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 .
The following is a Final Office action in response to applicant's amendment and response received 10/31/2025, responding to the non-final office action provided in rejection of claims 1-20.
Claims 1, 15, and 19 have been amended and claim 9 has been cancelled. Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are pending and are addressed in this office action. New grounds of rejection are presented in view of the newly presented limitation(s).
Examiner notes
(A). IDS submitted on 08/25/2023 have been fully considered by the Examiner.
(B). Limitations have been provided with the Bold fonts in order to distinguish from the cited part of the reference (Italic).
(C). Examiner has cited particular columns, line numbers, references, or figures in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses to fully consider the reference in entirety, as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention. See MPEP §§ 2141.02 and 2123.
The examiner requests, in response to this Office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application.
When responding to this office action, Applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections See 37 CFR 1.111 (c).
Response to Amendment and Remarks
With respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues the Office Action asserted that claim 2 falls within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. (See Office Action, at page 4). Applicant respectfully disagrees with the assertion. … As such, if a claim includes one limitation that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, the claim does not fall within the mental process grouping. At least some limitations recited in claim 1 cannot be practically performed in the human mind. … Additionally, the human mind is not equipped for "automatically generating a cluster of nodes based on the request, the cluster of nodes configured to run one or more containerized applications for the runtime environment" as recited in claim 1. Further, as an example, the limitation of reciting "automatically deploying one or more software products into the cluster of nodes" cannot be practically performed in the human mind. As such, claim 1 does not recite a mental process. (Remarks, page 7)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that applicant may intended to mention claim 1 NOT claim 2. Applicant contends, “the human mind is not equipped for "automatically generating a cluster of nodes based on the request, the cluster of nodes configured to run one or more containerized applications for the runtime environment””. Applicant’s spec. par. 0003, states, “Manually creating runtime environments managed by software supply chain systems that are inclusive of backing clusters makes it challenging for developers to engage in destructive testing, for business development personnel to maintain simulated-customer environments, and/or for software supply chain system customers to deploy new environments, as a few examples.” That is any user can manually perform this task. The automatically deploying step is recited at a high level of generality. Further, hardware resource (i.e. processor, memory) that performs the step is also recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the step /process of generating nodes.
With respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101, applicant further contends that applying the rule set forth in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1), claim 1 recites specific improvements to the technical field of cluster configuration and software deployment. For example, claim 1 recites limitations of "automatically generating a cluster of nodes based on the request, the cluster of nodes configured to run one or more containerized applications for the runtime environment; automatically applying a manifest onto the cluster of nodes, the manifest comprising one or more configurations associated with the runtime environment, the manifest comprising one or more resource configurations describing how one or more hardware resources are to run in the cluster; provisioning the one or more hardware resources based on the one or more resource configurations; and automatically deploying one or more software products into the cluster of nodes" (Remarks, page 8)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The features and as well newly added feature of automatically generating a cluster of nodes, automatically applying, automatically deploying and provisioning the hardware resource when consider both individually and as combination does not amount to significantly more since it merely defines conventional or generic computer element for performing conventional or generic computer functions. The identified automated process that is present in a conventional manner and thus the auto process amounts to insignificantly extra-solution activity that does not allude to a practical application or amount to an improvement to a technology or technical field. See MPEP 2106.04(d) and MPEP 2106.05(g). Examiner further, likes to refer a court case obtaining information about transactions using the Internet to verify credit card transactions, CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1694 (Fed. Cir. 2011); The general analysis indicate that maintaining by manually credit card transaction certainly difficult, inconvenient and costly. However, court analyzed differently.
With respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 101, newly amended independent claims 1, 15 and 19 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Applicant offers no other arguments beyond arguing allowability for the reasons cited for the independent claim(s) or dependence upon said claims. These arguments are considered met.
With respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 103, applicant’s arguments are moot in view of new ground rejection proffered infra.
Claim Objections
Claims 15-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
● “the manifest” in line 9 of claim 15 and in line 6 of claim 19 lacks proper antecedent basis.
● Claims 16-18 and 20 depend on the objected claims and inherit the same issue.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1-8 and 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Step 1: Claims 1-8 and 10-14 are directed to computer implemented methods, claims 15-18 are directed to system, and claims 19 and 20 are directed to method and fall within the statutory category of processes. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes. With Step 1 being directed to a statutory category, the 2019 Interim Eligibility Guidance flowchart is directed to Step 2.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, Claim 1: the claim recites multiple limitations that recite an abstract idea. The limitations “automatically generating a cluster of nodes based on the request, the cluster of nodes configured to run one or more containerized applications for the runtime environment, the manifest comprising one or more resource configurations describing how one or more hardware resources are to run in the cluster;” and “automatically applying a manifest onto the cluster of nodes, the manifest comprising one or more configurations associated with the runtime environment, the manifest comprising one or more resource configurations describing how one or more hardware resources are to run in the cluster;” are functions of the automatically deploying step is recited at a high level of generality that can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, thus it is reasonable to identify these limitation as reciting a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements the limitation of “wherein the method is performed using one or more processors.” merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Further, the additional limitations of “receiving a request to create a runtime environment;” , “provisioning the one or more hardware resources based on the one or more resource configurations” and “automatically deploying one or more software products into the cluster of nodes;” are not indicative of integration into a practical application. The additional elements are merely reciting insignificant extra solution activity such as receiving and deploying software product which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Under step 2B, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As stated above, the claimed invention merely recites generic computer system for carrying out or applying the abstract idea. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that mere receiving, deploying such as those defined in the claim, are well-understood, routine, and convention computer functions which cannot serve as an inventive concept according to MPEP 21.06.05(d).
For the above reasons, the claims of this application are not patentable under 35 USC 101.
As to independent claim 15, Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim recites multiple limitations that recite an abstract idea. The limitations “automatically generating a cluster of nodes based on the request, the cluster of nodes configured to run one or more containerized applications for the runtime environment;” and “automatically applying a manifest onto the cluster of nodes, the manifest comprising one or more configurations associated with the runtime environment, the manifest comprising one or more resource configurations describing how one or more hardware resources are to run in the cluster;” are functions that can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, thus it is reasonable to identify these limitation as reciting a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements the limitation of “one or more processors;” and “memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform a set of operations, the set of operations comprising:” merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Further, the additional limitations of “receiving a request to create a runtime environment;” , “provisioning the one or more hardware resources based on the one or more resource configurations” and “automatically deploying one or more software products into the cluster of nodes;” are not indicative of integration into a practical application. The additional elements are merely reciting insignificant extra solution activity such as receiving and deploying software product which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Under step 2B, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As stated above, the claimed invention merely recites generic computer system for carrying out or applying the abstract idea. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that mere receiving, deploying such as those defined in the claim, are well-understood, routine, and convention computer functions which cannot serve as an inventive concept according to MPEP 21.06.05(d).
For the above reasons, the claims of this application are not patentable under 35 USC 101.
As to independent claim 19, Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the claim recites multiple limitations that recite an abstract idea. The limitations “automatically generating a cluster of nodes based on the request, wherein the cluster of nodes are configured to run one or more containerized applications for the runtime environment, the manifest comprising one or more resource configurations describing how one or more hardware resources are to run in the cluster;” and “automatically applying a manifest onto the cluster of nodes, wherein the manifest comprises one or more configurations associated with the runtime environment, the manifest comprising one or more resource configurations describing how one or more hardware resources are to run in the cluster;” are functions that can be reasonably carried out in the human mind with the aid of pen and paper, through observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion, thus it is reasonable to identify these limitation as reciting a mental process.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements the limitation of “wherein the method is performed using one or more processors.” merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Further, the additional limitations of “receiving a request to create a runtime environment;” , “provisioning the one or more hardware resources based on the one or more resource configurations” , “automatically deploying one or more software products into the cluster of nodes;” , “receiving an indication of an upgrade corresponding to at least one of the one or more software products;” , “provisioning the one or more hardware resources based on the one or more resource configurations” and “modifying the runtime environment, based on the indication, to upgrade the at least one of the one or more software products;” are not indicative of integration into a practical application. The additional elements are merely reciting insignificant extra solution activity such as receiving and deploying software product which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(d).
Under step 2B, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As stated above, the claimed invention merely recites generic computer system for carrying out or applying the abstract idea. Furthermore, the courts have recognized that mere receiving, deploying such as those defined in the claim, are well-understood, routine, and convention computer functions which cannot serve as an inventive concept according to MPEP 21.06.05(d).
For the above reasons, the claims of this application are not patentable under 35 USC 101.
As to claims 2, 4-5, 7-8, 11, 16 and 20 are not patent eligible for the same reasons given for claim 1, wherein the “… request includes an indication of an expiration … selected from a group consisting of … request includes a desired number of nodes … include a runtime operator …. provisioned on at least one selected … resource configurations … account or subscription” are expand on the abstract idea in its requesting, including, provisioning and selecting that are used that do not integrate the invention into a practical application of the abstract idea or amount to significantly more merely a generic method for applying the abstract idea, thus fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor an inventive concept.
Claims 3, 6, 10, 12-14 and 17-18 are not patent eligible for the same reasons given for claim 1, wherein the “… automatically destroying the runtime … input being received at … a graphical user-interface (GUI) … receiving an indication of an upgrade … receiving one or more inputs … receiving information about the runtime … deploying a new software product ” are merely a generic computer component for applying the abstract idea, thus fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, nor an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10, 11, 13-15 and 17-20, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah et al. (US 20230244466 A1, hereinafter Shah) in view of McClory et al. (US 20180324204 A1, hereinafter McClory).
As to claim 1, Shah discloses a method to automatically create runtime environments, the method comprising:
receiving a request (i.e., “a cluster creation command”) to create a runtime environment (par. 0013, the deployment orchestrator module is configured to create a cluster of processing nodes responsive to a cluster creation command through the deployment API, wherein the cluster creation command triggers a cluster creation workflow that automatically generates, in the cluster, an environment configuration module. Also see par 0003;
automatically generating a cluster of nodes based on the request (par. 0013, the deployment orchestrator module is configured to create a cluster of processing nodes responsive to a cluster creation command through the deployment API, wherein the cluster creation command triggers a cluster creation workflow that automatically generates, in the cluster, an environment configuration module),
automatically applying a manifest onto the cluster of nodes, the manifest comprising one or more configurations (“configuration data”) associated with the runtime environment (par. 0024, The configuration data 114, like the container images 114, are run through various automated tests to ensure that they function properly and can install the corresponding containers and run without errors … ), the manifest comprising one or more resource configurations describing how one or more hardware resources are to run in the cluster (par. 0038, … The deployment controller 153 can provide an API, such as a representational state transfer (REST) API, for deploying and managing environments within a cluster, and for managing [i.e. run] the cluster. The deployment controller 153 act as an API gateway, and can include a software stack to communicate with the deployment orchestrator 152 and/or a cluster of processing nodes to support various API commands. For example, the deployment controller 153 supports a variety of environment management functions, including creating an environment, managing or configuring an environment, deploying or making an environment accessible to clients, starting and stopping an environment, scaling an environment up or down [e.g., adding or removing allocations of computing resources such as CPUs, memory, storage], etc.)… . Note: CPU/processor, memory are consider hardware resource. Applicant spec pars. 0083, describe “computational resources (e.g., processors, memory, batteries, devices, etc.));
provisioning the one or more hardware resources based on the one or more resource configurations (par. 0047, … the instructions 131 trigger a cluster deployment workflow for that includes several steps, including (1) deploying a cluster 160 of processing nodes, including allocating [i.e. provisioning] appropriate computing resources [i.e. hardware resource] to the cluster 160 and providing status updates for the cluster 160, (2) creating a management namespace 161 and deploying an environment configuration module 162 in the cluster 160, along with an environment monitor 164 … ); and
automatically deploying one or more software products into the cluster of nodes (pars. 0012 and 0022, the deployment tools include one or more automation scripts, and the deployment workflow package is configured to invoke the one or more automation scripts to create the deployment tools, create a cluster of processing nodes, or deploy a server environment in a cluster of processing nodes. … FIG. 1, stage (A) shows the software provider's computer system 110 hosting a repository 111 of objects that can be used to create deployment infrastructure as well as deploy server environments. Par 0034, At this point in the process, ... as well as the software to be run in the server environments being deployed.);
wherein the method is performed using one or more processors (par. 0007,
a method performed by one or more computer… and par 0056, devices, and machines for processing data, including by way of example a programmable processor, a computer, or multiple processors or computers. … ).
Shah does not explicitly disclose the following limitations but,
McClory discloses the cluster of nodes configured to run one or more containerized applications for the runtime environment (McC par. 0042, … each of the one or more container engines 134 may be configured to host and manage the execution of one or more container applications 136 within one or more container instances, where each container instance (not shown) may execute a container application in its own isolated runtime environment … Further, par. 0106, … provide the number of cluster nodes that will be required and the number of container instances that will be hosted by the cluster nodes for the application);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Shah to include the cluster of nodes configured to run one or more containerized applications for the runtime environment as disclosed by McClory, for the purpose to authorize, and access control of their container applications 136 and/or native applications. (see par. 0027 of McClory)
As to claim 2, McClory discloses the method wherein the request includes an indication of an expiration date corresponding to the runtime environment (par. 0117, the credential management component 316-1 may be generally configured to store, distribute, and manage credentials (e.g., user name and password, API access keys, etc.) of users of AADDOMA 162 (e.g., application developers of an organization, DevOps engineers of an organization, managers of an organization, executives of an organization, etc.). In an embodiment, the credential management component 316-1 may also be generally configured to enable credential auditing (e.g., remove inactive users, modify users from groups, etc.) on a periodic basis and enforce one or more expiration and rotation policies of credentials).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Shah to include the method wherein the request includes an indication of an expiration date corresponding to the runtime environment as disclosed by McClory, for the purpose to provide management of user credentials, authentication, authorization, and access control.(see par. 0116 of McClory
As to claim 4, Shah discloses the method wherein the request includes an indication of at least one selected from a group consisting of:
(par. 0006, one or more server environments (e.g., having containers for web server functionality, document library functionality, application server functionality, database server functionality, and so on. Further, see par. 0024).
As to claim 5, Shah discloses the method wherein the request includes a desired number of nodes (“allocate a cluster of processing nodes”), and wherein the cluster of nodes includes a number of nodes corresponding to the desired number of nodes (par. 0003, a software provider can provide a repository that includes software images, configuration data, automation scripts, and other items for a server environment. In addition, the software provider can provide a deployment package having the code or instructions configured such that, when invoked from within the customer's cloud computing account, the deployment package establishes software infrastructure within the account for deploying and managing new server environments. For example, the deployment package and related automation data can be configured to instantiate and run various software modules that can provide a deployment application programming interface (API), allocate a cluster of processing nodes, and respond to external commands to create new server environments. … ).
As to claim 6, Shah discloses the method wherein the request is received from user-input, the user-input being received at a graphical user-interface (GUI) (par. 0046, the administrator 102 uses the computing device 130 to interact with the deployment tools in the cloud computing account 150. The administrator 102 sends instructions 131 that leverage the API provided by the deployment controller 153. These instructions 131 can be sent using direct commands, through scripts or command-line interface, or can be sent as a result of interaction with a graphical user interface [GUI]).
As to claim 7, Shah discloses the method wherein the one or more products include a runtime operator (“software module”) that is configured to perform one or more actions associated with the one or more software products (par. 0021, a deployment package 112 that can be invoked to initiate the deployment process. FIG. 2 shows operations performed when the initial code or script in the deployment package 112 is invoked. For example, invoking the deployment package 112 can trigger the retrieval of various elements from the repository 111 into the cloud account 150, as well as creating and running software modules to manage and create server environments. FIG. 3 shows additional deployment operations that can be performed, triggered by the deployment package 112 … ).
As to claim 8, Shah discloses the method wherein the cluster of nodes is provisioned on at least one selected from a group consisting of:
one or more computing devices and one or more servers (abstract, … cloud computing deployment. In some implementations, a computer system provides a repository comprising (i) deployment tools configured to provide a deployment application programming interface (API), (ii) a set of container files configured to operate together to provide a server environment … ).
As to claim 10, Shah discloses the further comprising:
receiving an indication of an upgrade corresponding to at least one of the one or more software products (par. 0042, … The application can be configured to perform operations on the cluster and/or specific environment (e.g., create, read, update, delete, etc.). The application also can be protected against unauthenticated and unauthorized access. The application can be maintained as future updates and enhancements are deployed, so the application can include an update or upgrade mechanism.); and
modifying the runtime environment, based on the indication, to upgrade the at least one of the one or more software products (par. 0038, …upgrading the software of an environment, initiating backup or restore of environment data, and deleting an environment. The API can also support actions to manage a cluster in cooperation with the deployment orchestrator, such as commands to create a cluster (e.g., with a specified region, instance type, cluster size, and other parameters), or to modify a cluster (e.g., to add or remove processing nodes, to change the instance type, to change auto-scaling settings for adjusting allocation of computing resources, etc.).
As to claim 11, Shah discloses the method wherein the upgrade is based on at least one of an account or subscription (pars. 0008 and 0034, the method includes: identifying a customer account for the customer; and changing permissions for the repository to permit the customer account to access contents of the repository. … the cloud computing account 150 contains all of the software and configuration data needed to create the environment deployment infrastructure (e.g., tools for managing and deploying environments) as well as the software to be run in the server environments being deployed. No further communication with the computing system 110 is needed for setup and deployment, although upgraded versions of the containers and the deployment infrastructure can be made available and downloaded from time to time to update those in the account 150).
As to claim 13, Shah discloses the method further comprising:
receiving information about the runtime environment from a runtime operator (“software module”) (par. 0021, a deployment package 112 that can be invoked to initiate the deployment process. FIG. 2 shows operations performed when the initial code or script in the deployment package 112 is invoked. For example, invoking the deployment package 112 can trigger the retrieval of various elements from the repository 111 into the cloud account 150, as well as creating and running software modules to manage and create server environments. FIG. 3 shows additional deployment operations that can be performed, triggered by the deployment package 112 … ) ;
determining one or more actions to perform based on the received information (par. 0049, The environment configuration module 162 identifies the container images 113 needed to provide the containers of the environment 170a, and the configuration data 114 can include package information as discussed above (e.g., indicating dependencies, default settings, and so on). In some implementations, the dependencies and parameters are specified in a Helm chart or manifest file that specifies the elements and actions needed to deploy the respective containers needed for the environment 170a); and
performing the one or more actions (par. 0038, …upgrading the software of an environment, initiating backup or restore of environment data, and deleting an environment. The API can also support actions to manage a cluster in cooperation with the deployment orchestrator, such as commands to create a cluster (e.g., with a specified region, instance type, cluster size, and other parameters), or to modify a cluster (e.g., to add or remove processing nodes, to change the instance type, to change auto-scaling settings for adjusting allocation of computing resources, etc.).
As to claim 14, Shah discloses the method wherein the one or more actions include at least one selected from a group consisting of:
deploying a new software product into the cluster of nodes, upgrading a version of a software product in the cluster of nodes, (pars. 0034 and 0036, … At this point in the process, the cloud computing account 150 contains all of the software and configuration data needed to create the environment deployment infrastructure (e.g., tools for managing and deploying environments) as well as the software to be run in the server environments being deployed. No further communication with the computing system 110 is needed for setup and deployment, although upgraded versions of the containers and the deployment infrastructure can be made available and downloaded from time to time to update those in the account 150. … the customer's cloud computing account 150 does not merely gain a single instance of an environment, but obtains the deployment infrastructure to create and manage clusters … ).
As to claim 15, Shah-McClory discloses a system to automatically
create runtime environments, the system comprising:
one or more processors (Shah par 0007 and par. 0056 … a programmable processor, a computer, or multiple processors or computers.); and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors,
cause the system to perform a set of operations, the set of operations comprising (Shah par. 0059, one or more processors of any kind of digital computer. Generally, a processor will receive instructions and data from a read only memory … ):
For remaining limitations see remarks regarding claim 1.
As to claim 17, it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claim 13. Thus, claim 17 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 13.
As to claim 18, it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claim 14. Thus, claim 18 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 14.
As to claim 19, Shah-McClory discloses a method to automatically create runtime environments, the method comprising:
receiving a request to create a runtime environment (Shah par. 0013);
automatically generating a cluster of nodes based on the request (Shar par. 0013),
wherein the cluster of nodes are configured to run one or more containerized
applications for the runtime environment (McClory par. 0042), ;
automatically applying a manifest onto the cluster of nodes, wherein the manifest
comprises one or more configurations associated with the runtime environment
(Shah par. 0007), the manifest comprising one or more resource configurations describing how one or more hardware resources are to run in the cluster (par. 0038);
provisioning the one or more hardware resources based on the one or more resource configurations (par. 0047);
automatically deploying one or more software products into the cluster of nodes
(Shah par. 0012 and 0022;
receiving an indication of an upgrade corresponding to at least one of the one or
more software products (McClory par. 0109); and
modifying the runtime environment, based on the indication, to
upgrade the at least one of the one or more software products (Saha par. 0038);
wherein the method is performed using one or more processors (Shah par. 0056).
For motivation, see rejection of claims 1 and 10 supra.
As to claim 20, it is the system claim, having similar limitations of claim 11. Thus, claim 20 is also rejected under the same rationale as cited in the rejection of claim 11.
Claims 3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah et al. and McClory as applied to claims 1 and 15 above and further in view of Clune et al. (US 7680752 B1, hereinafter Clune).
As to claim 3, Shah as modified by McClory does not explicitly disclose the following limitation but,
Clune discloses the method further comprising:
automatically destroying the runtime environment, on the expiration date (col. 6, ll. 16-25, there may be many long running processes, at any given time there may be many process instances which are waiting for an event to occur, such as a message to be received or a timer to expire. The longer the processes run, the more processes there will be in such a state. The runtime engine 301 manages when process instances are brought into memory, a process referred to as hydration, and when they are purged from memory and reside solely in the RDBMS, a process called dehydration. The runtime engine 301 performs these tasks automatically).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Shah to include the method wherein the request includes an indication of an expiration date corresponding to the runtime environment as disclosed by Clune, for the purpose to manage runtime engine when process instances are brought into memory. (see col. 6, ll. 21-22 of Clune)
As to claim 16, McClory discloses the system wherein the request includes an indication of an expiration date corresponding to the runtime environment (par. 0117, the credential management component 316-1 may be generally configured to store, distribute, and manage credentials (e.g., user name and password, API access keys, etc.) of users of AADDOMA 162 (e.g., application developers of an organization, DevOps engineers of an organization, managers of an organization, executives of an organization, etc.). In an embodiment, the credential management component 316-1 may also be generally configured to enable credential auditing (e.g., remove inactive users, modify users from groups, etc.) on a periodic basis and enforce one or more expiration and rotation policies of credentials),
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Shah to include the method wherein the request includes an indication of an expiration date corresponding to the runtime environment as disclosed by McClory, for the purpose to provide management of user credentials, authentication, authorization, and access control.(see par. 0116 of McClory)
Clune discloses wherein the set of operations further comprises automatically destroying the runtime environment, on the expiration date (col. 6, ll. 16-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Shah to include the method wherein the request includes an indication of an expiration date corresponding to the runtime environment as disclosed by Clune, for the purpose to manage runtime engine when process instances are brought into memory. (see col. 6, ll. 21-22 of Clune)
Claim 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah et al. and McClory as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Vlaovic (US 20110231440 A1, hereinafter Vlaovic).
As to claim 12, Shah as modified by McClory does not explicitly disclose the following limitation but,
Vlaovic discloses the method further comprising:
receiving one or more inputs corresponding to the runtime environment (par. 0055, Computing System 510 configured for generation of an application runtime specification, according to various embodiments of the invention. Computing System 510 is configured to receive one or more of executable application, e.g., Executable Application 162B, and a set of resources such as Libraries 142A-142I, Kernel 130, and Drivers 122B. As is discussed further herein, Computing System 510 uses these inputs to identify the set of resources required by the executable application); and
generating the manifest based on the one or more inputs (par. 0095, Specifically, in a Receive Application Step 1010, the Executable Application 162B is received by Server 910. This receipt may be in response to an end user requesting use of Executable Application 162B or in response to an administrator requesting execution of Executable Application 162B for the purpose of generating/modifying an application environment specification).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Shah to include receiving one or more inputs corresponding to the runtime environment and generating the manifest based on the one or more inputs, as disclosed by Vlaovic, for the purpose to request to execute the application with use of the application specific runtime environment allows the application to be executed (see abstract of Vlaovic)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD H KABIR whose telephone number is (571)270-1341. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Sam Sough can be reached at 571-272-6799. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Mohammad Kabir/
Examiner, Art Unit 2192
/S. SOUGH/spe, art unit 2192
Prosecution Insights