DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 05/25/26, for application number 18/574,307 has been received and entered into record. Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, 18, and 20 have been amended, Claims 6, 11, 12, 15, 16, and 19 were previously cancelled, Claim 5 has been newly cancelled, and Claims 21-26 are newly added. Therefore, Claims 1-4, 7-10, 13, 14, 17, 18, and 20-26 are presented for examination.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 3, lines 1-3 read, “The replacement system according to claim 1, wherein, in the re-executing of the setting change for the selected second replacement candidate resource setting re-change process, the setting change is repeatedly executed…” However, the Specification as filed appears to support executing a subsequent replacement candidate resource upon failure of the current replacement candidate resource rather than repeatedly executing the selected second replacement candidate resource. For the purposes of examination, the limitation is interpreted to involve iteratively executing additional replacement candidate resources rather than repeated executing the second replacement candidate resource.
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.
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 1-3, 7-10, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bagarolo et al., US 2019/0340059 A1, in view of Bennah et al., 2014/0157058 A1, and further in view of Brace et al., US 2019/0179718 A1.
Regarding Claim 1, Bagarolo discloses a replacement system [Fig. 2], comprising one or more processors, the replacement system causing at least one of the one or more processors to execute:
determining, based on a stability evaluation value indicating a stability of each of a plurality of applications in which processes are dispersedly operating on an operating resource group including a plurality of replacement candidate resources, whether each of the plurality of applications is unstable [program code checking that a fault has occurred in an application, which comprises a plurality of microservices (microservices being equivalent to the application of the instant claim) at step 410; if the program code detects the fault, again, after replacing the version of the source microservice, the program code progressively replaces the additional microservice(s) until the program code no longer detects a faulty microservice (i.e. the process repeats until there is no more faulty code, which involves evaluating stability after each replacement (resetting)), step 480 to step 460 (i.e. checking stability of each application), Fig. 4; par 23];
executing, a setting change of excluding a selected first replacement candidate resource of the plurality of replacement candidate resources from the operating resource group and adding a new resource to the operating resource group [if the program code detects the fault, again, after replacing the version of the source microservice, the program code progressively replaces the additional microservice(s) until the program code no longer detects a faulty microservice (i.e. the process repeats until there is no more faulty code, which involves evaluating stability after each replacement (resetting)), step 480 to step 460, Fig. 4; par 23]; and
again executing the setting change for a selected replacement candidate resource of the plurality of replacement candidate resources when it is determined that at least one of the plurality of applications determined to be unstable is still unstable based on the stability evaluation value after the setting change [if the program code detects the fault, again, after replacing the version of the source microservice, the program code progressively replaces the additional microservice(s) until the program code no longer detects a faulty microservice (i.e. the process repeats until there is no more faulty code, which involves evaluating stability after each replacement (resetting)), step 480 to step 460, Fig. 4; par 23].
However, Bagarolo does not explicitly teach a plurality of replacement candidate resources that are hardware; selecting, based on the plurality of applications determined to be unstable, at least two replacement candidate resources of the plurality of replacement candidate resources as causes of the instability from the plurality of replacement candidate resources; wherein the processes of executing units of the application in a container-type virtualized application execution environment; and wherein the selected at least two replacement candidate resources are common hardware used by the plurality of applications determined to be unstable.
In the analogous art of system stability detection, Bennah teaches a plurality of replacement candidate resources that are hardware; selecting, based on the plurality of applications determined to be unstable, replacement candidate resources of the plurality of replacement candidate resources as causes of the instability from the plurality of replacement candidate resources [a management node using the methods of the present invention can distinguish a stability change that is caused by use of a particular software application from a stability change that is caused by a hardware failure. For example, if a network switch were to fail, all of the systems connected to the network switch will simultaneously lose connectivity. A bad network software update will manifest itself only in those systems that have yet received the bad network software update, par 29]; wherein the processes of executing units of the application in a container-type virtualized application execution environment [analysis of multiple servers or virtual machines allows the method to correlate irregularities (changes in stability) to the use of particular software, such as the progressive installation of a software update across the multiple servers or virtual machines in the data center, par 29]; and wherein the selected replacement candidate resources are common hardware used by the plurality of applications determined to be unstable [a management node using the methods of the present invention can distinguish a stability change that is caused by use of a particular software application from a stability change that is caused by a hardware failure. For example, if a network switch were to fail, all of the systems connected to the network switch will simultaneously lose connectivity. A bad network software update will manifest itself only in those systems that have yet received the bad network software update, par 29].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Bagarolo and Bennah before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the detection of the cause of instability as taught by Bennah, into the system as disclosed by Bagarolo, to assist in the resolution of the problem [Bennah, par 6].
However, the combination of Bagarolo and Bennah do not explicitly teach selecting, based on the plurality of applications determined to be unstable, at least two replacement candidate resources of the plurality of replacement candidate resources as causes of the instability from the plurality of replacement candidate resources; wherein the processes of executing units of the application in a container-type virtualized application execution environment; and wherein the selected at least two replacement candidate resources are common hardware used by the plurality of applications determined to be unstable.
Brace teaches selecting, based on the plurality of applications determined to be unstable, at least two replacement candidate resources of the plurality of replacement candidate resources as causes of the instability from the plurality of replacement candidate resources; wherein the processes of executing units of the application in a container-type virtualized application execution environment; and wherein the selected at least two replacement candidate resources are common hardware used by the plurality of applications determined to be unstable [the mitigation component 108 can correct one or more errors associated with two or more hardware associated with the event (e.g., correct a SEU associated with the two or more hardware 114) in response to the determination that the first check value does not correspond to the second check value and/or the determination that the third check value does not correspond to the fourth check value (i.e. instability as the check values of the two or more hardware do not match), par 26].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Bagarolo, Bennah, and Brace before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the failure detection among devices as taught by Brace, into the system as disclosed by Bagarolo and Bennah, to allow for error correction in instances of redundant installations [Brace, par 29].
Regarding Claim 2, Bagarolo, Bennah, and Brace disclose the replacement system according to Claim 1. Bagarolo further discloses wherein, in the determination of whether each of the plurality of applications is unstable, each time the setting change is executed, it is determined whether each of the plurality of applications is unstable based on the stability evaluation value indicating the stability of each of the plurality of applications in which processes are dispersedly operating on the operating resource group on which the setting change has been executed [if the program code detects the fault, again, after replacing the version of the source microservice, the program code progressively replaces the additional microservice(s) until the program code no longer detects a faulty microservice, step 480 to step 460, Fig. 4; par 23].
Regarding Claim 3, Bagarolo, Bennah, and Brace disclose the replacement system according to Claim 1. Bagarolo further discloses wherein, in the re-executing of the setting change for the selected second replacement candidate resource, the setting change is repeatedly executed until it is determined that each of the plurality of applications is stable based on the stability evaluation value indicating the stability of each of the plurality of applications in which processes are dispersedly operating on the operating resource group or until all of the plurality of replacement candidate resources have been excluded from the operating resource group [if the program code detects the fault, again, after replacing the version of the source microservice, the program code progressively replaces the additional microservice(s) until the program code no longer detects a faulty microservice, step 480 to step 460, Fig. 4; par 23].
Regarding Claim 7, Bagarolo, Bennah, and Brace disclose the replacement system according to Claim 1. However, the combination of references does not explicitly teach wherein the application is an application included in a communication system.
Examiner notes, however, devices which operate “on basically the same principle and in the same manner” where the differences, in addition to being well-known, “solve no stated problem and would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art” are obvious variations of one another and thus not patentably distinct. See In re Kuhle, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). As such, the application being included in a communication system appears to simply be a design choice, and performs as an application regardless.
Regarding Claim 8, Bagarolo, Bennah, and Brace disclose the replacement system according to Claim 7. However, the combination of references does not explicitly teach wherein the application is a network function.
