DETAILED ACTION
Authorization for Internet Communications
The examiner encourages Applicant to submit an authorization to communicate with the examiner via the Internet by making the following statement (from MPEP 502.03):
“Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file.”
Please note that the above statement can only be submitted via Central Fax, Regular postal mail, or EFS Web (PTO/SB/439).
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 .
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.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 5/14/2024 and 4/4/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Okada (US PG PUB 2021/0049001) is from applicant’s IDS 5/14/2024, therefore will not be listed in PTO-892.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "generating a container image that includes the schema information after the update" in lines 3-4, and then later “generating a new container that is the new container that includes schema information after the update” in lines 6-7. It is unclear whether these are referring to the same generated container image or if it is a separate container being generated, because the first generating step appears to be a new container already that is after the update. Clarification of the claims is needed.
Claim 2 recites again “the generating the container” it is unclear which generating step it is referring to, and the steps “generating the container” it is not clear if they are new generating steps or referring to previously indicated generating steps, and which generating step prior is it referring to?
Claim 3 recites “the generated container image” it is unclear which container it is referring to.
Claim 4, recites “the generated the new container” it is unclear which container it is referring to.
Claim 5, recites “the generated the new container” it is unclear which container it is referring to.
Claims 6 and 7, correspond with method claim 1, and are rejected for the same reasons.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okada (US PG PUB 2021/0049001) in view of Aithal et al. (U.S. Patent 11,573814).
Regarding claim 1, Okada teaches a generation method comprising processing that is executed by a computer and includes: when detecting update of schema information on a database, generating a container image that includes the schema information after the update (see ¶[0057] “When an update is detected (Yes in step S1), the update detection unit 10 instructs the container-image generation unit 20 to execute a build (processing of updating a container image by using the container definition file in which the update has been detected).”) and a database management system that manages the database (see ¶[0044] “The container-image management unit 30 manages the container image in a repository format and notifies the update of the container image.”).
Okada does not expressly disclose, however, Aithal teaches generating a new container that is the new container that includes the schema information after the update and in which the database management system is to be executed, at a timing of scale-out of a container, based on the generated container image (See col. 7, lines 30-35, “For example, the request may be received in response to the container service 102 generating a request to launch additional containers in response to an auto scaling threshold being met or based on any other condition.”).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the teachings of Okada by adapting Aithal to allow data storage hardware to be shared among multiple users by providing each user with a virtualized data store which may be distributed across multiple data storage devices (see Aithal col. 1, 24-30).
Regarding claim 2, Okada teaches wherein the generating the container image includes: generating the container by using the container image that is latest at a time point when the update of the schema information is detected (see ¶[0069] “According to the second example embodiment described above, all the work from the build to the deployment to the container, which occurs every time when the container definition file required for reflecting the application to the container is generated and updated, is automatically executed by the application execution device 1.”).
Okada does not expressly disclose, however Aithal teaches copying the schema information after the update to the generated container (see col. 6, lines 25-30, “The storage driver can then create a copy at the container's writable layer of the first copy of the file that is found.”); and generating the container image obtained by imaging the container to which the schema information after the update has been copied (see col. 11, lines 7-15, “In some embodiments, a container service 102 can generate user-specific container image caches that can be dynamically updated and shared with future container execution environments that are expected to run containers based on the user-specific container images.”).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the teachings of Okada by adapting Aithal to allow data storage hardware to be shared among multiple users by providing each user with a virtualized data store which may be distributed across multiple data storage devices (see Aithal col. 1, 24-30).
Regarding claim 3, Okada wherein an already existing container is updated by using the generated container image at the timing when the container image that includes the schema information after the update is generated (see ¶ [0061] “The update detection unit 10 stores the container image having been updated by executing the build in the container-image management unit 30”).
Regarding claim 4, Okada does not expressly disclose, however Aithal teaches wherein the generating the new container includes generating the new container at the timing when metrics of an already existing container exceeds a specified value (See col. 7, lines 30-35, “For example, the request may be received in response to the container service 102 generating a request to launch additional containers in response to an auto scaling threshold being met or based on any other condition.”).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the teachings of Okada by adapting Aithal to allow data storage hardware to be shared among multiple users by providing each user with a virtualized data store which may be distributed across multiple data storage devices (see Aithal col. 1, 24-30).
Regarding claim 5, Okada does not expressly disclose, however Aithal teaches wherein the generating the new container includes generating the new container at the timing when an instruction to scale out the container is accepted (See col. 7, lines 30-35, “For example, the request may be received in response to the container service 102 generating a request to launch additional containers in response to an auto scaling threshold being met or based on any other condition.”).
Hence, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the teachings of Okada by adapting Aithal to allow data storage hardware to be shared among multiple users by providing each user with a virtualized data store which may be distributed across multiple data storage devices (see Aithal col. 1, 24-30).
Regarding claim 6, is an information processing device corresponding to method claim 1 above, and is rejected for the same reasons. In addition, Okada teaches a memory; and a processor coupled to the memory (see ¶[0077]).
Regarding claim 7, is a medium corresponding to method claim 1 above, and is rejected for the same reasons. In addition, Okada teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a generation program causing a computer to execute (see ¶[0077]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.Neogi et al. (U.S. PG PUB 2017/0257424) teaches receiving a request to provision a plurality of containers of an application across a plurality of data center hosts and iteratively placing the plurality of containers on the plurality of data center hosts. The containers can be selected for placement based on one of a locality constraint and an association with previously-placed containers. Placement of a selected container can be based on, at least, compute requirements of the selected container, network requirements of the selected container, configuration of the plurality of data center hosts, and performance metrics for the plurality of data center hosts.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARINA YUN whose telephone number is (571)270-7848. The examiner can normally be reached Mon, Tues, Thurs, 9-4 (EST).
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 call.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Young can be reached on (571) 270-3180. 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.
Carina Yun
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 2194
/CARINA YUN/Examiner, Art Unit 2194
Prosecution Insights