DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment, filed 12/12/25, for application number 18/574,307 has been received and entered into record. Claims 1, 9, and 10 have been amended, and Claims 6, 11, 12, 15, 16, and 19 have been cancelled. Therefore, Claims 1-5, 7-10, 13, 14, 17, 18, and 20 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 Objections
Claims 9 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 9, line 13 recites, “wherein the process is an execution unit of the application…” However, lines 2-3 recite, “determining, based on a stability evaluation value indicating a stability of an application in which processes are dispersedly operating…” (emphasis added) As such, line 13 should instead read, “wherein the processes are s of the application…” (emphasis added)
Claim 9, lines 15-16 recite, “wherein further identifying the at least one of the plurality of replacement candidate resources…” and should instead read, “wherein the method further comprises identifying the at least one of the plurality of replacement candidate resources…” (emphasis added) as the limitation otherwise appears to omit a function following further identifying the at least one of the plurality of replacement candidate resources.
Claim 10 recites limitations similar to those of Claim 9, and is objected to accordingly. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, line 16 reads, “wherein the process is an execution unit of the application…” However, the preamble introduces “at least one or more processors [executing],” line 3 introduces “an instability determination process,” line 9 introduces “a setting change process,” and line 13 introduces “a setting re-change process.” As such, it is unclear which of these processes, if any, the process of line 16 is referring. For the purposes of examination, the process is interpreted to be a process executed by the one or more processors.
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, 5, 9, 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.
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:
an instability determination process of determining, based on a stability evaluation value indicating a stability of an application in which processes are dispersedly operating on an operating resource group including a plurality of replacement candidate resources, whether the application 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, Fig. 4];
a setting change process of executing, in response to a determination that the cause of the instability lies in any of the plurality of replacement candidate resources, a setting change of excluding at least one of the plurality of replacement candidate resources from the operating resource group and adding a new resource to the operating resource group [identifying and replacing the affected microservices based on the detected fault (i.e. the replacement resources are still faulty), at step 475]; and
a setting re-change process of again executing the setting change when it is determined that the application is 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; determining, in response to determining that the application is unstable, whether a cause of the instability lies in any of the plurality of replacement candidate resources; wherein the process is an execution unit of the application in a container-type virtualized application execution environment; and wherein the at least one of the one or more processors is configured to identify the at least one of the plurality of replacement candidate resources in response to the at least one other application being unstable and the identified at least one of the plurality of replacement candidate resources being a common hardware used by the application and the at least one other application.
In the analogous art of system stability detection, Bennah teaches a plurality of replacement candidate resources that are hardware; determining, in response to determining that the application is unstable, whether a cause of the instability lies in any of 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 process is an execution unit 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 at least one of the one or more processors is configured to identify the at least one of the plurality of replacement candidate resources in response to the at least one other application being unstable and the identified at least one of the plurality of replacement candidate resources being a common hardware used by the application and the at least one other application [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].
Regarding Claim 2, Bagarolo and Bennah disclose the replacement system according to Claim 1. Bagarolo further discloses wherein, in the instability determination process, each time the setting change is executed, it is determined whether the application is unstable based on the stability evaluation value indicating the stability of the application 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 and Bennah disclose the replacement system according to Claim 1. Bagarolo further discloses wherein, in the setting re-change process, the setting change is repeatedly executed until it is determined that the application is stable based on the stability evaluation value indicating the stability of the application 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 5, Bagarolo and Bennah disclose the replacement system according to Claim 1. Bagarolo further discloses wherein the replacement system causes the at least one of the one or more processors to execute an excluded resource determination process of determining a replacement candidate resource to be excluded from the operating resource group based on the stability evaluation value indicating the stability of another application operating on each of the plurality of replacement candidate resources included in the operating resource group, and wherein, in the setting change process, the determined replacement candidate resource is excluded from the operating resource group when it is determined that the application is unstable based on the stability evaluation value indicating the stability of the application in which processes are dispersedly operating on the operating resource group [identifying and replacing the affected microservices based on the detected fault, at step 475; 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 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 the application is stable based on an analysis of a stability of at least one other application 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 and Bennah, and further in view of Reynolds, US 10,102,084 B1.
Regarding Claim 4, Bagarolo and Bennah disclose the replacement system according to Claim 1. Bagarolo further discloses since the execution of the setting change, determining whether the application is unstable based on the stability evaluation value indicating the stability of the application 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 and Bennah 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, 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 and Bennah, to allow sufficient time for error repairs [Reynolds, col. 1, ll. 13-18].
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bagarolo.
Regarding Claim 7, Bagarolo and Bennah disclose the replacement system according to Claim 1. However, Bagarolo 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 discloses the replacement system according to Claim 7. However, Bagarolo 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.
Claims 14, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bagarolo and Bennah, and further in view of Leavitt et al., US 5,838,899 A.
Regarding Claim 14, Bagarolo and Bennah disclose the replacement system according to Claim 13. However, the combination of references does not explicitly teach determining the application is unstable in response to none of the at least one other application dispersedly operating on the operating resource group being unstable.
In the analogous art of fault detection, Leavitt teaches determining the application is unstable in response to none of the at least one other application 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, and Leavitt before him, to incorporate the fault detection by monitoring other units, as taught by Leavitt, into the system as disclosed by Bagarolo and Bennah, to isolate faults and take the faulty components offline [Leavitt, col. 2, ll. 27-34].
Regarding Claim 18, Bagarolo and Bennah 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 and Bennah discloses 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/12/25 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 is reminded that in amending a response to a rejection of claims, the patentable novelty must be clearly shown in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited and the objections made. Applicant must also show how the amendments avoid such references and objections. See 37 CFR §1.111(c).
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