DETAILED ACTION
This office action has been issued in response to amendments received on 2/18/2026 Claims 1-4 and 28-31 were amended. Claims 1-4 and 28-31 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 28 clarifying that at first the crated secret either does not have a first data field or has an unpopulated first data field is sufficient to clarify how that first data field is later populated. Accordingly, the objection to claim 1 is withdrawn.
Applicant’s Remarks regarding the rejection of claims 1-4 and 28-31 under 35 USC 103 have been considered, but were found non-persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 5-8 of the Remarks that paras. [0025], [0029], [0045], [0049] and [0055]-[0056] of Reno does not teach the claim 1/28 limitation of “creating the secret wherein the created secret does not include a first data field, or the created secret includes the first data field and the first data field is unpopulated” because Reno “appears to disclose secret sub units used to define secrets with any desired number of secret values wherein the secret values are obtained and arranged at runtime” which does not teach or suggest that the secret is created without the data field or with the data field and the data field is unpopulated, however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Reno discloses the “secret sub unit contain metadata about secret values” (para. [0028]), define the secret and “specify a process for generating the required secret values” (para. [0048], [0051]) and “identify a place the secret values can be placed in the file system” (para. [0030]), therefore even though the secret has no data fields prior to runtime, the secret is created and exists as defined by the secrets sub unit prior to runtime (i.e. as a created secret that does not include a first data field). Applicant is free to amend the claims to clarify that creating a secret comprises creating a running instance or object of the secret or any other language to clarify what is required for a secret to have been “created” without any data fields. Reno further discloses checking for a secret sub unit in a container and adding a secret sub store and secret values from a secret store when they are missing (paras. [0055]) as well as using the secret sub unit at runtime to generate new secret values (i.e. adding a first data field to the secret which was not previously included in the secret) and populating the data field according to the secret sub unit (i.e. secret description) (paras. [0029], [0049]). Applicant is free to amend the claims to specify that the data field is added to an already deployed running instance of the secret or to clarify the timing of this process occurs.
Applicant’s arguments filed 2/18/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-4 and 28-31 under 35 USC § 103(a) have been fully considered but are moot because newly added claim limitations requiring “wherein the created secret does not include a first data field, or the created secret includes the first data field and the first data field is unpopulated” require new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendments.
The remaining arguments fail to comply with 37 C.F.R. 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Consequently, the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 is sustained.
Objections
Claims 1 and 28 are objected to for the following informalities: the preambles do not connect to the body of the claims. The preambles of both claims state that they are for setting up a container-orchestration system, but the body of the claims does not mention containers or make clear how the steps in the body of the claims ties back to this goal. The Examiner recommends adding a limitation disclosing how the secret is “of a container” and how accessing the secret or adding the data fields is used to ultimately set up containers within the container-orchestration or container groups of the orchestration system. Basically please tie the secrets within the body of the claims back to containers and the container-orchestration system. Appropriate clarification/correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 28 and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reno (US 2019/0146816).
Regarding claim 1, Reno discloses the limitations of claim 1 substantially as follows:
A method , the method comprising:
creating [[the]] a secret description for identifying at least a first characteristic of a secret (paras. [0028]-[0029], [0048], [0052]: creating secrets sub units with metadata/characteristics of secrets (i.e. secret descriptions));
creating the secret, wherein the created secret does not include a first data field, or the created secret includes the first data field and the first data field is unpopulated (paras. [0025], [0029]-[0030], [0045], [0049], [0051], [0055]-[0056]: secret sub units is used to define secrets with any desired number of data fields, where the name and type/characteristics of each secret is created within the secrets sub units and secret store, but the actual secret values (i.e. data fields) for the secret are not instantiated until runtime);
instructing [[the]] a controller to: add the first data field to the secret if the first data field is not included in the secret; and populate the first data field based on the secret description (paras. [0029]-[0030], [0049], [0056]: runtime secret processing component (i.e. controller) provisions/populates actual secret values (i.e. one or more data fields of the secret) based on the metadata within the sub units of the secrets); and
accessing the secret (paras. [0029], [0055]-[0056]: obtaining/accessing the secret values of the secret once the secret is loaded to its target destination).
Reno does not explicitly disclose the claim limitation “wherein the created secret does not include a first data field, or the created secret includes the first data field and the first data field is unpopulated”, however it would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Reno teaches such functionality because Reno discloses the “secret sub unit contain metadata about secret values” (para. [0028]), define the secret and “specify a process for generating the required secret values” (para. [0048], [0051]) and “identify a place the secret values can be placed in the file system” (para. [0030]), therefore even though the secret has no data fields prior to runtime, the secret is created and exists as defined by the secrets sub unit prior to runtime (i.e. as a created secret that does not include a first data field) in such a way that values of the secret can be safely generated at runtime under the protection of the policy controls defined within the secrets sub unit (para. [0031]).
