DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to application filed on April 29, 2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending and are presented to examination.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submission of the Information Disclosure Statement dated September 16, 2024 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Foreign Priority
The foreign priority date considered for this application is April 27, 2023.
Drawings
The drawings filed on April 29, 2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 (and similar for claims 9 and 17) recites the limitation “executing a Helm merge utility, the Helm merge utility automatically merging the updated master Helm chart with the existing master Helm chart, the merging including migrating the settings, names, and comments from the [[new]] updated master Helm chart to the existing master Helm chart;” in lines 8-11. Claim 3 recites “The method of claim [[1]] 2, wherein the removed respective component sections are moved to another YAML file for future reference.”. Claim 10 recites “The system of claim [[8]] 9, wherein for the one or more components of the cloud-based container that have been disabled, removing respective component sections from a YAML file associated with the updated master Helm chart.”. Please amend the claim language as indicated in bold. Appropriate correction is required. Dependent claims 2, 4-8, 11-16 and 18-20 do not overcome the deficiency of the base claim and, therefore, are objected for the same reasons as the base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1: Claims 1-8 are directed to methods and fall within the statutory category of processes; Claims 9-16 are directed to systems and fall within the statutory category of machines; and Claims 17-20 are directed to media and fall withing the statutory category of manufactures. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claims 1, 9 and 17 as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers steps that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitations: a) “responsive to a request to update a cloud-based container having an existing master Helm chart, providing an updated master Helm chart containing settings, names, and comments;” – Mental processes (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III), this limitation can be reasonable performed by a human mind, wherein a person can get/receive a new configuration file (i.e., helm chart) containing updated/new parameters.
b) “for one or more components of the cloud-based container that have been disabled by a user, removing settings in the updated master Helm chart associated with the disabled components;” – Mental processes (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III), this limitation can be reasonable performed by a human mind, wherein a person can remove sections flagged as disabled. c) “ - Mental processes (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), III), this limitation can be reasonable performed by a human mind, wherein a person can manually merge the new and the old configuration file. These cases have been identified by the Federal Circuit as abstract ideas having workflows addressing collecting, filtering, combining and applying.
Berkheimer v. HP Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2018) – parsing, comparing, storing structured data.
Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec (Fed. Cir. 2016) – filtering and routing data.
Electric Power Group v. Alstom (Fed. Cir. 2016) – collecting, analyzing, displaying information.
That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with a pen and paper, (i.e., “providing”, “removing” and, “merging”) can be performed in the human mind though observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, these limitations fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Therefore, Yes, claims 1, 9 and 17 recite judicial exceptions.
The claims have been identified to recite judicial exceptions, Step 2A Prong 2 will evaluate whether the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the following additional elements: “a Helm merge utility”, “a system”, “a processor”, “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”, and “a computer programming product”. The additional elements are merely instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, thus failing to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Does the claim improve the functioning of a computer? – claim doesn’t explain how the merge utility works technically.
Does it improve a technical field? – claim is drafted at high abstraction level.
Is it tied to a particular machine? – no specific hardware or architecture is required.
Does it apply the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking to a technological environment? – cloud-based container and Helm chart read as environment, not an integration.
The claim does not explain the technical mechanism of the merge utility. The Federal Circuit in Interval Licensing v. AOL (2016) and Two-Way Media v. Comcast (2017) held that claiming a result functionally without a specific technical implementation does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. McRO and Enfish required specific technical rules or data structure improvements, not just an outcome.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
After having evaluating the inquires set forth in Steps 2A Prong 1 and 2, it has been concluded that claims 1, 9 and 17 not only recites a judicial exception but that the claim is directed to the judicial exception as the judicial exception has not been integrated into practical application.
Step 2B:
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements “a Helm merge utility”, “a system”, “a processor”, “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”, and “a computer programming product” are generic computer components used as tools to perform the abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional elements recited in the claims cannot provide an inventive concept. In addition, after further evaluation the claim as a whole doesn’t improve any function of a computer or to any other technology or technical field. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible. The additional elements:
Cloud-based container – generic environment.
Helm chart – generic data structure in context.
Helm merge utility – functionally claimed, no technical specificity.
Deploying – generic application step.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, Claims 1, 9 and 17 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. With regards to claim 2 (and similar for claims 10 and 18), it recites “wherein for the one or more components of the cloud-based container that have been disabled, removing respective component sections from a YAML file associated with the updated master Helm chart.” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or using pen and paper. For example, a person can remove components from a file/code. Moreover, claim 2 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 2 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more Therefore, Claim 2 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regards to claim 3 (and similar for claims 11 and 19), it recites “wherein the removed respective component sections are moved to another YAML file for future reference.” as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind and/or using pen and paper. For example, a person can remove components from a file and can also create a new file with them. Moreover, claim 3 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 3 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more Therefore, Claim 3 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regards to claim 4 (and similar for claim 12), it recites “further comprising prompting a user whether or not to remove disabled components from the YAML file.” as drafted, is mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions. Moreover, claim 4 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 4 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more Therefore, Claim 4 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regards to claim 5 (and similar for claims 13 and 20), it recites “wherein the merged master Helm chart includes new values from the updated master Helm chart and values from the existing master Helm chart.” as drafted, is mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions. Moreover, claim 5 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 5 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more Therefore, Claim 5 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regards to claim 7 (and similar for claim 15), it recites “wherein the updated master Helm chart relates to a product upgrade.” as drafted, is mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions. Moreover, claim 7 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 7 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more Therefore, Claim 7 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
With regards to claim 8 (and similar for claim 16), it recites wherein the updated master Helm chart relates to security vulnerability fix.” as drafted, is mere instructions to apply the judicial exceptions. Moreover, claim 8 does not recite any other additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 8 also fails both Step 2A prong 2, thus the claim is directed to the judicial exception as it has not been integrated into practical application, and fails Step 2B as not amounting to significantly more Therefore, Claim 8 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Therefore, Claims 1-5, 7-13 and 15-20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Examiner Comments
For claims 1-20, no art rejection is made for these claims. Claims 1-5, 7-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as explained above in this office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Galgali et al. (US Pub. No. 2022/0350587) discloses systems and methods for deploying services may include accessing configuration data associated with a service to be deployed, the configuration data generated independently of the service and configured to include environment-related data and infrastructure-related data, the environment-related data identifying at least versioning information associated with the service, and the infrastructure-related data identifying at least artifact repository information associated with the service. (see abstract). Ranganathan et al. (US Pub. No. 2024/0053973) discloses a method for deployment, import, and scheduling of containers and other software components on cloud and edge computing hardware. A development platform may receive, from a remote location, package data for a deployment of one or more containers, including a configuration for the one or more containers. Such package data may be provided by a Helm chart or a Docker Compose YAML file. The development platform may extract the configuration for the one or more containers from the package data, and also perform a security evaluation of the one or more containers and the configuration for the one or more containers to validate compliance with a security policy. The development platform may execute (and coordinate scheduling) of one or more container images for the one or more containers, based on the configuration, after validating compliance with the security policy. (see abstract).
Babu et al. (US Pub. No. 2023/0368055) discloses a method including a package manager chart file repository storing charts associated with a container orchestration system. A package manager platform, coupled to the package manager chart file repository, may access a first parent chart from the package manager chart file repository and determine that the first parent chart includes a dependency manifest. The package manager platform may then construct a Directed Acyclic Graph (“DAG”) based on the dependency manifest. Container orchestration system objects, including those associated with sub-charts of the first parent chart, may then be deployed in accordance with a topological ordering of the DAG. (see abstract).
Shivani Gokhale et al. (“Creating Helm Charts to ease deployment of Enterprise Application and its related Services in Kubernetes”) shows that deployment of Kubernetes resources is simplified using Helm such that applications can be defined as a set of components in the minikube Kubernetes cluster. (see abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANIBAL RIVERACRUZ whose telephone number is (571)270-1200. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30 AM-6:00 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, Hyung S Sough can be reached at 5712726799. 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.
/ANIBAL RIVERACRUZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2192
Prosecution Insights