DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 28 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Duan et al. (US 10,552,586).
In regard to claim 1, Duan disclosed a computer-implemented method for replicating software containers based on established metrics, the computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving a request for installation of a software application in a computing environment; (Duan column 28 lines 33-42)
identifying a license metric for the software application in the request, wherein the license metric includes licensing information and further refers to a scope of the software application as would run in the computing environment; (Duan column 30 line 60 – column 31 line 19)
determining a capacity metric for the computing environment; and (Duan column 28 line 48 – column 29 line 4)
generating a software container in the computing environment based on the license metric and the capacity metric, (Duan column 28 lines 45-48, column 30 lines 29-43) wherein generating the software container further comprises simulating, via the software container, installation and operation of the software application in the computing environment based on a combination of the license metric and the capacity metric, the simulation including mock traffic between nodes and users in an enterprise network. (Duan column 31 lines 35-52, column 32 lines 8-30)
In regard to claim 2, Duan disclosed:
displaying to a user one or more of: the license metric and the capacity metric; Duan column 38, line 65, user interface subsystem 1006
monitoring interactions of the user with the one or more of: the license metric and the capacity metric; and Duan column 31, lines 35-52
modifying the software container based on the interactions of the user. Duan column 31, lines 35-52
In regard to claim 3, Duan disclosed wherein the generating the software container in the computing environment uses a machine learning model that predicts consumption of computing resources based on one or more of: the license metrics and the capacity metrics. Duan column 24 lines 9-40
In regard to claim 4, Duan disclosed:
determining a traffic level of the computing environment; and Duan column 29 lines 60-63
modifying the software container based on the traffic level of the computing environment. Duan column 30 lines 3-19
In regard to claim 5, Duan disclosed further comprising generating a performance report for the software container that includes the traffic level and a recommendation for the license metrics. (Duan column 34 lines 37-44)
In regard to claim 6, Duan disclosed wherein the software container comprises a virtual machine. Duan column 4 lines 37-41
In regard to claim 7, Duan disclosed wherein the computing environment comprises a test computing environment that is distinct from a production environment. Duan column 30 lines 29-43
Claim 8 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 9 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 2.
Claim 10 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 3.
Claim 11 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 4.
Claim 12 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 5.
Claim 13 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 6.
Claim 14 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 7.
Claim 15 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 1.
Claim 16 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 2.
Claim 17 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 3.
Claim 18 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 4.
Claim 19 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 5.
Claim 20 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 6.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sienicki et al. US 2022/0255941
Boudreau et al. US 2017/0199990
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeffrey R. Swearingen whose telephone number is (571)272-3921. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Oscar Louie can be reached at 571-270-1684. 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.
Jeffrey R. Swearingen
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2445
/Jeffrey R Swearingen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2445