Examiner notes, however, devices which operate “on basically the same principle and in the same manner” where the differences, in addition to being well-known, “solve no stated problem and would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art” are obvious variations of one another and thus not patentably distinct. See In re Kuhle, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). As such, the application being a network function appears to simply be a design choice, and performs as an application regardless.
Regarding Claim 9, Bagarolo discloses a replacement method [Fig. 4]. The remainder of Claim 9 repeats the same limitations as recited in Claim 1, and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding Claim 10, Bagarolo discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium configured to cause a system to execute a method [memory 28 and processing unit 16, performing the method of Fig. 4]. The remainder of Claim 10 repeats the same limitations as recited in Claim 1, and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding Claim 13, Bagarolo and Bennah disclose the replacement system according to Claim 1. Bennah further teaches wherein the at least one of the one or more processors is configured to: determine whether at least one of the plurality of applications is stable based on an analysis of a stability of each of the plurality of applications dispersedly operating on the operating resource group [analysis of multiple servers or virtual machines allows the method to correlate irregularities (changes in stability) to the use of particular software, such as the progressive installation of a software update across the multiple servers or virtual machines in the data center, par 29].
Regarding Claim 17, Bagarolo and Bennah disclose the replacement method according to Claim 9. Claim 17 recites limitations similar to those of Claim 13, and is rejected accordingly.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bagarolo, Bennah, and Brace, and further in view of Reynolds, US 10,102,084 B1.
Regarding Claim 4, Bagarolo, Bennah, and Brace disclose the replacement system according to Claim 1. Bagarolo further discloses since the execution of the setting change, determining whether each of the plurality of applications is unstable based on the stability evaluation value indicating the stability of each of the plurality of applications in which processes are dispersedly operating on the operating resource group on which the setting change has been executed [if the program code detects the fault, again, after replacing the version of the source microservice, the program code progressively replaces the additional microservice(s) until the program code no longer detects a faulty microservice, step 480 to step 460, Fig. 4; par 23].
However, the combination of Bagarolo, Bennah, and Brace does not explicitly teach determining whether the application is unstable when a predetermined time has passed.
In the analogous at of error correction, Reynolds teaches determining whether the application is unstable when a predetermined time has passed [error detection manager runs periodically (based on a timer), col. 3, ll. 19-25].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Bagarolo, Bennah, Brace, and Reynolds before him before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the periodic error checking as taught by Reynolds, into the system as disclosed by Bagarolo, Bennah, and Brace to allow sufficient time for error repairs [Reynolds, col. 1, ll. 13-18].
Claims 14, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bagarolo, Bennah, and Brace, and further in view of Leavitt et al., US 5,838,899 A.
Regarding Claim 14, Bagarolo, Bennah, and Brace disclose the replacement system according to Claim 13. However, the combination of references does not explicitly teach determining at least one of the plurality of applications is unstable in response to none of the other of the plurality of applications dispersedly operating on the operating resource group being unstable.
In the analogous art of fault detection, Leavitt teaches determining at least one of the plurality of applications is unstable in response to none of the other of the plurality of applications dispersedly operating on the operating resource group being unstable [if any of the units 12-18 detect a bus error when it drives test data onto the bus, but not when another unit drives such data, the unit can signal the others that it is broken--so long as none of the other units has, first, signaled broken, e.g., as a result of its own loopback error; i.e. none of the other applications are unstable, but there is an error (instability), then it is the unit (i.e. application) itself that is faulty, col. 6, ll. 12-27].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Bagarolo, Bennah, Brace, and Leavitt before him, to incorporate the fault detection by monitoring other units, as taught by Leavitt, into the system as disclosed by Bagarolo, Bennah, and Brace, to isolate faults and take the faulty components offline [Leavitt, col. 2, ll. 27-34].
Regarding Claim 18, Bagarolo, Bennah, and Brace disclose the replacement method according to Claim 17. Claim 17 recites limitations similar to those of Claim 14, and is rejected accordingly.
Regarding Claim 20, Bagarolo, Bennah, and Brace disclose the non-transitory computer readable medium according to Claim 10. Claim 20 repeats the same limitations as recited in Claims 13 and 14, and is rejected accordingly.
