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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Moyer et al. (US 2022/0043692).
With respect to claim 1, Moyer discloses: receiving, at a control plane operator running on a container orchestration platform, an indication that a tenant is being onboarded in a containerized Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) application that supports multi-tenancy in a single instance of the containerized SaaS application (Fig. 3, “302”; [0011], [0015]); and
creating tenancy components for each of a plurality of services in the containerized SaaS application to support the multi-tenancy in each of the plurality of services, wherein the tenancy components are defined by tenancy definitions provided by each of the plurality of services (Fig. 3, [0025]- [0030]).
With respect to claim 2, Moyer discloses: wherein the receiving the indication that the tenant is being onboarded comprises being alerted that a custom resource definition (CRD) for the tenant (Tenant CRD) has been created ([0031]).
With respect to claim 3, Moyer discloses: wherein the operations further comprise marking the Tenant CRD as complete in response to all tenancy components for each of the plurality of services having been created (Fig. 4, “412”; [0016]).
With respect to claim 6, Moyer discloses: wherein the creating the tenancy components comprises instructing each of the plurality of services in the containerized SaaS application to create the tenancy components (Fig. 3, “310”).
With respect to claim 7, Moyer discloses: wherein the control plane operator is part of the containerized SaaS application ([0019]).
With respect to claim 8, Moyer discloses: wherein the control plane operator is part of the container orchestration platform (Fig. 1, 112 corresponds to the “control plane operator”).
With respect to claim 9, Moyer discloses: wherein the control plane operator is implemented as a custom resource operator in a Kubernetes cluster (id.).
With respect to claim 10, Moyer discloses wherein the control plane operator, the containerized SaaS application, and the plurality of services are deployed in a common Kubernetes namespace ([0035]).
With respect to claim 11, it recites similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same citations and rationale.
With respect to claim 12, Moyer discloses: wherein the operations further comprise monitoring, at the control plane operator, for changes in the tenancy definitions ([0003], [0032]).
With respect to claim 13, it recites similar limitations as claim 2 and is therefore rejected under the same citations and rationale.
With respect to claim 14, Moyer discloses wherein the storing the tenancy definitions comprises retrieving the tenancy definitions from the CRD and storing the tenancy definitions in the database (id.).
With respect to claims 15-18, they recite similar limitations as claims 7-10, respectively, and are therefore rejected under the same citations and rationale.
With respect to claims 19 and 20, they recite similar limitations as claims 1 and 10, respectively, and are therefore rejected under the same citations and rationale.
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) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Moyer et al. (US 2022/0043692) in view of Li et al. (US 2024/0427574).
With respect to claim 5, Moyer does not specifically disclose: wherein the receiving the indication that the tenant is being onboarded comprises receiving a Kubernetes Watch event.
However, Li discloses: wherein the receiving the indication that the tenant is being onboarded comprises receiving a Kubernetes Watch event ([0027]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Li to monitor key metrics to effectively track the performance and health of a Kubernetes API server ensuring smooth operation of the Kubernetes container environment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art, alone or in any reasonable combination, does not disclose receiving any indication that a tenant is being onboarded based on polling a resource state through a Kubernetes application programming interface. While Li discloses the Kubernetes Watch command that uses an API to request reporting of a status change of a resource ([0024]), Li does not disclose that the Kubernetes Watch command is used to get any information or indication that a tenant onboarding is occurring.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yang et al. (US 2019/0392354): Discloses a Kubernetes platform coordinates a cluster of machines, referred to as ‘nodes’ to work as a single unit. Containerized applications may be deployed to a cluster without tying them specifically to individual nodes. The applications may be packaged as containers to decouple them from individual hosts. Kubernetes automates the distribution and scheduling and scaling of application containers across a cluster of nodes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WISSAM RASHID whose telephone number is (571)270-3758. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Aimee Li can be reached at (571)272-4169. 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.
/WISSAM RASHID/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195
Prosecution Insights