Regarding claims 3 and 30, Reno discloses the limitations of the method of claim 1 and the apparatus of claim 28.
Reno teaches the limitations of claims 3 and 30 as follows:
wherein accessing the secret comprises
checking whether the data field s and has as a result of determining that the data field exists and has been populated, accessing the data field (paras. [0055]-[0056]: checking whether the actual secret values (i.e. and their data fields) for a secret of the secret sub units have been generated/exists and accessing the actual secret values (i.e. and their corresponding data fields)).
Regarding claims 4 and 31, Reno discloses the limitations of the method of claim 1 and the apparatus of claim 28.
Reno teaches the limitations of claims 4 and 31 as follows:
wherein the instructing step further comprises: instructing the controller to add a second data field to the secret (paras. [0029]-[0030], [0048], [0052], [0056]: provisioning/populating actual secret values (i.e. adding a second data field) based on the metadata within the sub units of the secrets).
Regarding claim 28, Reno discloses the limitations substantially as follows:
An apparatus, the apparatus comprising:
memory; and
processing circuitry, wherein the apparatus is configured to perform a method
creating [[the]] a secret description for identifying at least a first characteristic of a secret (paras. [0028]-[0029], [0048], [0052]: creating secrets sub units with metadata/characteristics of secrets (i.e. secret descriptions));
creating the secret, wherein the created secret does not include a first data field, or the created secret includes the first data field and the first data field is unpopulated (paras. [0025], [0029], [0045], [0049], [0051], [0055]-[0056]: secret sub units is used to define secrets with any desired number of data fields, where the name and type/characteristics of each secret is created within the secrets sub units and secret store, but the actual secret values (i.e. data fields) for the secret are not instantiated until runtime);
instructing the controller to add the first data field to the secret if the first data field is not included in the secret; and populate the first data field based on the secret description (paras. [0029]-[0030], [0049], [0056]: runtime secret processing component (i.e. controller) provisions/populates actual secret values (i.e. one or more data fields of the secret) based on the metadata within the sub units of the secrets); and
accessing the secret (paras. [0029], [0055]-[0056]: obtaining/accessing the secret values of the secret once the secret is loaded to its target destination).
Reno does not explicitly disclose the claim limitation “wherein the created secret does not include a first data field, or the created secret includes the first data field and the first data field is unpopulated”, however it would been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Reno teaches such functionality because Reno discloses the “secret sub unit contain metadata about secret values” (para. [0028]), define the secret and “specify a process for generating the required secret values” (para. [0048], [0051]) and “identify a place the secret values can be placed in the file system” (para. [0030]), therefore even though the secret has no data fields prior to runtime, the secret is created and exists as defined by the secrets sub unit prior to runtime (i.e. as a created secret that does not include a first data field) in such a way that values of the secret can be safely generated at runtime under the protection of the policy controls defined within the secrets sub unit (para. [0031]).
Claims 2 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reno (US 2019/0146816), as applied to claims 1 and 28, further in view of Cherny (US 2020/0082071).
Regarding claims 2 and 29, Reno discloses the limitations of the method of claim 1 and the apparatus of claim 28.
Reno fails to disclose the limitations of claims 2 and 29, however in the same field of endeavor, Cherny teaches the limitations of claims 2 and 29 as follows:
wherein creating the secret a container group (Cherny, paras. [0035], [0065]: secrets are introduced/created into a software container by mounting a file for the secret in a software container of multiple containers) (see also Reno, para. [0030]: embodiments support each of the possible mechanisms for secret injection including extracting secret values from a file accessible to the container).
Reno and Cherny are combinable because both are from the same field of endeavor of managing secrets and containers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to integrate Cherny’s method of creating a secret by creating a mount point for the secret with the system of Reno in order to increase the security of the system by keeping secrets out of your application code and environment variables, which can be logged or inspected.
Prior art not relied upon but applied/considered includes:
1) Mallikarjuna Durga (US 2022/0377139) teaches a container orchestration system in which a controller generates a global object and sets one or more fields for the object, which may be a secret (para. [0029]).
Conclusion
For the above reasons, claims 1-4 and 28-31 are rejected.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SHARON S LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-4583. The examiner can normally be reached on 10AM-6PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Taghi T Arani can be reached on 571-272-3787. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHARON S LYNCH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2438
Prosecution Insights