Claims 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bagarolo, Bennah, and Brace, and further in view of Olshinka, US 10,348,447 B2.
Regarding Claim 21, Bagarolo, Bennah, and Brace disclose the replacement system according to Claim 1. Brace further teaches selecting the at least two replacement candidate resources [the mitigation component 108 can correct one or more errors associated with two or more hardware associated with the event (e.g., correct a SEU associated with the two or more hardware 114) in response to the determination that the first check value does not correspond to the second check value and/or the determination that the third check value does not correspond to the fourth check value (i.e. instability as the check values of the two or more hardware do not match), par 26]. However, the combination of references does not explicitly teach selecting the replacement candidate resource based on a ratio of a number of the plurality of applications determined to be unstable operating on the replacement candidate resource with respect to a total number of applications operating on the replacement candidate resource being equal to a or more than a predetermined value.
Olshinka teaches selecting the replacement candidate resource based on a ratio of a number of the plurality of applications determined to be unstable operating on the replacement candidate resource with respect to a total number of applications operating on the replacement candidate resource being equal to a or more than a predetermined value [percentage of failed attempts to access application server exceeds a threshold, then the device is unstable (i.e. applications cannot operate on the server if cannot be accessed), col. 13, ll. 48-51].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Bagarolo, Bennah, Brace, and Olshinka before him, to incorporate the resource selection as taught by Olshinka, into the system as disclosed by Bagarolo, Bennah, and Brace, to ensure connection to a stable functional server [Olshinka, col. 1, ll. 20-24].
Regarding Claim 22, Bagarolo, Bennah, and Brace disclose the replacement system according to Claim 1. Brace further teaches selecting the at least two replacement candidate resources [the mitigation component 108 can correct one or more errors associated with two or more hardware associated with the event (e.g., correct a SEU associated with the two or more hardware 114) in response to the determination that the first check value does not correspond to the second check value and/or the determination that the third check value does not correspond to the fourth check value (i.e. instability as the check values of the two or more hardware do not match), par 26]. However, the combination of references does not explicitly teach selecting a replacement candidate resource based on a number of the plurality of applications determined to be unstable operating on the replacement candidate resource being equal to or more than a predetermined number.
Olshinka teaches selecting a replacement candidate resource based on a number of the plurality of applications determined to be unstable operating on the replacement candidate resource being equal to or more than a predetermined number [percentage of failed attempts to access application server exceeds a threshold, then the device is unstable (i.e. applications cannot operate on the server if cannot be accessed), col. 13, ll. 48-51].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Bagarolo, Bennah, Brace, and Olshinka before him, to incorporate the resource selection as taught by Olshinka, into the system as disclosed by Bagarolo, Bennah, and Brace, to ensure connection to a stable functional server [Olshinka, col. 1, ll. 20-24].
While the combination of reference teaches selecting based on a percentage rather than a number of applications, Examiner notes devices which operate “on basically the same principle and in the same manner” wherein the differences, in addition to being well known, “solves no stated problem and would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of the art” are obvious variations of one another and thus not patentably distinct. See In re Kuhle, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). As such, selecting a resource based on a percentage rather than a number being equal to or more than a predetermined value appears to simply be a matter of design choice and allows for comparison to a threshold and selection of a resource regardless.
Regarding Claims 23 and 24, Bagarolo, Bennah, and Brace disclose the replacement method according to Claim 9. Claims 23 and 24 repeat the same limitations as recited in Claims 21 and 22, respectively, and are rejected accordingly.
Regarding Claims 25 and 26, Bagarolo, Bennah, and Brace disclose the non-transitory computer readable medium according to Claim 10. Claims 25 and 26 repeat the same limitations as recited in Claims 21 and 22, respectively, and are rejected accordingly.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/25/26 have been considered but are moot due to the new rejection based on the references cited above, as well as the newly cited portions of the references previously presented.
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 PAUL J YEN whose telephone number is (571)270-5047. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 PT.
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, Andrew J Jung can be reached at (571) 270-3779. 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.
/Paul Yen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights