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 .
This is in response to Request for Continued Examination (RCE) filed 04/02/2026
Claims 1 – 20 have been amended and are pending.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Emeis et al. US 20180088925 A1 in view of Johnson et al. US 20170187785 A1.
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 16, Emeis discloses a system/computer-implemented method/ computer program product, said system comprising:
a memory; and a processor in communication with said memory, said processor being configured to perform operations, said operations comprising: determining an application programming interface version dependency between a first microservice and a second microservice, wherein said first microservice and said second microservice are in a set of dependent microservices [0046 – 0047, see version manager and microservices, shows a plurality of microservices and in 0052, shows dependencies required to run a software package]; and wherein said first microservice and said second microservice are deployed [0021, shows deployment as well as packaging Each microservice];
detecting an incompatible application programming interface version in said set of dependent microservices [0046 – 0047, shows compatibility and also if not compatible and outdated];
requesting, automatically, a version change for said incompatible application programming interface version; and implementing said version change [0045 – 0047, see manage changes, version manager and version control and revisions].
Emeis doesn’t expressly disclose wherein, deploying, automatically, an updated microservice in said set of dependent microservices, wherein said updated microservice has a compatible application programming interface version, and wherein said updated microservice is distinct from said first microservice and said second microservice.
However, Johnson discloses in [0050] replacing and deploying a backend system have a microservice leaving compatible application interface unchanged and allowing for new functionality and flexible modification of microservice by replacing or updated backend systems and also in 0061 discloses when deployed with other microservices, the deployment API 610 may define the dependencies of the application upon which it may interact.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before filing the invention to combine Emeis and Johnson because it would enable flexible modification of microservice, as Taught by Johnson.
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 17, the system of claim 1, wherein said version change is selected from the group consisting of an upgrade or a downgrade [0046 – 047, see manage updates also see new versions, regarding “upgrade or downgrade”].
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 18, The system of claim 1, further comprising: deploying an updated microservice in said set of dependent microservices [0046, see deployment].
Regarding claims 4 and 11, the system of claim 1, wherein said version change is implemented automatically [0046 – 0047, see “…Version manger 233 may facilitate updating the software application, when appropriate with new versions…”, i.e., automatic].
Regarding claims 5 and 12, the system of claim 1, wherein said version change is implemented upon approval of an administrator [0045, see software developer and manage changes].
Regarding claims 6, 13 and 19, the system of claim 1, further comprising: delaying a microservice starting until said version change is complete [0075, see microservice application with handles maintenance of software as well as perform complete updates at any given time and rolling back buggy updates].
Regarding claims 7, 14 and 20, the system of claim 1, further comprising: reporting said incompatible application programming interface version to a user [FIG.7, shows obtaining and displaying different results].
Regarding claim 15, the method of claim 8, further comprising: retrieving a version for said version change from a repository [FIG.7 and all associated text, et seq. also see 0046 retrieve software image].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s)1 – 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Chuck Kendall whose telephone number is 571-272-3698. The examiner can normally be reached on 10:00 am - 6:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hyung Sough can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only.
For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/CHUCK O KENDALL/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights