Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to the application filed on February 26, 2024.
2. Claims 1-20 have been examined.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §101
3. 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 therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 10, and 19 are within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Prong 1, Step 2A: "determine a plurality of microservices to be deployed to a system" and
"unify deployments of the plurality of microservices into a single deployment of the plurality of microservices to the system," under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of a generic processing device. Thus these claim limitations fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A.
Prong 2, Step 2A: the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Additional elements (non-transitory computer-readable media, processors, a device, microservices, system and subsystem) are recited at high level of generality. Accordingly, these elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.05(g).
Prong 2, Step 2B: the additional elements, considering them both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. As discussed above, elements that are mere use of generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, and the processes are insignificant extra-solution activity which are recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional activity, according to MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claims 2 and 11: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claims 3 and 12: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claims 4 and 13: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claims 5 and 14: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claims 6 and 15: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claims 7 and 16: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claims 8 and 17: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claims 9, 18, and 20: as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Allowable Subject Matter
5. After search and analysis, Examiner concluded that the claimed invention has been recited in such a manner that dependent claim 7 is not taught by any prior reference found through search.
The primary reason for allowance of the claims in this case, is the inclusion of the limitations “The non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 4, wherein the isolated context enables independent continuous integration and development lifecycle for each microservice of the plurality of microservices,” which are not found in the prior art of record.
Resolving the USC 101 abstract idea rejection and incorporating intervening claim 4 and claim 7 into claims 1, 10, and 19 would put the case in condition for allowance.
Claim 16 is similar to claim 7 and allowable, too.
Claim Interpretation
6. In page 7, the specification of the instant application defines:
[0017] In an embodiment, a discrete deployable artifact may be provided for each individual microservice of the plurality of microservices. In an embodiment, a single executable artifact may be provided for all of the plurality of microservices. Accordingly, the single deployment of the plurality of microservices may include both the discrete deployable artifact per microservice and the single executable artifact for all microservices.
For this reason, “unify deployments of the plurality of microservices into a single deployment” has been interpreated as deploy the plurality of microservices in a single time (either deploying each discrete deployable artifact per microservice or a single executable artifact for all microservices).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §102
7. 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
8. Claims 1-3, 10-12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2023/0127037 to Waite et al. (hereafter “Waite”).
Claim 1.
Waite discloses a non-transitory computer-readable media storing computer instructions which when executed by one or more processors of a device cause the device to:
determine a plurality of microservices to be deployed to a system (0006, determine and gather specific microservices requested by the customer, 0007, determine and receive microservices A, B, and E based on a first customer profile, determine and receive microservices A, C, and D based on a second customer profile); and
unify deployments of the plurality of microservices into a single deployment of the plurality of microservices to the system (0006, 0007, deploy the specific microservices to the specific customers in a single package/time).
Claim 2.
Waite discloses the non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1, wherein a discrete deployable artifact is provided for each individual microservice of the plurality of microservices (0006, . . . A deployment system has to cobble together a customized deployment for the customer which has separate containers for the specific microservices requested by the customer. . .).
Claim 3.
Waite discloses the non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1, wherein a single executable artifact is provided for all of the plurality of microservices (0006, . . .the deployment system can gather the microservices together into a single package. . .).
Claim 10.
Waite discloses a method, comprising: at a computer system:
determining a plurality of microservices to be deployed to a system (0006, determine and gather specific microservices requested by the customer, 0007, determine and receive microservices A, B, and E based on a first customer profile, determine and receive microservices A, C, and D based on a second customer profile); and
unifying deployments of the plurality of microservices into a single deployment of the plurality of microservices to the system (0006, 0007, deploy the specific microservices to the specific customers in a single deployment/time).
Claim 11.
This claim is a method version, which recites the same limitations as those of claim 2, wherein all claimed limitations have been addressed and/or set forth above. Therefore, as the reference teaches all of the limitations of the above claim, it also teaches all of the limitations of this claim.
Claim 12.
This claim is a method version, which recites the same limitations as those of claim 3, wherein all claimed limitations have been addressed and/or set forth above. Therefore, as the reference teaches all of the limitations of the above claim, it also teaches all of the limitations of this claim.
Claim 19.
Waite discloses a system, comprising: a non-transitory memory storing instructions; and one or more processors in communication with the non-transitory memory that execute the instructions to:
determine a plurality of microservices to be deployed to a sub-system (0006, determine and gather specific microservices requested by the customer, 0007, determine and receive microservices A, B, and E based on a first customer profile, determine and receive microservices A, C, and D based on a second customer profile); and
unify deployments of the plurality of microservices into a single deployment of the plurality of microservices to the sub-system (0006, 0007, deploy the specific microservices to the specific customers in a single deployment/time).
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §103
9. 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.
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.
10. Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waite in view of US 2020/0356400 to Pashenkov et al. (hereafter “Pashenkov”).
Claim 4.
Waite does not disclose the non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1, wherein upon startup of the system, each microservice of the plurality of microservices is loaded into an isolated context.
However, Pashenkov further discloses upon startup of the system, each microservice of the plurality of microservices is loaded into an isolated context (0006, 0066, 0121, 0137).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Pashenkov’s teaching into Waite‘s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to provide quick startup time, isolation, and efficiency as suggested by Pashenkov (0006, 0121).
Claim 13.
This claim is a method version, which recites the same limitations as those of claim 4, wherein all claimed limitations have been addressed and/or set forth above. Therefore, as the reference teaches all of the limitations of the above claim, it also teaches all of the limitations of this claim.
11. Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waite in view of Pashenkov, and further in view of US 2022/0385542 to Gokan Khan et al. (hereafter “Gokan Khan”).
Claim 5.
Waite and Pashenkov do not disclose the non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 4, wherein the isolated context is provided for each microservice of the plurality of microservices with a related configuration and objects.
However, Gokan Khan further discloses the isolated context is provided for each microservice of the plurality of microservices with a related configuration and objects (0073).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Gokan Khan’s teaching into Waite and Pashenkov‘s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to generate a subset of training data as suggested by Gokan Khan (0073).
Claim 14.
This claim is a method version, which recites the same limitations as those of claim 5, wherein all claimed limitations have been addressed and/or set forth above. Therefore, as the reference teaches all of the limitations of the above claim, it also teaches all of the limitations of this claim.
12. Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waite in view of Pashenkov, and further in view of US 2024/0241764 to Jha et al. (hereafter “Jha”).
Claim 6.
Waite and Pashenkov do not disclose the non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 4, wherein the isolated context provides database separation among the plurality of microservices.
However, Jha further discloses the isolated context provides database separation among the plurality of microservices (0004, 0060).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Jha’s teaching into Waite and Pashenkov‘s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to ensure that each application is executed within the execution environment provided by a container to be isolated from applications executing within the execution environments provided by the other containers as suggested by Jha (0060).
Claim 15.
This claim is a method version, which recites the same limitations as those of claim 6, wherein all claimed limitations have been addressed and/or set forth above. Therefore, as the reference teaches all of the limitations of the above claim, it also teaches all of the limitations of this claim.
13. Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waite in view of Pashenkov, and further in view of US 2025/0007796 to Smith (hereafter “Smith”).
Claim 8.
Waite and Pashenkov do not disclose the non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 4, wherein the isolated context enables elasticity for the plurality of microservices.
However, Smith further discloses the isolated context enables elasticity for the plurality of microservices (0011, 0650, 0651).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Smith’s teaching into Waite and Pashenkov‘s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to provide horizontal and vertical scaling capabilities to adapt to changes or demands of applications, systems, or networks as suggested by Smith (0650).
Claim 17.
This claim is a method version, which recites the same limitations as those of claim 8, wherein all claimed limitations have been addressed and/or set forth above. Therefore, as the reference teaches all of the limitations of the above claim, it also teaches all of the limitations of this claim.
14. Claims 9, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waite in view of US 2020/0351368 to Walsh et al. (hereafter “Walsh”).
Claim 9.
Waite does not disclose the non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 1, wherein in-process calls are used for communications between the plurality of microservices.
However, Walsh further discloses in-process calls are used for communications between the plurality of microservices (0320, 0353, 0357).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Walsh’s teaching into Waite‘s teaching. One would have been motivated to do so to provide a stable and consistent way for all microservices to communicate with each other and any microservice can be called or can call any other microservice as suggested by Walsh (0357).
Claim 18.
This claim is a method version, which recites the same limitations as those of claim 9, wherein all claimed limitations have been addressed and/or set forth above. Therefore, as the reference teaches all of the limitations of the above claim, it also teaches all of the limitations of this claim.
Claim 20.
This claim is a system version, which recites the same limitations as those of claim 9, wherein all claimed limitations have been addressed and/or set forth above. Therefore, as the reference teaches all of the limitations of the above claim, it also teaches all of the limitations of this claim.
Conclusion
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication should be directed to examiner Thuy (Twee) Dao, whose telephone/fax numbers are (571) 272 8570 and (571) 273 8570, respectively. Examiner can normally be reached from Monday to Friday, 5:30am - 2:00pm ET.
If attempts to reach Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, Examiner’s supervisor, Hyung (Sam) Sough, can be reached at (571) 272 6799.
The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273 8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature of relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the TC 2100 Group receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272 2100.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Thuy Dao/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192