CTNF 18/576,579 CTNF 78931 DETAILED ACTION Claims 27-46 are pending in this application. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Specification 06-01 AIA The following guidelines illustrate the preferred layout for the specification of a utility application. These guidelines are suggested for the applicant’s use. Arrangement of the Specification As provided in 37 CFR 1.77(b), the specification of a utility application should include the following sections in order. Each of the lettered items should appear in upper case, without underlining or bold type, as a section heading. If no text follows the section heading, the phrase “Not Applicable” should follow the section heading: (a) TITLE OF THE INVENTION. (b) CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS. (c) STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH OR DEVELOPMENT. (d) THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES TO A JOINT RESEARCH AGREEMENT. (e) INCORPORATION-BY-REFERENCE OF MATERIAL SUBMITTED ON A COMPACT DISC OR AS A TEXT FILE VIA THE OFFICE ELECTRONIC FILING SYSTEM (EFS-WEB). (f) STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTOR OR A JOINT INVENTOR. (g) BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION. (1) Field of the Invention. (2) Description of Related Art including information disclosed under 37 CFR 1.97 and 1.98. (h) BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION. (i) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SEVERAL VIEWS OF THE DRAWING(S). (j) DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION. (k) CLAIM OR CLAIMS (commencing on a separate sheet). (l) ABSTRACT OF THE DISCLOSURE (commencing on a separate sheet). (m) SEQUENCE LISTING. (See MPEP § 2422.03 and 37 CFR 1.821-1.825. A “Sequence Listing” is required on paper if the application discloses a nucleotide or amino acid sequence as defined in 37 CFR 1.821(a) and if the required “Sequence Listing” is not submitted as an electronic document either on compact disc or as a text file via the Office electronic filing system (EFS-Web.) In this application the Abstract filed on 01/04/24 is not on a separate sheet. The separate sheet should only contain the Abstract. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04 AIA 07-04-01 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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claim 46 is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claim 46 is directed to a “computer readable medium”. The “computer readable medium” is not disclosed in the specification or disclosed to exclude non-statutory embodiment. For instance, on paragraph 00170 of the specification “computer readable medium” is disclosed to include carrier wave, transmission medium, signal medium, propagation medium or the like and is therefore directed to non-statutory subject matter. Appropriate corrected is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 27, 39 and 46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0097698 A1 to Haubold et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0257432 A1 to FU et al. and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0068553 A1 to Davis et al . As to claim 27, Haubold teaches a method comprising: deploying ( deploying ) a first service instance ( service instance (or large scale application) 143) in a computing environment based on configuration information ( adheres to the requirements of the service definitions ) related to a first acceleration service (“... The techniques described herein facilitate dynamic buildout and teardown of ephemeral infrastructures for deploying service instances using fungible compute resources. Among other capabilities, a resource management fabric is described that uses a complex service definition that describes a large scale production web or data service and a set of fungible, elastic compute resources to dynamically buildout an instance of the service or application that adheres to the requirements of the service definitions. An operating environment can be generated that describes the ephemeral infrastructure for the deployed service instance…The web service and workflow management system 120 is representative of a front-end service or collection of services that is configured to interface between end user (or developer) 112 operating workstation 114, service management and imaging system 130, and automated test system 160 to facilitate dynamic deployment of a service instance (or large scale application) 143 using fungible compute resources of the compute fabric 140. More specifically, the web service and workflow management system 120 is configured to receive a service manifest including service definitions identifying service parameters for provisioning a new service instance. The web service and workflow management system 120 processes the service definitions and responsively requests a dynamic ephemeral infrastructure (compute resource) deployment, e.g., resource allocation request. In some embodiments, the service manifest identifies the service definitions and/or parameters using a markup language, e.g., Extensible Markup Language (XML) …” paragraphs 0016/0020), the first acceleration service to be associated with one or more functional components ( one or more application components ); deploying ( deploy(ed)) a first functional component instance for a first functional component of the one or more functional components within the first service instance ( one or more application components ) (“… Initially, an end user (not shown) operating workstation 114 specifies various information including a detailed service description and references to one or more application components. The information may be provided to the web service and workflow managements system 120 via a service manifest. As discussed