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 .
Detail Action
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 5/26/2026.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claims 2-3, 11-12, and 20 are rejection because claims 2, 11, and 20 similarly recites the limitation " the one or more operational thresholds altered" in “resetting the one or more operational thresholds altered during the deployment operation.”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Dependent claims of the above claims inherit the limitation and deficiency of respective parent claim(s) and are rejected for similar reason. See further explanation in “Response to Arguments”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 8-10, 13-15, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pathak et al. (US 12,405,785 Bl)
Per claim 1,
Pathak discloses
determining initiation of a deployment operation for a computing device, wherein the deployment operation differs from operations that include processing, on the computing device, workloads for one or more clients; (c5: 15-30, discloses receiving input specifying a time window for deployment of new version of software, where deployment is different from executing deployed. See c5:25-28, begin deployment at 5:00pm. C5: 45-50, discloses execute the new version of the software application component corresponds to operation/workload on the computing device.)
receiving one or more deployment thresholds associated with the deployment operation;(c33: 37- 67, see Metric thresholds corresponding to deployment threshold…optionally change metric threshold criteria associated with runtime execution. C34: 1-42, discloses deployment operation measuring runtime performance and roll-back. See further explanation is response to arguments.)
implementing the one or more deployment thresholds; (see above)
adjusting one or more operational thresholds conflicting with the deployment operation; (c33:50-67, discloses user can change metric threshold, for example, a number of allowable errors. C34:1-60, discloses deployment operation roll back when load time criteria not met. ) and
transmitting an alert in response to detection of a metric associated with a deployment threshold of the one or more deployment thresholds exceeding the deployment threshold. (c34: 17-42, see not satisfying corresponding to exceeding threshold and issue a warning corresponding to transmitting an alert)
Per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Pathak discloses
wherein the deployment operation is initiated through a management network separate from a computer network servicing execution of the workloads for the one or more clients. (c7:5-32, discloses network corresponding to a management network connecting devices and equipment in a remote location.)
Per claim 5, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Pathak discloses
wherein the alert is transmitted to a user interface of a datacenter monitoring system and/or a management server connected to a management network. (c14: 1-20, issue alert to developer computing device)
Per claim 6, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Pathak discloses
wherein the deployment operation is initiated via a management network. (c14: 28-45, Fig. 2 discloses software repository coupled to a network.)
Per claim 8, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Pathak discloses
wherein determining the initiation of the deployment operation for the computing device comprises one of:
detecting the initiation of the deployment operation; and receiving a notification of the initiation of the deployment operation. (c5:43-50, see respond to requests corresponding to notification)
Per claim 9, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated.
Pathak discloses
wherein the deployment operation comprises an operation to install, update, configure, commission, and/or remove an operating system, an application, and/or firmware. (c8:56-60, see upload, update…)
Per claims 10, 13-15 and 17-18, see rejections of claims 1, 4-6 and 8-9 above.
Per claim 19, see rejection of claim 1.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pathak et al. (US 12,405,785 Bl) and further in view of Blumenau et al. (US 20060106884 A1).
Per claim 7,
Pathak does not, however, Blumenau discloses
wherein the deployment operation interrupts processing of the workloads for the one or more clients on the computing device. ([0082], during installation…suspending operation of client software)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Blumenau into the teachings of Pathak to include the limitation disclosed by Blumenau. The modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to want to suspend and records to generate audit log for the client as suggested by Blumenau ([0082])
Per claim 16, see rejection of claim 7.
Response to Arguments
Related to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection related to “the one or more operational thresholds altered” in “resetting the one or more operational thresholds altered during the deployment operation”. Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Per page 9 of the argument, Applicant states “[0005] The "altered" in the phrase "resetting the one or more operational thresholds altered during the deployment operation" is a verb separate from the phrase "the one or more operational thresholds." Thus, the claim recites resetting these operational thresholds that have been alerted. Thus, there is no antecedent basis issue because "the one or more operational thresholds" has antecedent basis from "one or more operational thresholds" recited in Claim 1.” Examiner understands "the one or more operational thresholds altered" is interpreted as “the one or more operational thresholds that have been altered” However, “the one or more operational thresholds" (A) and "the one or more operational thresholds that have been altered"(B) are two different things: (A) is non-altered operational thresholds and (B) is altered operational thresholds. Examiner agrees (A) has precedence in claim 1, however, disagrees (B) has precedence in claim 1 because claim 1 does not include altered operational thresholds.
Related to Applicant’s argument related to claims 1, 10, and 19.
Per remark, page 11, paragraph 4, Applicant argues “All of the thresholds listed in lines 37-67 of Prathak are for runtime execution of a widget and not associated with any deployment thresholds” Based this argument, Applicant appears to assume metrics thresholds related to deployment operation (DO) and metrics thresholds related to operations on the computing device (OCD) are mutual exclusive.
However, Prathak c34:17-42, specifically discloses “pause deployment…roll-back…In response to execution of the new version of the widget not stratifying criteria…performance variables and/or the allowable number of errors…deployment module may pause the deployment ….” This paragraph clearly describes a deployment module executing a deployment operation that rollbacks when certain runtime thresholds (per Metric thresholds 656) are not met.
The Metric thresholds 656 of a deployment configuration disclosed by Prathak (c33:37-67) includes execution time thresholds (operational thresholds) can also be deployment thresholds as the deployment operation includes measuring the widget execution performance. In this scenario, a deployment operation includes actually executing the installed component to determine if roll-back is needed.
For the above reason, rejections of the above claims are maintained.
Applicants’ arguments related to claims 7 and 16 are based on arguments above and therefore corresponding rejections are maintained.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Philip Wang whose telephone number is 571-272-5934. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Friday 8:00AM -4:00PM. Any inquiry of general nature or relating to the status of this application should be directed to the TC2100 Group receptionist: 571-272-2100.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lewis Bullock, can be reached at 571-272-3759. 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).
/PHILIP WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights