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 .
Claims 1-20 have been examined.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MP (US 2022/0214899) in view of Banister (US 2021/0334239), and further in view of Sundaram (US 2025/0217224).
Per Claim 1:
MP teaches maintaining a project for a target computing system, wherein the project comprises a first integration and a second integration, and obtaining information indicating that a revision has been made to the first integration; determining whether the first integration should be transmitted to the target computing system for use in the project based at least in part on the first revision; responsive to determining that the first integrations should be transmitted to the target system: transmitting the application comprising the first integration to the target computing system for implementation within the project of the target computing system; wherein the method is performed by at least one device including a hardware processor ([0012] During cloud platform integration (CPI) to integrate applications, two or more applications can be integrated to share data related to the states, requests, commands and other mechanisms to implement processes. For each element shared between the applications, integration steps may be created to share the data. For example, if System A wants to communicate/share data with system B via an HTTP protocol, and system B communicates/shares data via an OData protocol, there may be a problem in that these protocols may not be compatible. The integration steps may be used to allow the two systems to communicate with each other. Further, each set of integration steps may be different, depending on the complexity of the scenario that is modelled by the steps and the amount of data that is being processed. To that end, each set of integration steps may need a different amount of resources (e.g., memory and Computer Processing Unit (CPU) processing time). [0013] A user may design the integration steps that allow the two systems to communicate with each other. After designing the integration steps, the user may deploy these steps on to a Tenant (e.g., Virtual machine) for execution thereof (i.e., to have the two systems communicate with each other). The inventor notes that the integration may be of two systems or two applications. During execution, data is pulled from a source system. Then the data is enriched, and transformation logic is applied thereto, per the integration steps. When the enrichment and transformation is complete, the enriched and transformed data is sent to the target system. Often the integration steps are applied to a large volume of data, including but not limited to, millions or records. And see e.g. par. 0031 “… processor …”). MP does not explicitly teach wherein the first integration comprises a first revision identifier and the second integration comprises a second revision identifier; updating the first revision identifier based at least in part on the revision to the first integration or generating a container image comprising the first integration; and transmitting the container image to the target computing system.
However, Banister teaches wherein the first integration comprises a first revision identifier and the second integration comprises a second revision identifier; updating the first revision identifier based at least in part on the revision to the first integration ([0009] … storing of a source database in a computer system, wherein a plurality of source records of the source database each include a date time stamp of a most recent revision and a unique record identifier, wherein each record identifier is a unique signifier within the source database and a record creation event is a type of record revision; storing a target database in a computer memory, wherein the target database receives copies of revisions of the plurality of source records; selection within the target database of a plurality of records to update; generating a source work file comprising source compound keys extracted from each current source record of the plurality of source records, and each source compound key extracted from a same source record and including a source record identifier and a most recent source date time stamp of the same source record; sorting the source compound keys of the source work file into a source ordered list according to a value sequence of the source record identifiers of the source compound keys; generating a target work file comprising target compound keys extracted from each current target record of the plurality of target records, and each target compound key extracted from a same target record and including a target record identifier and a most recent target date time stamp of the same target record; sorting the target compound keys of the target work file into a target ordered list according to the value sequence of the record identifiers of the target compound keys as applied to order the source ordered list of the source work file; comparing the source work file and the target work file to generate a retrieval work file that lists source compound keys not found to be matched in the target work file by a target compound key having a same target record identifier and target date time stamp; and writing all source records having corresponding source compound keys listed in the retrieval work file into the target database.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by MP to include wherein the first integration comprises a first revision identifier and the second integration comprises a second revision identifier; updating the first revision identifier based at least in part on the revision to the first integration using the teaching of Banister. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to have data integrity for software revisions (Banister, par. 0003-0005).
However, Sundaram teaches generating a container image comprising the first integration; and transmitting the container image to the target computing system ([0087] In at least one embodiment, tasks of data processing pipeline may be encapsulated in one or more container(s) that each represent a discrete, fully functional instantiation of an application and virtualized computing environment that is able to reference machine learning models. In at least one embodiment, containers or applications may be published into a private (e.g., limited access) area of a container registry (described in more detail herein), and trained or deployed models may be stored in model registry 924 and associated with one or more applications. In at least one embodiment, images of applications (e.g., container images) may be available in a container registry, and once selected by a user from a container registry for deployment in a pipeline, an image may be used to generate a container for an instantiation of an application for use by a user system.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by MP to include generating a container image comprising the first integration; and transmitting the container image to the target computing system using the teaching of Sundaram. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize Large Language Models for complex systems installation (Sundaram, par. 0015).
Per Claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Banister further teaches wherein the updated first revision identifier indicates that the revision to the first integration is a major revision (par. 0009).
Per Claim 3:
The rejection of claim 2 is incorporated, and MP further teaches wherein the first integration is associated with an endpoint at the target computing system, and wherein the method further comprises: generating control instructions for the target computing system to disable the endpoint during an installation of the first integration at the target computing system; and transmitting the control instructions to the target computing system (par. 0013 -0014).
Per Claim 4:
The rejection of claim 2 is incorporated, and MP further teaches wherein the first integration is associated with a first endpoint at the target computing system, and wherein the method further comprises: generating control instructions for the target computing system to generate a second endpoint associated with the first integration that indicates the revision to the first integration (par. 0013 -0014).
Per Claim 5:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Banister further teaches wherein the updated first revision identifier indicates that the revision to the first integration is a minor revision (par. 0009-0010).
Per Claim 6:
The rejection of claim 5 is incorporated, and MP further teaches wherein the first integration is associated with an endpoint at the target computing system, and wherein the method further comprises: generating control instructions for the target computing system to permit the endpoint to remain enabled during an installation of the first integration at the target computing system; and transmitting the control instructions to the target computing system (par. 0013 -0014).
Per Claim 7:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Banister further teaches wherein the method further comprises: accessing an indication of a user-based selection of the first integration with the updated first revision identifier, wherein determining whether the first integration is to be transmitted to the target computing system for use in the project is further based at least in part on the user-based selection (par. 0111).
Per Claim 8:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and MP further teaches wherein the first integration comprises a configured integration that is inactive for use at the target computing system or an activated integration that is available for use at the target computing system (par. 0013).
Per Claim 9:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and Sundaram further teaches wherein generating the container image further comprises: accessing metadata describing the first integration that is selected to be in the container image; and storing the metadata in the container image (par. 0080 and 0082).
Per Claims 11-18:
These claims are system versions of the claimed method discussed above (claims 1-8, respectively), wherein all claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in cited areas as set forth above. Thus, accordingly, these claims are also obvious.
Per Claims 19-20:
These claims are media versions of the claimed method discussed above (claims 1 and 7, respectively), wherein all claim limitations also have been addressed and/or covered in cited areas as set forth above. Thus, accordingly, these claims are also obvious.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MP (US 2022/0214899) in view of Banister (US 2021/0334239), further in view of Sundaram (US 2025/0217224), and further in view of Jain (US 12,189,572).
Per Claim 10:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, and further, MP does not explicitly teach wherein compressing the container image using a compression algorithm, wherein the container image is transmitted in a compressed format. However, Jain teaches wherein compressing the container image using a compression algorithm, wherein the container image is transmitted in a compressed format (column 4, lines 1-36).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the computer art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method disclosed by MP to include wherein compressing the container image using a compression algorithm, wherein the container image is transmitted in a compressed format using the teaching of Jain. The modification would be obvious because one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve portability of container images (Jain, column 1, lines 15-28).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Gonzalez (US 2021/0397429) teaches a method for live updates for containers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QAMRUN NAHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-3730. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-4pm.
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached on (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 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.
/QAMRUN NAHAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199