herein, the service manifest may include service definitions identifying service parameters for provisioning the new service instance. In the example of FIG. 7, the service manifest includes a description of the new version or instance of the service management and imaging system 130 that the end user wants to deploy and network path locations for the application components that should be deployed as part of the new version …” paragraph 0058); and mapping at least a part of resources ( Fungible Compute Resources 150) of the first container ( virtual machine ) to the first functional component instance ( one or more application component) based on a resource requirement of the first functional component (“… The service management and imaging system 130 is configured to determine availability of the fungible compute resources 150, and when sufficient compute resources are available, generate an operating environment for the service instance 143 in accordance with the service definitions. The operating environment identifies the resource context information including a set of compute resources and network layout parameters associated with the service instance 143. The operating environment information, including at least the resource context information, is then provided back to the web service and workflow management system 120…To begin, at 501, the service management and imaging system receives a resource allocation request including service definitions identifying service parameters for provisioning a new service instance. In some embodiments, the service definitions may further identify one or more application component references for provisioning the service instance and may include one or more software installations and network layout parameters for provisioning the service instance …” paragraphs 0046/0052). Haubold is silent with reference to deploying a first service instance within a first container in a computing environment and causing data related to the first functional component instance to be processed by the first service instance using at least the part of resources mapped to the first functional component instance. FU teaches deploying a first service instance ( Services S2 164-1/S3 164-2/S4 164-3) within a first container ( container cluster (e.g. Kubernetes)) in a computing environment (“… In some embodiments, VM residence dependency information associated with a service may be used to determine placement of the service at the time the service is deployed. In some embodiments, the residence dependency information may specify that a tier (e.g. services S2 164-1, S3 164-2. and S4 164-3 in tier 160) is to be deployed on a container cluster (e.g. Kubernetes)…FIG. 3C illustrates an exemplary deployment of components of the multi-tier distributed application 100. In FIG. 3C, service S5 154 is shown as a database service deployed on a VMware private cloud. Further, services S2 164-1, S3 164-2, and S4 164-3 are shown as an Admin Service, a User Service, and an App Service, respectively. Services S2 164-1, S3 164-2, and S4 164-3 are deployed on a Kubernetes container cluster. In addition, service Si 174 is shown as a load balancing service 174 running on Amazon AWS. Thus, in FIGS. 3B and 3C the VM-based portions of hybrid multi-tier distributed application run on distinct clouds, while the container-based portions may run on a container cluster. The deployments shown in FIG. 3C is merely exemplary and, in general, various other clouds and/or container clusters may be used to deploy a multi-tier distributed application …” paragraphs 0063/0071). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Gil with the teaching of Goldman because the teaching of Goldman would improve the system of Gil by providing a time-limited interaction between two or more communication devices or systems that includes a stateful connection that allows for the exchange of information and commands. Davis teaches causing data related to the first functional component instance ( supporting applications, libraries) to be processed by the first service instance ( Web service) using at least the part of resources mapped ( operating requirements) to the first functional component instance ( Block 280/290) (“… In block 275 in the client process, the result returned by the Web service creation process can be inspected to determine those supporting applications, libraries and associated version information which can be accessed by particular ones of the operable application containers in the remote host. Based upon this inspection, in block 280 the client process can determine whether any of the listed application containers can provide applications or libraries having a requisite version so as to satisfy the operating requirements of a desired Web service. Where no application containers can suffice, in block 285 the client process can invoke the creation of a selected Web service using a new application container. Otherwise, in block 290 the client process can invoke the creation of a selected Web service using an existing application container identified in block 280 …” paragraph 0052). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Gil and Goldman with the teaching of Davis because the teaching of Davis would improve the system of Gil and Goldman by providing a technique for dynamically selecting or creating a Web Service Container for hosting instantiated Web Services (Davis title). As to claims 39 and 46, see the rejection of claim 27 except for one or more processors, one or more memories and a computer readable medium. Gil teaches one or more processors ( Processing System 802 ); and one or more memories/ and a computer readable medium ( Storage System 803 ) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 28 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0097698 A1 to Haubold et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0257432 A1 to FU et al. and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0068553 A1 to Davis et al . as applied to claim s 27 and 39 above, and further in view of (“ziim/open_event_machine Open Event Machine”) to GitHub . As to claim 28, Haubold as modified by Goldman and FU teaches the method of claim 27, however it is silent with reference to wherein the first acceleration service comprises an event machine, wherein the one or more functional components comprise one or more execution objects, and the data comprises at least one event. GitHub teaches wherein the first acceleration service comprises an event machine ( Event Machine) , wherein the one or more functional components comprise one or more execution objects ( Execution Objects (EO), and the data comprises at least one event ( events ) (“… The Event Machine, developed by NSN, is a multicore optimized, high performance, data plane processing concept based on asynchronous queues and event scheduling. Applications are built from Execution Objects (EO), events and event queues. The EO is a run-to-completion object that gets called at each event receive. Communication is built around events and event queues. The EM scheduler selects an event from a queue based on priority, and calls the EO's receive function for event processing. The EO might send events to other EOs or HW-accelerators for further processing or output …”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Gil, Goldman and Davis with the teaching of GitHub because the teaching of GitHub would improve the system of Gil, Goldman and Davis by providing a Event Machine for scheduling and processing events. As to claim 40, see the rejection of claim 28 above . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 29 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0097698 A1 to Haubold et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0257432 A1 to FU et al. and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0068553 A1 to Davis et al . as applied to claim s 27 and 39 above, and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0052772 A1 to Chen et al . As to claim 29, Haubold as modified by Goldman and FU teaches the method of claim 27, however it is silent with reference to receiving a request for operating a second functional component of the one or more functional components; and in response to the request, deploying a second functional component instance for the second functional component within the first service instance. Chen receiving a request ( Container Manager 310) for operating a second functional component ( “second information.”) of the one or more functional components ( Step 420) ; and in response to the request, deploying a second functional component instance for the second functional component within the first service instance ( the second information may be collected from each of the candidate hosts 215 ) (“… Still in reference to FIG. 4, the method 400 proceeds to step 420, where information indicating libraries that have been loaded for one or more containers on a plurality of candidate hosts 215 is obtained. For the sake of discussion, the information obtained in step 420 is referred to as “second information.” In some embodiments, the second information may be collected from each of the candidate hosts 215. For example, in a Docker system, once the containers and/or the configurations thereof change, the host 215 may generate and send a message to a component called “event bus.” The message include information about the hardware and/or software configuration of the host, the host OS, the containers that have been deployed, and the like. The container manager 300 may retrieve and analyzes such messages to determine the libraries that have already loaded on each of the candidate hosts 215. Example embodiments in this regard will be discussed in the following paragraphs…In some embodiments, the second information may be obtained by analyzing the construction history of templates that are used to deploy containers on the candidate hosts 215. Still considering the Docker containers as examples, the dockerfiles used to construct the containers on the candidate hosts 215 are accessible, as described above. These dockerfiles thus maintain a record of the construction history of the containers on the candidate hosts 215. The container manager 310 may retrieve and analyze these dockerfiles in order to determine the libraries that have already been loaded on the candidate hosts 215 …” paragraphs 0040/0041). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Gil, Goldman and Davis with the teaching of Chen because the teaching of Chen would improve the system of Gil, Goldman and Davis by providing a technique for providing additional computing resources when needed. As to claim 41, see the rejection of claim 29 above . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 30 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0097698 A1 to Haubold et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0257432 A1 to FU et al. and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0068553 A1 to Davis et al . as applied to claim s 27 and 39 above, and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0151317 A1 to Charfi et al . As to claim 30, Haubold as modified by Goldman and FU teaches the method of claim 27, however it is silent with reference to in accordance with a determination of scaling out of the first functional component, performing at least one of the following: mapping an additional part of resources to the first functional component instance based on the resource requirement, and deploying a further functional component instance for the first functional component within a