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 .
1. Claims 1 – 20 are currently pending in this application.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10-14, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komu et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2024/0195779 A1), hereinafter komu, in view of Gangil et al. (Patent No. US 10,432,466 B2), hereinafter Gangil.
2. With respect to claims 1, 13, and 20, Komu taught a method comprising: identifying, by an edge device manager, a container on a container network (0008, where the master orchestrator is the edge manager); determining, by the edge device manager, an internet protocol address for the container (0073, the address candidate); transmitting, by the edge device manager, an identifier of the container to an edge device orchestrator (0008 & figure 2, where the M-ORC is the master orchestrator and it transmit the identifier to the E-ORC, which then addresses the INIT-C); receiving, by the edge device manager, a network address translation address assigned by the edge device orchestrator for the container (0031); and managing, by the edge device manager using the identifier, the container on the container network according to the NAT address assigned by the edge device orchestrator (0031).
However, Komu did not explicitly state that the management included changes to the IP address for the container. On the other hand, Gangil did teach that the management included changes to the IP address for the container (4:51-59, where the IP address is party of the nodes information to be updated in accordance with 6:58-65). Both of the systems of Komu and Gangil are directed towards Kubernetes networks and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Komu, to utilize managing an IP address (specifically), as taught by Gangil, in order to maintain the network as being up to date.
3. As for claims 2 and 14, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 13 (respectively). In addition, Komu taught wherein the container comprises at least one of a docker container or a Kubernetes pod (0011, where this, at least, teaches the Kubernetes limitation).
4. As for claim 3, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Gangil taught identifying, by the edge device manager, a change of the IP address for the container; and updating, by the edge device manager, a data entry to associate the change of the IP address for the container with the NAT address assigned by the edge device orchestrator (4:51-59, where the IP address is party of the nodes information to be updated in accordance with 6:58-65).
5. As for claim 4, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 3. In addition, Komu taught transmitting, by the edge device manager, data corresponding to the change to the edge device orchestrator (0031).
6. As for claim 5, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Komu taught wherein the IP address is used for communication via the container network (0009), and wherein the NAT address is used for communication via an overlay network (0025, where the different Kubernetes communicate via the overlay network).
7. As for claim 6, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 1. In addition, Gangil taught polling, by the edge device manager, the container network for new devices, wherein identifying the container is responsive to the polling (7:55-62).
8. As for claims 10 and 19, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 13 (respectively). In addition, Komu taught receiving, by the edge device manager, from a container engine associated with the container, the identifier configured by the container engine for the container (0008 & 0031).
9. As for claim 11, it is rejected on the same basis as claim 10. In addition, Komu taught wherein the container engine configures the identifier based on one or more attributes comprising a name, an identifier, an image, version tag, label, or media access control address (0008, where, at least, the IP address teaches the identifier limitation).
10. As for claims 12 and 18, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 13 (respectively). In addition, Komu taught wherein transmitting the identifier of the container to the edge device orchestrator comprises reporting, by the edge device manager, the identifier of the container to the edge device orchestrator as a discovered device (0004).
Claim(s) 7-9 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komu, in view of Gangil, and in further view of Melsen (Patent No. US 8,165,156 B1).
11. As for claims 7 and 15, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 1 and 13 (respectively). However, Komu did not explicitly state receiving, by the edge device manager, a media access control address of an agile device; and serving, by the edge device manager, a dynamic host configuration protocol for the agile device using the MAC address of the agile device, to obtain an IP address for the agile device. On the other hand, Melsen did teach receiving, by the edge device manager, a media access control address of an agile device; and serving, by the edge device manager, a dynamic host configuration protocol for the agile device using the MAC address of the agile device, to obtain an IP address for the agile device (7:3-28, where the client being identified by a MAC address can be seen in 1:19-23). Both of the systems of Komu and Melsen are directed towards network device management and therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the effective filing of the invention, to modify the teachings of Komu, to utilize querying a DHCP for an IP address, as taught by Melsen, as doing so was a standard practice that was contemporary to the time of the invention.
12. As for claims 8 and 16, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 7 and 15 (respectively). In addition, Melsen taught identifying, by the edge device manager, a policy pre-configured for the agile device responsive to receiving the MAC address of the agile device; and applying, by the edge device manager, the policy for the agile device (7:3-28, where the client being identified by a MAC address can be seen in 1:19-23).
13. As for claims 9 and 17, they are rejected on the same basis as claims 7 and 16 (respectively). In addition, Melsen taught wherein the agile device is associated with the container, and wherein the edge device manager identifies the agile device as agile, based on the association with the container and a corresponding port group (7:3-28, where the client being identified by a MAC address can be seen in 1:19-23).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
(a) Berlovitch (Patent No. US 6,061,334), 9:38-47.
(b) Kommula et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2026/0058900 A1), 0052-0053.
(c) Siddiqui et al. (Pre-Grant Publication No. US 2024/0113941 A1), 0060, 0100.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH L GREENE whose telephone number is (571)270-3730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 10:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Nicholas R. Taylor can be reached at 571 272-3889. 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.
/JOSEPH L GREENE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
Prosecution Insights