifier, the SSH keys, etc. (e.g., setting up entries in a /etc./passwd file that correspond to the home directory, the user identifier, the SSH keys, etc.).” [col 6 lines 34-39] “As such, the container management component 132 may create and/or run multiple containers including installations of various operating systems for a user. The containers may be created using the same container image. Each of the containers may include an installation of a specific operating system.”
White and Strode are combinable because they are in the similar fields.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary shill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of White and with the teaching of Strode to have the first container runtime to be associated with the first account credentials and the second set of credentials with the second account. Motivation to combine would be improving security for the first account and second account based on containers.
As per claim 6 White teaches a method in claim 2 detailed above.
White does not explicitly disclose “further comprising storing application data of the auxiliary
application into a cache accessible by the primary application, wherein executing the
auxiliary application comprises loading the application data of the auxiliary application from the cache.”
However, Strode does disclose: “further comprising storing application data of the auxiliary
application into a cache accessible by the primary application, wherein executing the auxiliary application comprises loading the application data of the auxiliary application from the cache.” [col 6 lines 22-30] “the container management component 132 may also import a shell history associated with the user into the first container to configure the first container. The shell history may include one or more commands issued by the user via a shell running on the host. The shell may be a user interface for access to an operating system of the host. The shell history may be imported, for example, by saving the shell history to a storage device accessible to the first container.”
White and Strode are combinable because they are in similar fields. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of White and with the teaching of Strode to store data from the auxiliary application to be accessible to the primary application. Motivation to combine would be properly storing data from one application and a primary application to have access to the data that was stored.
As per claim 7 White teaches a method in claim 2 detailed above.
White does not explicitly disclose
“building the first runtime build based on first source code;
building a second runtime build based on second source code; and
storing the first runtime build and the second runtime build in a repository, wherein executing the second container runtime comprises selecting the first runtime build from the repository based on the identifier. “
However, Strode disclose [col 5 lines 51-56] “the container image may be obtained (e.g., retrieved) from a repository for storing container images (e.g., a container registry). The container management component 132 may also configure the container in view of default configurations associated with the container image (e.g., configurations stored on the repository).” [col 6 lines 31-41] “container management component 132 may create a second container corresponding to a second operating…The containers may be created using the same container image. Each of the containers may include an installation of a specific operating system. The containers may thus represent applications of the same source code in various operating systems.” [col 8 lines 61-64] “The container may be created in view of the same container image and may thus represent applications of the same source code in the various operating systems.”
White and Strode are combinable because they are in similar fields. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of White and with the teaching of Strode to build first and second runtime based on source code and then storing into a repository. Motivation to combine would be to improve separating runtime build and storing into a repository.
As per claim 10 White teaches a method of claim 9 detailed below.
White does not explicitly disclose “wherein executing the second auxiliary application comprises
transferring data generated by the second auxiliary application to the first auxiliary application.”
However, Strode does disclose “wherein executing the second auxiliary application comprises
transferring data generated by the second auxiliary application to the first auxiliary application.”
[col 8 lines 6-16] “In some embodiments, the imported container management agent 134 may communicate with the container management component 132 via one or more methods of inter-process communication, such as a pipe that is accessible to both the container management agent 134 and the container management component 132. The pipe may be a sequence of processes chained together by their standard streams, so that the output of each process feeds directly as input to the next process. In some embodiments, the imported container management agent 134 may write to the pipe while the container management component 132 may read from the pipe.”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation Strode does not explicitly state “transferring data” but Strode does introduce a “pipe” which can be consider a transferring data from the second auxiliary application and the first auxiliary application.
White and Strode are combinable because they are in the similar fields. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of White and with the teaching of Strode to a pipe that transfer data from one application to another. Motivation to combine would be able to dedicated and secured pipe what would be transferring data generated by the second auxiliary application to the first auxiliary application.
As per claim 11 White teaches “One or more non-transitory, machine-readable media storing program instructions that, when executed by one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:” [0063] “a computer-usable or computer-readable medium can be any apparatus that can contain, store, communicate, propagate, or transport the program for use by or in connection with the instruction execution system, apparatus, or device. The apparatus may be a transitory or a non-transitory computer-readable medium. For example, the computer-useable or computer-readable medium can be an electronic, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic, infrared, or semiconductor system (or apparatus or device), or a propagation medium.”
“executing a second runtime in a container based on a runtime build identified by the identifier;” and [0042] the secondary application 121 is not yet associated with a secure container at this stage of the activation process, so the corresponding runtime process 122 stores the link key in an obfuscated or masked authentication data 125 in the non-volatile memory associated with the secondary computing device 120; [0047] the runtime process 122 associated with the secondary application 121 generates or derives a secondary container key from the secondary application secret 116 received from the primary application 111 for use in activating a secure container for the secondary application. Once the container key has been generated, the runtime process 122 for the secondary application 121 encrypts application data associated with the secondary application 121 to create a secure container 123);
White does not explicit disclose “obtaining, in a first runtime of a first application executing in the first runtime, a command to execute a second application;
detecting, in metadata associated with the second application, an identifier; and
executing the second application in the second runtime.”
However, Strode does disclose “obtaining, in a first runtime of a first application executing in the first runtime, a command to execute a second application; detecting, in metadata associated with the second application, an identifier; and executing the second application in the second runtime.”
[col 7 lines 25-35] “The container management component 132 may accept user inputs (e.g., commands) concerning containers corresponding to multiple operating systems via the user interface and may then execute the commands. As such, the user interface may enable a user to manage containers across multiple operating systems in the same terminal for execution. As an example, the container management component 132 may provide a CLI for managing the first container. More specifically, for example, the container management component 132 may receive one or more commands concerning the first container” [col 9 lines 2-11] “To switch from the first container to the second container, the switch module 210 may configure the second container in view of one or more configurations of the first container (e.g., by attaching a current working directory related to the first container to the second container…”
[col 11 lines 14-17] “As another example, the container fork module 430 can identify a user identifier associated with the first container and may associate the user identifier with the second container.”
[col 14 lines 19-25] “The second container may also be created in view of the container image in some embodiments. The second container may include an installation of the second operating system. The second operating system may be different than the first operating system. The one or more commands may include, for example, a command for switching to the second operating system and/or the second container.”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the “user interface” which is stated in Strode can be consider the first application.
White and Strode are combinable because they are in similar fields. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary shill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of White and with the teaching of Strode to have a non-transitory media to perform said operation which is cited above in claim 11. Motivation to combine would be to improve runtime based on application/containers with the association of the metadata.
As per claim 12 White teaches one or more non-transitory, machine-readable media of claim 11 detailed above.
White does not explicitly disclose “wherein the first application comprises at least one of an orchestrator component, a ledger component, and a mapping component.”
However, Strode does disclose “orchestrator component” [col 2 line 67 – col lines 1-3] “may enable enhanced container management that can manage containers across multiple operating systems and switch between the containers seamlessly.” [col 5 lines 19-26] “may include a container management component 132 that can manage containers hosted on the computer system 100 (e.g., containers 121, 122, 123). In one implementation, the container management component 132 may be part of the OS 101. In another implementation, the container management component 132 may be implemented as a program that is not part of the OS 101.”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Strode does not explicitly disclose a “orchestrator component” however Strode does disclose a “container management component” which is define as doing the same function as an orchestration component.
White and Strode are combinable because they are in similar fields.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of White and with the teaching of Strode have a first application comprises at least one of an orchestrator component, a ledger component, and a mapping component. Motivation to combine would be to properly manage and coordinate containers based on their runtimes.
As per claim 14 White teaches one or more non-transitory, machine-readable media of claim 11 detailed above.
White does not explicitly disclose “wherein obtaining the command comprises obtaining the command in association with an account indicated to have credentials associated with the command.”
However, Strode disclose “wherein obtaining the command comprises obtaining the command in association with an account indicated to have credentials associated with the command.” [col 6 lines 11 -18] “The container management component 132 may further associate a user identifier of the user and/or one or more SSH keys with the first container… the container management component 132 may further associate a user identifier of the user and/or one or more SSH keys with the first container. In one implementation, the container management component 132 may configure the first container by configuring a file including the home directory, the user identifier, the SSH keys, etc. (e.g., setting up entries in a /etc/passwd file that correspond to the home directory, the user identifier, the SSH keys, etc.).”
White and Strode are combinable because they are in similar fields. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary shill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of White and with the teaching of Strode to obtain the command that’s is associated with an account to indicate the command associated with the credentials. Motivation to combine would be to have secure access to said credentials that is associated with said commands.
As per claim 16 White teaches one or more non-transitory, machine-readable media of claim 11 detailed above.
White does not explicitly disclose “establishing an interoperability layer connecting the first runtime to the second runtime; and passing values from the second runtime to the first runtime via the interoperability layer.”
However, Strode does disclose “establishing an interoperability layer connecting the first runtime to the second runtime; and passing values from the second runtime to the first runtime via the interoperability layer.” [col 8 6-16] “In some embodiments, the imported container management agent 134 may communicate with the container management component 132 via one or more methods of inter-process communication, such as a pipe that is accessible to both the container management agent 134 and the container management component 132. The pipe may be a sequence of processes chained together by their standard streams, so that the output of each process feeds directly as input to the next process. In some embodiments, the imported container management agent 134 may write to the pipe while the container management component 132 may read from the pipe.”
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation Strode does not explicitly state “interoperability layer” but Strode does introduce a “inter process communication” which can be consider a layers in the connection on the first and second runtime.
White and Strode are combinable because they are in similar fields. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary shill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of White and with the teaching of Strode to establish an interoperability layer connecting the first and second times to pass values through the interoperability layers. Motivation to combine would be able to establish a proper interoperability process to connection the first and second runtime values.
13. Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over White et al (US 20160173281 A1), in view Zellermayer et al (US PGPub 20160378517 A1)
As per claim 5 White teaches a method of claim 2 detailed above.
White does not disclose “obtaining an anticipated computing resource cost associated with a second auxiliary application; and executing the second container runtime in response to a result indicating that a computing resource threshold is not exceeded based on the anticipated computing resource cost.”
However, Zellermayer does disclose “obtaining an anticipated computing resource cost associated with a second auxiliary application; and executing the second container runtime in response to a result indicating that a computing resource threshold is not exceeded based on the anticipated computing resource cost.” [0071] “Furthermore, the resource cost may be determined separately for each of the containers 214 (e.g., where the resource cost is expected to very significantly for different containers (e.g., a virus scan of stored files will take longer and consume more resources on a first container that has more files than a second container)) and a separate resource cost may be analyzed by the example threshold analyzer 304 when determining if a monitoring operation will be performed in each of the containers 214 (e.g., resource cost may be utilized by the threshold analyzer 304 when determining if the monitoring operation is to be performed on a first one of the containers 214 and a second resource cost may be utilized by the threshold analyzer 304 when determined if the monitoring operation is to be performed on a second one of the containers 214).”
White and Zellermayer are combinable because they are in similar fields.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary shill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of White and with the teaching of Zellermayer to anticipate the computing resource associate with the second auxiliary application to not exceed the threshold. Motivation to combine would be to reduce cost of computing device.
14. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over White et al (US 20160173281 A1, in view of Santos et al. (US 20110047536 A1), in view of Strode et al. (US 11586455 B2).
As per claim 8 White teaches a method in claim 7 detailed above.
White does not explicitly disclose “further comprising deploying the first runtime build to be accessible to a user account without deploying the second runtime build to the user account.”
However, Santos does disclose a deploying runtime [0015] “The activation shim carries out a set of policies to determine which runtime to activate for a particular application or module within a process…. applications designed without consideration of side-by-side runtimes can be migrated (with or without recompiling) to new versions of the runtime without any special consideration of side-by-side runtimes,
[0025] the runtime selection component 150 selects a runtime to activate in response to a runtime activation request based on policy and other information.…. may select a runtime based on factors such as policy stored in the policy store 120 and accessed through the configuration loading component 140, configuration information associated with an executable hosting”
White and Santos are combinable they are in similar fields.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary shill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of White and with the teaching of Santos to active/deploy a runtime based on the associated/policy of the runtime. Motivation to combine would be access to an active runtime.
White in view of Santos does explicitly disclose “a user account”
However, Strode does disclose user account [col 6 line 11] “The container management component 132 may further associate a user identifier of the user and/or one or more SSH keys with the first container”
White and Strode are combinable because they are in similar fields.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of White and with the teaching of Strode and Santos, to deploy a runtime build what would be accessible to a user account in with the selection of the policy store it can then deploy one account without deploying the second runtime to a second account. Motivation to combine would be to have a strict and well develop access to a user account deploy a specific runtime to said account.
15. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over White et al (US 20160173281 A1), in view of Strode et al (US 11586455 B2), in view Schejter et al. (US PGPub 20130263139 A1)
As per claim 9 White teaches a method in claim 2 detailed above.
White does not explicitly disclose “wherein the command is a first command, wherein the auxiliary application is a first auxiliary application, further comprising: obtaining, in the first container runtime, a second command to execute a second auxiliary application; executing the second auxiliary application in a third container runtime.”
However, Strode does disclose “wherein the command is a first command, wherein the auxiliary application is a first auxiliary application, further comprising: obtaining, in the first container runtime, a second command to execute a second auxiliary application” [ col 9 lines 24-30] “Specifically, executing 304 the instructions on the processor causes the primary device 202 to execute 306 the application 212 on a processor of the primary device 202. Executing the instructions also causes the primary device 202 to partition 308 the application 212 into a primary application portion 214 and an auxiliary application portion 216.” [col 9 lines 30- 38] “Executing the instructions also causes the primary device 202 to present 310 the primary application portion 214 within a primary computing environment 204 of the primary device 202. Executing the instructions also causes the primary device 202 to insert 312 the auxiliary application portion 216 into an auxiliary computing environment 208 that is adapted from the primary computing environment 204 according to a device property 210 of the auxiliary device”
White and Strode are combinable because they are in similar fields.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of White and with the teaching of Strode to have the first auxiliary application that is associated with the auxiliary application to obtain the first container runtime and a second command to execute auxiliary application. Motivation to combine would be to have a separate container that would contain the first runtime and having a command that would properly deploy a second auxiliary application.
White in view of Strode does not explicitly disclose “executing the second auxiliary application in a third container runtime.”
However, Schejter does disclose a third container [0046] “…. For example, the example processes 300 can proceed to identify a third portion of the application code associated with the identified logic, determining, based on the policy or the characteristic associated with the application code, a third runtime container to execute the third portion of the application code, and dispatching a request and the identified logic to the third runtime container for executing the third portion of the application code.”
White and Schejter are combinable because they are in similar fields.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of White and with the teaching Schejter to the second auxiliary application to run in third container. Motivation to combine would be have to improve the performance of the second auxiliary application with the third container.
16. Claims 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over White et al (US 20160173281 A1), in view Schejter et al. (US PGPub 20130263139 A1).
As per claim 13 White teaches one or more non-transitory, machine-readable media of claim 11 detailed above.
White does not explicitly disclose “wherein the container is a first container, further comprising executing a third runtime in a second container based on the runtime build.
However, Schejter does [0046] “as a first runtime container and a second runtime container each executing at least a portion of the application code, the application code can include any number of portions executed by any number of runtime containers based on the various implementations described in the present disclosure. For example, the example processes 300 can proceed to identify a third portion of the application code associated with the identified logic, determining, based on the policy or the characteristic associated with the application code, a third runtime container to execute the third portion of the application code, and dispatching a request and the identified logic to the third runtime container for executing the third portion of the application code.”
White and Schejter are combinable because they are in the same field.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of White and with the teaching of Schejter to execute a third runtime in a second container based on runtime. Motivation to combine would be to have dedicated container to run the third runtime.
As per claim 17 White teaches one or more non-transitory, machine-readable media of claim 11 detailed above.
White does not explicitly disclose “detecting, in metadata associated with the third application, an identifier of a second runtime build; executing a third runtime based on the runtime build; and
executing the third application in the third runtime.”
However, Schejter does disclose “detecting, in metadata associated with the third application, an identifier of a second runtime build; executing a third runtime based on the runtime build; and executing the third application in the third runtime.” [0046] “Although described in the example process 300 as a first runtime container and a second runtime container each executing at least a portion of the application code, the application code can include any number of portions executed by any number of runtime containers based on the various implementations described in the present disclosure. For example, the example processes 300 can proceed to identify a third portion of the application code associated with the identified logic, determining, based on the policy or the characteristic associated with the application code, a third runtime container to execute the third portion of the application code, and dispatching a request and the identified logic to the third runtime container for executing the third portion of the application code.”
White and Schejter are combinable because they are in similar fields.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed inventions to modify the teaching of White and Schejter the use of a third application regarding the third runtime. Motivation to combine would be to properly detect the metadata associated the with third application and its identifier in the second containers to then execute a third application based on the runtime build.
17. Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over White et al (US 20160173281 A1), in view Krause (US PGPub 20130061212 A1)
As per claim 18 White teaches one or more non-transitory, machine-readable media of claim 11 detailed above.
White does not explicitly disclose “encoding the runtime build based on a set of language bindings compatible with the first application.”
However, Krause does a language binding that is compatible with the first application [0020] “The runtime platforms 112 are configured to provide respective execution environments for corresponding applications. In other words, runtime platforms 112 are configured to support the execution of programs written in a compatible computer language. Runtime platforms 112 provide a common set of features, routines, and functions for compatible applications thereby offloading coding of common tasks from application development.”
White and Krause are combinable because they are in similar fields. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary shill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of White and with the teaching of Krause to encode runtime build based on language binding that is compatible with the first application. Motivation to combine would be to have an application that is more sufficient to the language binding.
18. Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over White et al (US 20160173281 A1in view of Sweet et al. (US 20180309747 A1)), in view of Santos et al. (US 20110047536 A1).
As per claim 19 White teaches one or more non-transitory, machine-readable media of claim 11 detailed above.
White does not explicitly disclose “the metadata of the second application indicates multiple runtime builds; the runtime build is a selected runtime build; and the operations further comprise determining, as the selected runtime build, a most recent runtime build or a most recent stable runtime build of the multiple runtime builds.”
However, Santos disclose “selected runtime build” [0025] the runtime selection component 150 selects a runtime to activate in response to a runtime activation request based on policy and other information.…. may select a runtime based on factors such as policy stored in the policy store 120 and accessed through the configuration loading component 140, configuration information associated with an executable hosting”
White and Santos are combinable because they are in similar fields.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of White and with the teaching of Santos to select a runtime builds based on the many runtime builds that are within the second application. Motivation to combine would be to properly a runtime build with the second application.
White in view of Santos does not explicitly disclose “…a most recent runtime build or a most recent stable runtime build of the multiple runtime builds.”
However, Sweet does disclose “operations further comprise determining, as the selected runtime build, a most recent runtime build or a most recent stable runtime build of the multiple runtime builds. “[0198] “…a use status of the container image 374 that describes if this container image 374 is the most recent version of the container image 374.….”
White and Sweet are combinable because they are in similar fields.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of White and with the teaching of Sweet to determine the most recent runtime. Motivation to combine would be to properly indicating the latest build on the selected runtime.
19. Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over White et al (US 20160173281 A1), in view of Ngo et al. (US 20060136513 A1), in view of Kang (US 20210373882 A1).
As per claim 20 White teaches one or more non-transitory, machine-readable media of claim 11 detailed above.
White does not explicitly disclose “retrieving a first record history to obtain a second version of the first record history, wherein the first record history is managed by operations occurring in the first runtime; generating a second record history by updating the second version of the first record history to indicate a first event associated with a first timepoint, wherein the first timepoint is not a most recent timepoint of the first record history; and updating the first record history based on the second record history.”
However, Ngo does disclose “retrieving a first record history to obtain a second version of the first record history, wherein the first record history is managed by operations occurring in the first runtime; “[0020] “Specifically, the client maintains a record of the document files that are in storage on the host. This may include all storage media…. Each time such an event occurs...” [0028] “In order to uniquely identify each version, a version identifier (VID) is attached by the client on a host to each version that is created at the host. The version identifier is a globally unique identifier…...”
White and Ngo are combinable because they are in similar fields.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of White and with the teaching of Ngo retrieve first history record of the different version. Motivation to combine would be improving version control while also managing the versions.
White in view of Ngo does not explicitly disclose “generating a second record history by updating the second version of the first record history to indicate a first event associated with a first timepoint, wherein the first timepoint is not a most recent timepoint of the first record history; and updating the first record history based on the second record history.”
However, Kang does disclose a database “0071 “The database 400 stores and manages device types, software versions, update history, etc. for each client device”
White and Kang are combinable because they are similar fields.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the teaching of White and with the teachings of Kang to have a database that can implement the time the action has occurs for the version and every time a new action occurs then the database can create, update and record the new version. Motivation to combine would be improving the speed of tracking and managing version history.
Conclusion
20. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Griffin Leigh et al. (US 20240211287 A1) Method and system for improving a container runtime engine further include rebuilding the container based on the export file and the contextual information by a second container runtime engine, wherein the rebuilt container is configured to be run by the second container runtime engine in a second processor architecture.
Chibon, Pierre-Yves et al (US 20240403068 A1) disclose a filesystem image comprising a filesystem tree, a container runtime, and an on-board container registry including a plurality of container images, the on-board container registry operable to provide a container image to a requesting container runtime. The computing device is booted using the filesystem image.
Yadavali Niranjan et al. (US 20230244520 A1) disclose implementing multiple runtime engines in a single environment to generate a dashboard GUI including multiple dashboard components.
Chen Huamin et al. (US 20170249351 A1) disclose a method further, in response to determining that a portion of the unique label matches a predefined value, invoking a catalog container based on a rule within a first rule database. The method further includes, with the catalog container, obtaining metadata stored on the removable data volume, the metadata including characteristics of a first application associated with a first piece of data that is stored on the removable data volume.
Douglas Stuart et al (US 20210132959 A1) disclose a compiler is configured to initialize at least one class for an application at compilation time, start a framework at compilation time, and serialize a framework container of the framework into a native image at compilation time.
Morris, Robert P. (US 20100125567 A1) disclose managing metadata associated with a resource includes and comprises executable instructions for accessing a network resource, and identifying metadata associated with the resource in response to accessing the resource.
Alsina, Thomas et al. (US 10979331 B2) discloses information about the first media item to be played in the initial startup messages to reduce the number of roundtrips needed between client and server devices to present the first media item.
SINGHAL; Prachi et al. (US 20220229687 A1) discloses a methods includes deploying a second control plane virtual machine that is configured to manage containers of a cluster of virtual execution environments using the second container runtime; obtaining, for each container executing workloads hosted by a respective virtual execution environment, a respective container image representing a current state of the container.
Weiss; Andrew D. et al. (US 7945589 B1) disclose a business intelligence system that includes a metadata repository in which metadata indicative of the report definition is stored, a client having a browser for communication with the business intelligence server and for rendering of the authoring user interface, and a change management server configured for communication with the business intelligence server to manage the development of the report definition via the authoring user interface.
Chawla, Prabhjeet Singh (US 20240095111 A1) disclose a systems and methods for determining an upgrade to an application as a cause of a failure in a session. A device may detect a failure in a session via which a client is accessing a first version of an application.
Xue, Xiaohui (US 20200026527 A1) disclose a system reception of a first request from a client application to create an application runtime associated with a tenant of the client application, creation, in response to the first request, of metadata describing configuration information of the application runtime.
21. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHMEED ACHILLE whose telephone number is (571)272-9437. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am -4pm.
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, PIERRE VITAL can be reached at (571)272-4215. 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.
/A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 2198
/PIERRE VITAL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Prosecution Insights