second service instance, the second service instance being deployed in a second container based on the configuration information related to the first acceleration service. Charfi teaches in accordance with a determination of scaling out of the first functional component ( service package/libraries etc.) , performing at least one of the following: mapping an additional part of resources to the first functional component instance based on the resource requirement ( If the resources are to be scaled up, the service provider can select a suitable cloud computing infrastructure and generate a deployment configuration for the service package) , and deploying a further functional component instance for the first functional component within a second service instance, the second service instance being deployed in a second container based on the configuration information related to the first acceleration service (“… Services may be of several forms. In some examples, services can range from fully automated services implemented in software to IT-supported services to professional human services. Accordingly, different types of services can have different types of artifacts that may be grouped within a service package, which is the logical representation of the service… Implementation Artifacts is a category that includes aspects concerning the internal implementation of the core functionality of a service and the exposure of the service to the network. In some examples, Implementation Artifacts can include one or both of traditional Programming Artifacts and User Interface Artifacts. Programming Artifacts may further include one or more of code binaries/libraries, configuration files, deployment descriptors, and data-source descriptors. In some examples, Programming Artifacts can include artifact formats normally belonging to other categories, such as models of processes used to realize the internal functionality of the service. User Interface Artifacts can include any type of artifact used in rendering an interface to a user (e.g., HTML, CSS, Flash, etc.)… If the resources are to be scaled up, the service provider can select a suitable cloud computing infrastructure and generate a deployment configuration for the service package. The service package is uploaded to the service broker and is transitioned to the Cloud-hosted and Gatewayed state (612). In some examples, it is further determined whether the service package is to be adapted for a new context (614). If the service package is to be adapted for a new context, a partner of the service provider can adapt a user interface or other structure of the service package, and the service package can be transitioned to the Channeled state (716). If the service package is not to be adapted for a new context, the service package is transitioned to the Consumable state (608)…” paragraphs 0057/0059/0079). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Gil, Goldman and Davis with the teaching of Charfi because the teaching of Charfi would improve the system of Gil, Goldman and Davis by providing an auto-scaling methodology for adding additional resource for use by deployed service packages. As to claim 42, see the rejection of claim 30 above . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 31 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0097698 A1 to Haubold et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0257432 A1 to FU et al. and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0068553 A1 to Davis et al . as applied to claim s 27 and 39 above, and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0322989 A1 to Tran et al . As to claim 31, Haubold as modified by Goldman and FU teaches the method of claim 27, however it is silent with reference to in accordance with a determination of removal of the first functional component instance, removing the first functional component instance from the first container. Tran teaches a determination of removal of the first functional component instance ( libraries) , removing the first functional component instance (“… undeploy true, false Indicates if - in case of a call to configure libraries - files corresponding to a library to be removed should also be undeployed …” Table 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Gil, Goldman and Davis with the teaching of Tran because the teaching of Tran would improve the system of Gil, Goldman and Davis by providing a technique for reclaiming computing resources for later use. As to claim 43, see the rejection of claim 31 above . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 32 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0097698 A1 to Haubold et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0257432 A1 to FU et al. and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0068553 A1 to Davis et al . as applied to claim s 27 and 39 above, and further in view of E.P. No. 3667498 A1 to Eberlein et al . As to claim 32, Haubold as modified by Goldman and FU teaches the method of claim 27, however it is silent with reference to in accordance with a determination of scaling out of the first acceleration service, deploying a further service instance within a third container based on the configuration information related to the first acceleration service. Eberlein teaches in accordance with a determination of scaling out of the first acceleration service ( Auto-Scaler infrastructure" (ASI)/scale-out event) , deploying a further service instance within a third container based on the configuration information related to the first acceleration service ( mapping of service instance to container (to allow mapping the monitoring parameters to a service instance)) (“… For the purposes of this disclosure, "auto-scaler infrastructure" (ASI) is defined as: The ASI can read monitoring parameters from a monitoring infrastructure of containers, the containers running instances of services. ∘ Aggregating the deployment wide (for example, data center (DC) and tenant in an infrastructure) system load of the containers the services run in. ∘ Per instance, collecting the load. ∘ Summing the load over all available instances and calculating an average load. The ASI centrally stores: ∘ A list of services and the number of instances of each service. ∘ A mapping of service instance to container (to allow mapping the monitoring parameters to a service instance). ∘ for each service, a scaling rule depending on the monitoring parameters. The ASI triggers: ∘ A create (n) instance(s) of a certain service, if the scaling rule of the service applied for the measured monitoring parameters returns a scale-out event. ∘ A stop (n) instances of a certain service, if the scaling rule of the service applied for the measured monitoring parameters returns a scale-in event…” paragraph 0027). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Gil, Goldman and Davis with the teaching of Eberlein because the teaching of Eberlein would improve the system of Gil, Goldman and Davis by providing an auto-scaling methodology for use in a microservices architecture for large-scale cloud-computing deployments (Eberlein paragraphs 0014). As to claim 44, see the rejection of claim 32 above . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 33 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0097698 A1 to Haubold et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0257432 A1 to FU et al. and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0068553 A1 to Davis et al. and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0322989 A1 to Tran et al . as applied to claim s 27 and 33 above, and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0173594 A1 NG et al . As to claim 33, Haubold as modified by Goldman and FU teaches the method of claim 27, however it is silent with reference to in accordance with a determination of removal of the first service instance, removing the first functional component instance from the first container, and removing the first service instance. Tran teaches removing the first functional component instance from the first container (“… undeploy true, false Indicates if - in case of a call to configure libraries - files corresponding to a library to be removed should also be undeployed …” Table 3). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Gil, Goldman and Davis with the teaching of Tran because the teaching of Tran would improve the system of Gil, Goldman and Davis by providing a technique for reclaiming computing resources for later use. NG teaches a determination of removal of the first service instance, and removing the first service instance ( when a service instance is deleted/undeploy) (“… The deployment services provider 108 uses a checkout method when a service instance is created via the deployment services REST API 107. The checkout method determines whether to use an available VM 104 for the new service instance or to use the deployment services resource manager 111 to deploy and provision the service instance specified by the new service request. Deployment services provider 108 uses a checkin method when a service instance is deleted from the deployment services REST API 107 or when the partner REST API 106 detects an idle deployment that may be reclaimed due to inactivity. Deployment services provider 108 uses the deployment services resource manager 111 to remote or undeploy a service instance…The deployment services provider 108 may also get the status of a deployed service instance. For example, a client 102 that is consuming the service will poll the partner service REST API 106 to get a service status. The partner service REST API 106 will then call the deployment services REST API 107, which will cause the deployment services provider to get and return the service instance status. The deployment services provider 108 may also return service instance information, such as the credentials and endpoint that the service consumer will use to access the deployed service instance …” paragraphs 0048/0049). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Gil, Goldman, Davis and Tran with the teaching of NG because the teaching of NG would improve the system of Gil, Goldman, Davis and Tran by providing a technique for reclaiming computing resources for later use. As to claim 45, see the rejection of claim 33 above . 07-22-aia AIA Clai ms 34 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpa tentable over U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0097698 A1 to Haubold et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0257432 A1 to FU et al. and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2004/0068553 A 1 to Davis et al. as ap pl ied to claim 27 above, and fur ther in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0037030 A1 to Kovachka_D imitrova et al. As to claim 34, Haubold as modified by Goldman and FU teaches the method of claim 27, however it is silent with reference to ( BUT, Kovachka_Dimitrova teaches ) deploying an interface server in a fourth container in the computing environment, the interface server being configured with an interface with a container orchestrator of the computing environment ( Container API 518 ) (“… FIG. 5 is a block diagram illustrating a J2EE architecture 500 having a deploy service 524. According to one embodiment, the deploy service 524 serves to extend and enhance the J2EE architecture 500 and its functionalities. The deploy service 524 along with the container API (e.g., SAP container API) 518 help facilitate the deploying of various deployable entities, including J2EE and non-J2EE components 514-516 using J2EE and non-J2EE containers 510-512, respectively. The container API 518 is represented on the server as an interface defined as a development component …” paragraphs 0055/0057/0058); and determining, with the interface server, at least one of the following : the deployment of at least one of the first service instance ( Deployable Components 514-516) and the first functional component instance (“… According to one embodiment, filenames and extensions may be used by the deploy service 524 for distribution of the deployable components 514-516 on the containers 510-512. The deploy service 524 may include a mechanism for automatic recognition of the container 510-512 to which the corresponding deploying components 514-516 may be distributed, in accordance with the filenames and extensions contained in the <container info> of each of the containers 510-512. For example, if a standalone module file has an extension Web ARchive (e.g., WAR or war) and the J2EE Web container has specified this extension in its <container info>, the deploy service 524 may distribute a WAR file to the Web container …” paragraph 0062), removal of at least one of the first service instance and the first functional component instance, and scaling of at least one of the first acceleration service and the first functional component. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Gil, Goldman and Davis with the teaching of Kovachka_Dimitrova because the teaching of Kovachka_Dimitrova would improve the system of Gil, Goldman and Davis by providing a set of rules and protocols (API) that allows (bridge) different software systems to communicate. As to claim 36, Haubold as modified by Goldman and FU teaches the method of claim 34, however it is silent with reference to wherein determining the deployment of the first service instance comprises: receiving, with the interface server, a request for operating the first functional component; and in response to the request, determining to deploy the first service instance. wherein determining the deployment of the first service instance comprises: receiving, with the interface server ( Deploy Service API 614 ), a request ( Request 610 ) for operating the first functional component; and in response to the request, determining to deploy the first service instance ( deploying of various J2EE and non-J2EE modules/components of the applications/ D eployed Application 726-730 ) (“… In the illustrated embodiment, the client 602 initiates the request 610 for starting the execution of deploy service operations with the server 604 via a deploy service API 614. The client 602 may include a deployer for performing configuration and deploying of various J2EE and non-J2EE modules on a specific product. In one embodiment, the process of deployment may include: (1) configuration; (2) distribution; and (3) execution. To perform configuration, the client 602, as a deployer, may follow the assembly instructions provided, for example, by the application assembler and help resolve any external dependencies declared by the application component provider. For distribution, the application archive and the deployment configuration information may be installed on various servers in the clusters via the deployment API 614. The execution includes a request 610 made by the client 602 with the deploy service 616 at the server 604 to start or propagate the deployment process…The server 604, in response to the initiation request 610 from the client 602, propagates the deploy service. According to one embodiment, the deploy service 616 includes a module to accept applications on the server 604, distribute various components of the applications to containers, help manage the containers, facilitate control of the application life cycles and to synchronize them with the component life cycles deployed in the containers. Stated differently, the deploy service 616 is referred to as the entry point for extending and enhancing the functionality of the deployed applications, containers of the deployment architecture 600, and to extent and enhance the J2EE architecture as a whole …” paragraphs 0064/0065/0068). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Gil, Goldman and Davis with the teaching of Kovachka_Dimitrova because the teaching of Kovachka_Dimitrova would improve the system of Gil, Goldman and Davis by providing a set of rules and protocols (API) that allows (bridge) different software systems to communicate . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Pub. No. 20180097698 A1 to Haubold et al. in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20170257432 A1 to FU et al. and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 20040068553 A1 to Davis et al., and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0037030 A1 to Kovachka_Dimitrova et al . as applied to claim 27 above, and further in view of U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0259660 A1 to Gaurav et al . As to claim 35, Haubold as modified by Goldman, FU and Kovachka_Dimitrova teaches the method of claim 34, however it is silent with reference to monitoring a volume of a workload of the first functional component instance; and wherein at least one of the removal and the scaling is determined at least based on the volume of the workload. Gaurav teaches monitoring a volume of a workload ( additional instances of a workload) of the first functional component instance ( Workload 140/141 ) (“… The example virtualization platform 100 includes a first workload 140 that is awaiting deployment. For example, the workload 140 may be a web server, a database server, a credit card processing server, etc. that needs to be deployed on a virtualization platform for execution. The example virtualization platform 100 additionally includes a second workload 141 that is deployed on one of the example virtual machines 110 executing in the example first virtualization platform 107. While the two workloads 140, 141 are provided as examples, any number of to-be-deployed and deployed workloads may be included in an implementation of the example virtual environment 100 …” paragraphs 0022); and wherein at least one of the removal and the scaling ( scalout ) is determined at least based on the volume of the workload ( additional instances of a workload) (“… The score generator 210 then determines if scaleout is needed or desired for the workload 140, 141 (block 7#22). For example, the score generator 210 may prompt a user (e.g., utilizing the management client 114) to indicate if scaleout will be required or desired. Scaleout is a process by which additional instances of a workload are deployed (e.g., to handle additional client accesses). If scaleout is not desired, no scores are tagged to the virtualization platforms 107-109 (block 7424). Alternatively, if scaleout is desired, the full virtualization environments and the paravirtualization environments are tagged with a MEDIUM score and the operating system virtualizations are tagged with a HIGH score (block 7#26) …” paragraph 0069). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify the system of Gil, Goldman, Davis and Kovachka_Dimitrova with the teaching of Gaurav because the teaching of Gaurav would improve the system of Gil, Goldman, Davis and Kovachka_Dimitrova by providing a technique for dynamically scaling up computing resources for optimal processing of computing tasks . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 37-38 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0125477 A1 Mousseau et al. and directed to a system and method can deploy and manage software services in virtualized and non-virtualized environments. U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0131583 A1 to Barrows and directed to systems and methods for automatically provisioning a service instance in a cloud computing system. U.S. Pat. No. 11,012,325 B2 issued to Guo et al. and directed to a method, a device and a computer program product for configuring service instances. U.S. Pat. No. 9,015,710 B2 issued to Spivak et al. and directed to a deployment system provides the ability to deploy a multi-node distributed application, such as a cloud computing platform application. U.S. Pat. No. 10,848,574 B2 issued to Battle et al. and directed to a service deployment system configured to deploy one or more service instances into a service instance pool. U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0168026 A1 to Hasan et al. and directed to a method that involves deploying service instances to server machines of Core Network according to schedule based on resource requirements of service instances and current resource availability of server machines. U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0222988 A1 to Maes et al. and directed to a system may provision services or service suite instances for each tenant (e.g., different set of instances for each tenant). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHARLES E ANYA whose telephone number is (571)272-3757. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fir. 9-6pm. 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, KEVIN YOUNG can be reached at 571-270-3180. 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. /CHARLES E ANYA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/576,579 Page 2 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/576,579 Page 3 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/576,579 Page 4 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/576,579 Page 5 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/576,579 Page 6 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/576,579 Page 7 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/576,579 Page 8 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/576,579 Page 9 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/576,579 Page 10 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/576,579 Page 11 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/576,579 Page 12 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/576,579 Page 13 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/576,579 Page 14 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/576,579 Page 15 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/576,579 Page 16 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/576,579 Page 17 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/576,579 Page 18 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/576,579 Page 19 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/576,579 Page 20 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/576,579 Page 21 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/576,579 Page 22 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/576,579 Page 23 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/576,579 Page 25 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/576,579 Page 26 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/576,579 Page 27 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/576,579 Page 28 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/576,579 Page 29 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/576,579 Page 30 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/576,579 Page 31 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/576,579 Page 32 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/576,579 Page 33 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/576,579 Page 34 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/576,579 Page 35 Art Unit: 2194 Application/Control Number: 18/576,579 Page 36 Art Unit: 2194
Prosecution Insights