DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11, and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 1-4, 14, 62, 64, 66 and 68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhat et al (US 2016/0054983) (hereinafter Bhat) in view of Kanvar et al (US 2023/0409417 ) (hereinafter Kanvar).
As per claim 1, Bhat teaches:
A system comprising:
a worker component executing in the cluster and coupled to the library component, wherein the worker component comprises a tester and a mocker (Bhat, [0033]—under BRI, a tester and a mocker can be the test generator 501 and simulation monitor 505) , wherein the tester is configured to execute a test to test operation of the microservice (Bhat, [0033] ) and the mocker is configured to execute a mock to mimic endpoints of the microservice in the cluster during the test (Bhat, [0033]—under BRI, execute a mock to mimic endpoints of the microservice can be execute some process to receive and send results to simulation monitor);
Bhat does no expressly teach:
a library component executing on a client computer and comprising a deployer configured to deploy in a cluster at least one microservice of an application; and
wherein the endpoints include endpoints of a dependent microservice.
However, Kanvar discloses:
a library component executing on a client computer and comprising a deployer configured to deploy in a cluster at least one microservice of an application (Kanvar, Fig 3, Server Microservice 306—under BRI, a deployer can be the service that deploys the microservice] and
wherein the endpoints include endpoints of a dependent microservice (Kanvar, Fig 3, Client Microservice 304—under BRI, endpoints of a dependent microservice can be the interface of client microservice).
Both Kanvar and Bhat pertain to the art of SW testing.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Kanvar’s method to deploy microservices because it is well-known in the art that microservices offers advantages including precise scalability, superior fault isolation, and the flexibility to use diverse technology stacks—ultimately accelerating deployment cycles and improving overall team agility.
As per claim 2, Bhat/Kanvar teaches:
The system of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1), wherein the at least one microservice includes a plurality of microservices (Kanvar, Fig 3).
As per claim 3, Bhat/Kanvar teaches:
The system of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1), wherein the at least one microservice includes sets of microservices (Kanvar, Fig 3 328, 330).
As per claim 4, Bhat/Kanvar teaches:
The system of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1), wherein the dependent microservice includes at least one of an internal dependent microservice and an external dependent microservice (Kanvar, Fig 3 304 330 ).
As per claim 14, Bhat/Kanvar teaches:
The system of claim 1 (See rejection on claim 1), wherein the mock is configured to execute in-cluster during the test to create mock endpoint services of endpoints of the at least one microservice, wherein external dependencies are precluded during the test (Bhat, [0030]).
As per claim 62, Bhat/Kanvar teaches:
The method of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1), wherein the test includes at least one of a functional integration test, a performance test, and a load test (Kanvar, [0005]—under BRI, performance tests can be functional verification tests).
As per claim 64, Bhat/Kanvar teaches:
The system of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1), wherein the test is configured to validate responses received from the at least one microservice (Bhat, [0005]).
As per claim 66, Bhat/Kanvar teaches:
The system of claim 1 (See rejection on claim 1), wherein the test is configured to collect results and generate a report based on the results of the test (Bhat, [0005]).
As per claim 68, see rejection on claim 1.
Claims 5-9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhat/Kanvar as applied above, and further in view of Knauerhase et al (US 2005/0198303) (hereinafter Knauerhase).
As per claim 5, Bhat/Kanvar teaches:
The system of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1).
Bhat/Kanvar does not expressly teach:
wherein the deployer is configured to generate a target description file comprising configuration parameters for defining and controlling deployment and configuration of the at least one microservice.
However, Knauerhase discloses:
wherein the deployer is configured to generate a target description file comprising configuration parameters for defining and controlling deployment and configuration of the at least one microservice (Knauerhase, [0048]—under BRI, configuration parameters can be list of available services ).
Both Knauerhase and Bhat/Kanvar pertain to the art of SW deployment.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Knauerhase’s method to deploy microservices because it is well-known in the art that microservices offers advantages including precise scalability, superior fault isolation, and the flexibility to use diverse technology stacks—ultimately accelerating deployment cycles and improving overall team agility.
As per claim 6, Bhat/Kanvar/Knauerhase teaches:
The method of claim 5 (See rejection on claim 5), wherein the deployer is configured to receive data of the target description file from a user (Knauerhase, Fig 5A 503).
As per claim 7, Bhat/Kanvar/Knauerhase teaches:
The system of claim 5 (see rejection on claim 5), wherein the target description file includes customized parameters customized in accordance with deployment requirements (Knauerhase, Fig 5A 503).
As per claim 8, Bhat/Kanvar/Knauerhase teaches:
The system of claim 7 (see rejection on claim 7), wherein the target description file includes a namespace parameter defining a target cluster namespace (Knauerhase, [0049]—under BRI, a namespace parameter can be a request to provide the fastest response).
As per claim 9, Bhat/Kanvar/Knauerhase teaches:
The system of claim 7 (see rejection on claim 7), wherein the target description file includes a containers section comprising deployment settings (Knauerhase, [0049]—under BRI, deployment settings can be setting that require the fastest response).
As per claim 13, Bhat/Kanvar/Knauerhase teaches:
The system of claim 5 (see rejection on claim 5), wherein the deployer is configured to use data of the target description file to automatically at least one of create, update and manage resources to deploy the microservice to a target cluster namespace (Knauerhase, Fig 5D, 545).
Claims 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhat/Kanvar/Knauerhase as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Rabasco et al (US 2019/0163609) (hereinafter Rabasco) .
As per claim 10, Bhat/Kanvar/Knauerhase teaches:
The system of claim 9 (See rejection on claim 9).
Bhat/Kanvar/Knauerhase does not expressly teach:
wherein the containers section includes a debug section comprising parameters configured to debug while executing the at least one microservice by immediately implementing in real-time any code changes to overcome a test failure, wherein redeployments are precluded.
However, Rabasco discloses:
wherein the containers section includes a debug section comprising parameters configured to debug while executing the at least one microservice by immediately implementing in real-time any code changes to overcome a test failure, wherein redeployments are precluded (Rabasco, [0013]).
Both Rabasco and Bhat/Kanvar/Knauerhase pertain to the art of SW development.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Rabasco’s method to dynamically change code to fix errors because it is well-known in the art that updating code "on the fly" allows developers to push changes to live production environments without restarting or taking the system offline, thus eliminating down times.
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhat/Kanvar as applied to claim 1above, and further in view of Li et al (US 2018/0129592) (hereinafter Li).
As per claim 15, Bhat/Kanvar teaches:
The system of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1).
Bhat/Kanvar does not expressly teach:
wherein the mock is configured to mimic at least one of external dependencies and internal dependencies.
However, Li teaches:
wherein the mock is configured to mimic at least one of external dependencies and internal dependencies (Li, claim 3).
Both Li and Bhat/Kanvar pertain to the art of SW deployment.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Li’s method to mimic dependencies because it is well-known in the art that mimicking code dependencies—often implemented via design patterns like Dependency Injection, Mocking, or Adapters (e.g., Anti-Corruption Layers)—decouples application logic from concrete implementations. This practice limits system complexity and prevents third-party software from taking over the codebase.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhat/Kanvar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al (US 2023/0342119 ) (hereinafter Zhang).
As per claim 16, Bhat/Kanvar teaches:
The system of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1).
Bhat/Kanvar does not expressly teach:
wherein the mock is configured to mock a plurality of endpoint types .
However, Zhang discloses:
wherein the mock is configured to mock a plurality of endpoint types (Zhang, Abstract).
Both Zhang and Bhat/Kanvar pertain to the art of SW deployment.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Zhang’s method to mock different endpoints because it is well-known in the art that mocking endpoints in software testing isolates the application from real external services, databases, or third-party APIs. This approach provides a controlled testing environment, leading to faster test execution, cost savings, and the ability to simulate complex edge cases (like network timeouts or errors) without relying on a live environment.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhat/Kanvar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of MCGRATH et al (US 2023/0168871) (hereinafter MCGRATH).
As per claim 17, Bhat/Kanvar teaches:
The system of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1).
Bhat/Kanvar does not expressly teach:
wherein the mock is configured to automatically create mock configurations from API files corresponding to the endpoints.
However, MCGRATH discloses:
wherein the mock is configured to automatically create mock configurations from API files corresponding to the endpoints (MCGRATH, [0031]).
Both MCGRATH and Bhat/Kanvar pertain to the art of SW deployment.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use MCGRATH’s method to create mock configurations because it is well-known in the art that configuring mock endpoints in software testing isolates the application from volatile dependencies, allowing developers and QA teams to test edge cases, simulate network latency, and run tests in parallel, thus improving project throughput.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhat/Kanvar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Deza et al (US 2022/0365867) (hereinafter Deza) .
As per claim 18, Bhat/Kanvar teaches:
The system of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1).
Bhat/Kanvar does not expressly teach:
wherein the mock is configured to include gRPC mocking.
However, Deza discloses:
wherein the mock is configured to include gRPC mocking (Deza, [0094]).
Both Deza and Bhat/Kanvar pertain to the art of SW testing.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Deza’s method to perform gRPC mocking because it is well-known in the art that gRPC mocking isolates microservices during testing by simulating external gRPC dependencies. This approach speeds up development and improves software quality.
Claims 61 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhat/Kanvar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kwan et al (US 11748686) (hereinafter Kwan).
As per claim 61, Bhat/Kanvar teaches:
The system of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1).
Bhat/Kanvar does not expressly teach:
wherein the test is configured to specify API requests of the endpoints, wherein the API requests are at least one of statically and dynamically generated via a script.
However, Kwan discloses:
wherein the test is configured to specify API requests of the endpoints, wherein the API requests are at least one of statically and dynamically generated via a script (Kwan, col 9, ll 52-55).
Both Kwan and Bhat/Kanvar pertain to the art of SW testing.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Kwan’s method to generate API requests because it is well-known in the art that sending API requests allows different software programs to seamlessly communicate, share data, and trigger automated tasks. This eliminates the need to build complex software features from scratch. It acts as a standardized translation bridge between independent systems.
Claims 63 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bhat/Kanvar as applied to claim 63 above, and further in view of Kohl .et al (US 2023/0259574) (hereinafter Kohl).
As per claim 63, Bhat/Kanvar teaches:
The system of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1).
Bhat/Kanvar does not expressly teach:
wherein the test is configured to override mock configurations.
However, Kohl discloses:
wherein the test is configured to override mock configurations (Kohl, [0033]).
Both Kohl and Bhat/Kanvar pertain to the art of SW testing.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Kohl’s method to overwrite mock configurations because it is well-known in the art that overwriting mock configurations allows developers to test multiple edge cases in isolation without altering production data. It avoids the need to maintain dozens of hardcoded config files, ensures tests remain clean and flexible, and allows the exact same code to behave differently depending on the specific testing scenario.
Claims 65 and 67 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over , Bhat/Kanvar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of USC (Cadence Virtuoso Tutorial, USC 2015) (hereinafter USC).
As per claim 65, Bhat/Kanvar teaches:
The system of claim 1 (see rejection on claim 1).
Bhat/Kanvar does not expressly teach:
wherein the test is configured to chain request and response values throughout a life of the test.
However, USC discloses:
wherein the test is configured to chain request and response values throughout a life of the test (USC, 4 Run Spectre simulation, C. Model Libraries, G. Run simulation).
Both USC and Bhat/Kanvar pertain to the art of testing.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use USC’s method to append request and response values throughout a life of the test because it is well-known in the art that by logging exactly what was sent and received, QA teams can verify system functionality, catch performance bottlenecks, and ensure the backend processes inputs accurately.
As per claim 67, Bhat/Kanvar teaches:
The system of claim 1 (See rejection on claim 1).
Bhat/Kanvar does not expressly teach:
comprising a dashboard configured for use in managing and controlling the library component and the worker component, and to receive status and results of the test.
However, USC discloses:
comprising a dashboard configured for use in managing and controlling the library component and the worker component, and to receive status and results of the test (USC, 4 Run Spectre simulation, C. Model Libraries, G. Run simulation).
Both USC and Bhat/Kanvar pertain to the art of testing.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use USC’s method to use a dashboard because it is well-known in the art that a dashboard provides a centralized, visual interface to monitor the execution, coverage, and health of automated or manual tests. It offers immediate insights into pass/fail rates, execution bottlenecks, and defect trends, allowing teams to quickly evaluate build stability and make informed release decisions.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2019/0251219 teaches a method of using a SW verification bench.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLIE SUN whose telephone number is (571)270-5100. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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.
/CHARLIE SUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Prosecution Insights