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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “bootstrapping the plurality of service according” should be “bootstrapping the plurality of services according.” Claims 8 and 15 are objected to for the same reason. Appropriate correction is required.
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 6 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 6 recites the limitation “the one or more user interfaces” and “the service plan definition.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 13 and 20 corresponds to claim 6; therefore, they are indefinite for the same reason.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the one or more user interfaces.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14 corresponds to claim 7; therefore, it is indefinite for the same reason.
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, 2, 5, 7-9, 12, 14-16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 requires:
generating, by an orchestrator control plane of the cloud infrastructure orchestration system, a build plan for bootstrapping a plurality of services within a data center, the build plan being generated based at least in part on a service build definition of a plurality of service build definitions, the service build definition specifying a deterministic process for bootstrapping a service of the plurality of services; . . . and
tracking, by the orchestrator control plane, a state associated with the bootstrapping of the plurality of services by the regional orchestrator of the cloud infrastructure orchestration system.
The limitations of generating a build plan and tracking a state, as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “by an orchestrator control plane of the cloud infrastructure orchestration system,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by an orchestrator control plane of the cloud infrastructure orchestration system” language, generating a build plan and tracking a state, in the context of this claim, encompasses a user mentally determining a build plan and mentally monitoring data on a computer terminal. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim additionally recites “providing, by a cloud infrastructure orchestration system of a cloud-computing environment, a plurality of regional orchestrators, each regional orchestrator of the plurality of regional orchestrators executing in an isolated hosting environment” and “instructing, by the orchestrator control plane, a regional orchestrator of the cloud infrastructure orchestration system to initiate bootstrapping the plurality of service according to the build plan.” The providing a plurality of regional orchestrators and instructing a regional orchestrator are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer hardware) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of providing a plurality of regional orchestrators and instructing a regional orchestrator amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 2, it further recites “a service cell of a plurality of service cells,” which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception. Accordingly, claim 2 is ineligible.
Regarding claim 5, it further recites presenting one or more user interfaces presenting the state, which amounts to insignificant extra solution activity of mere data gathering. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Accordingly, claim 5 is ineligible.
Regarding claim 7, further recites receiving data and instructing the regional orchestrator to modify an execution, which amounts to insignificant extra solution activity of mere data gathering. See MPEP § 2106.05(g). Accordingly, claim 7 is ineligible.
Regarding claims 8, 9, 12, 14-16, and 19, they correspond to claims 1, 2, 5, and 7. Therefore, they are ineligible for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-15, and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madhu (US 2016/0048408) and further in view of Dockter (US 2021/0224076).
Regarding claim 1, Madhu teaches: A computer-implemented method, comprising:
providing, by a cloud infrastructure orchestration system of a cloud-computing environment, a plurality of regional orchestrators (¶ 54, “the hybrid cloud management platform 124 includes components 212, 216, and 220 for the management, orchestration, and integration of the enterprise data center with respect to a cloud-computing environment” and ¶ 213, “Each site may have an independent scheduler with global awareness of the remote resources”; ¶ 12, ¶ 97), each regional orchestrator of the plurality of regional orchestrators executing in an isolated hosting environment (¶ 128, “Other bootstrap operations may include: creating a private network in the on premise data center; creating a local prototype data mover attached to the private network; setting up the private network; creating a private network in the cloud”);
generating, by an orchestrator control plane of the cloud infrastructure orchestration system (¶ 156, “The orchestration of the snapshot and CBTs may be performed within a control plane”), a build plan for bootstrapping a plurality of services within a data center (¶ 122, “A bootstrap element 1804 may act to automatically set up the infrastructure in a primary data center (the main service point for delivering IT services to end-users in an enterprise) and cloud data centers”), the build plan being generated based at least in part on a service build definition of a plurality of service build definitions (¶ 66, “Data collected through the metadata service may be used as a guide or blueprint of the topology of the local environment, which may be used to replicate an environment in the cloud”), the service build definition specifying a deterministic process for bootstrapping a service of the plurality of services (¶ 49, “the hybrid cloud management platform 124 may comprise functionality for automated hybrid data center creation based on various configured policies, such as policies relating to desired accessibility times, disaster recovery parameters such as RTO (recovery time objective, or the targeted maximum duration within which a business process is to be restored after a disaster event)”);
instructing, by the orchestrator control plane, a regional orchestrator of the cloud infrastructure orchestration system to initiate bootstrapping the plurality of service according to the build plan (¶ 122, “a discover element 1802 may act to auto-discover and blueprint a virtual and/or physical enterprise data center environment, such as one corresponding to an enterprise data center, and which includes virtual and physical components. A bootstrap element 1804 may act to automatically set up the infrastructure in a primary data center (the main service point for delivering IT services to end-users in an enterprise) and cloud data centers”); and
tracking, by the orchestrator control plane, a state associated with the bootstrapping of the plurality of services by the regional orchestrator of the cloud infrastructure orchestration system (¶ 104, “the user interface may enable automated disaster recovery testing, alerting and reporting of disaster recovery events, and provide cost and projected cost reporting. Also, the user interface may provide status information regarding amount of protected data (such as a percentage of total data, absolute amount, number of protected virtual machines, etc.), jobs that are being processed and their status, such as waiting, running, paused, failed, or complete”).
Madhu does not teach as clearly as Dockter discloses: a plurality of regional orchestrators (¶ 75, “the view/plan/approve service 112 can request planning and push plan approval to all regions of CIOS Regional 120 (e.g., using HTTPS or the like). Relevant ACLs can be controlled using a security list managed by the wide area network (WAN) gateway 126” and ¶ 95, “CIOS Regional 202 can be a regional service for managing regional instances/deployments of CIOS. CIOS Regional 202 covers responsibility for authoritatively storing and managing plans and stat that pertains to a particular region”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to have applied the known technique of a plurality of regional orchestrators, as taught by Dockter, in the same way to hybrid cloud management platform, as taught by Madhu. Both inventions are in the field of data center infrastructure orchestration, and combining them would have predictably resulted in “authoritatively storing and managing plans and stat that pertains to a particular region,” as indicated by Dockter (¶ 95).
Regarding claim 3, Dockter teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the build plan is generated based at least in part on parsing a service build definition (¶ 118, “CIOS (or the declarative provisioning provisioner) may generate a directed acyclic graph (DAG) for each resource, module, and/or capability that compiles and defines an ordered list of dependencies on other resources, modules, and/or capabilities”), the service build definition (¶ 48, “Flock config—Describes the set of all infrastructure components, artifacts, and deployment tasks associated with a single service”) comprising a service plan (¶ 55, “Release plan—The set of steps that the CIOS would take to transition all regions from their current state to the state described by a release”) and manifest (¶ 50, “Flock configs are declarative. They expect CIOS to provide realm, region, ad, and artifact versions as input.”), the service plan identifying one or more build milestones and an execution unit corresponding to a transition between two build milestones (¶ 109, “CIOS calls each element in the progression an Execution Target (ET)—this is all over our internal APIs, but does not leak out in to the flock config. CIOS executes ETs based on the DAG 200 defined in the flock config. Each ET (e.g., ET-1, ET-2, ET-3, ET-4, ET-5, ET-6, and ET-7) is, roughly, one copy of the service described by the flock config”), the manifest specifying one or more artifacts to be utilized while building a service corresponding to the service build definition (¶ 79, “Managing binary artifact storage for declarative provisioning artifacts used for input and output during declarative infrastructure provisioning execution”).
Regarding claim 4, Dockter teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 3, wherein each execution unit is associated with one or more infrastructure releases or application releases (¶ 93, “Launch and monitor declarative infrastructure provisioning containers for doing the real work of a Release for an Execution Target”).
Regarding claim 5, Dockter teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising presenting, by the orchestration control plane, one or more user interfaces (¶ 73, “CIOS Central 102 may be configured to provide any suitable portion and/or number of user interfaces (e.g., user interfaces 500-1300) for presenting any suitable data related to a flock, a release, an infrastructure component, an artifact, or the like”) presenting the state associated with bootstrapping the plurality of services by the regional orchestrator of the cloud infrastructure orchestration system (¶ 75, “The engineer 108 can view by calling CIOS Central 102 to view the status of ongoing CIOS activity world-wide” and ¶ 113, “A process responsible for booting the resource 506 may receive a notification that the module 502 has completed deployment”).
Regarding claim 6, Dockter teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the one or more user interfaces presents a directed acyclic graph generated based at least in part on the service plan definition (¶ 75, “The engineer 108 can view by calling CIOS Central 102 to view the status of ongoing CIOS activity world-wide” and ¶ 115, “CIOS (or the declarative provisioning provisioner) may generate a directed acyclic graph (DAG) for each resource, modules, and/or capability that compiles and defines an ordered list of dependencies on other resources, modules, and/or capabilities. While attempting to deploy a resource, CIOS may traverse the DAG to identify when a resource is dependent on another resource, module, and/or capability”), and wherein each node of the directed acyclic graph corresponds to a build milestone or to an execution unit associated with building the service (¶ 120, “The directed edges of each DAG define an order by which these operations are to be executed and/or a dependency between a subset of operations associated with a node and a subset of capabilities associated with an immediately preceding that node”).
Regarding claim 7, Dockter teaches: The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising receiving, from one of the one or more user interfaces, data indicating an intervention has been initiated (¶ 75, “The engineer 108 can plan and/or approve by calling CIOS Central 102 to generate and approve plans”); and instructing the regional orchestrator to modify execution of the build plan based at least in part on the intervention being initiated (¶ 96, “CIOS Central 102 can call CIOS Regional 202 to create plans, push approvals, watch job status (service principal), and extract declarative provisioner state (service principal)”).
Claims 8, 10-15, and 17-20 recite commensurate subject matter as claims 1 and 3-7. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 2, 9, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madhu and Dockter, as applied above, and further in view of Guo (US 2011/0296052).
Regarding claim 2, Madhu and Dockter do not teach; however, Guo discloses: the isolated hosting environment is a service cell of a plurality of service cells (¶ 17, “a single physical infrastructure 106 may be used to provide multiple VDCs 112(1) . . . 112(N) for various users with differing requirements”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the invention, to have applied the known technique of the isolated hosting environment is a service cell of a plurality of service cells, as taught by Guo, in the same way to the regional orchestration environment, as taught by Madhu and Dockter. Both inventions are in the field of data center virtualization, and combining them would have predictably resulted in “isolation and bandwidth guarantees for multiple VDCs on top of a single physical data center infrastructure,” as indicated by Guo (¶ 5).
Claims 9 and 16 recite commensurate subject matter as claim 2. Therefore, they are rejected for the same reasons.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/667,875 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference application teaches or at least suggests each and every limitation of the instant application. See claim correspondence below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant Application
Reference Application
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
providing, by a cloud infrastructure orchestration system of a cloud-computing environment, a plurality of regional orchestrators, each regional orchestrator of the plurality of regional orchestrators executing in an isolated hosting environment;
generating, by an orchestrator control plane of a cloud infrastructure orchestration service, a region build plan comprising a plurality of ordered steps for bootstrapping a plurality of services at a data center, the region build plan being generated based at least in part on a plurality of service plans and manifests
generating, by an orchestrator control plane of the cloud infrastructure orchestration system, a build plan for bootstrapping a plurality of services within a data center, the build plan being generated based at least in part on a service build definition of a plurality of service build definitions, the service build definition specifying a deterministic process for bootstrapping a service of the plurality of services;
each respective service plan and manifest of the plurality of service plans and manifests specifying a deterministic process for building a single service of the plurality of services; instructing, by the orchestrator control plane,
8. A cloud infrastructure orchestration system, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more memories storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to: generate, by an orchestrator control plane of the cloud infrastructure orchestration system, a region build plan comprising a plurality of ordered steps for bootstrapping a plurality of services at a data center
instructing, by the orchestrator control plane, a regional orchestrator of the cloud infrastructure orchestration system to initiate bootstrapping the plurality of service according to the build plan; and tracking, by the orchestrator control plane, a state associated with the bootstrapping of the plurality of services by the regional orchestrator of the cloud infrastructure orchestration system.
15. A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer-executable instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a cloud infrastructure orchestration system, cause the one or more processors of the cloud infrastructure orchestration system to at least: generate, by an orchestrator control plane of the cloud infrastructure orchestration system, a region build plan comprising a plurality of ordered steps for bootstrapping a plurality of services at a data center, the region build plan being generated based at least in part on a plurality of service plans and manifests, each respective service plan and manifest of the plurality of service plans and manifests specifying a deterministic process for building a single service of the plurality of services
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. US 18/667,851 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference application teaches or at least suggests each and every limitation of the instant application. See claim correspondence below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant Application
Reference Application
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
providing, by a cloud infrastructure orchestration system of a cloud-computing environment, a plurality of regional orchestrators, each regional orchestrator of the plurality of regional orchestrators executing in an isolated hosting environment;
a region orchestrator executing within an isolated testing environment to execute a test build of the one or more services according to the build plan;
generating, by an orchestrator control plane of the cloud infrastructure orchestration system, a build plan for bootstrapping a plurality of services within a data center, the build plan being generated based at least in part on a service build definition of a plurality of service build definitions, the service build definition specifying a deterministic process for bootstrapping a service of the plurality of services;
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: pausing, by the region orchestrator, the test build during execution; receiving, by the orchestration control plane, an updated service plan; generating, by the orchestration control plane,
instructing, by the orchestrator control plane, a regional orchestrator of the cloud infrastructure orchestration system to initiate bootstrapping the plurality of service according to the build plan; and tracking, by the orchestrator control plane, a state associated with the bootstrapping of the plurality of services by the regional orchestrator of the cloud infrastructure orchestration system.
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising: generating, by an orchestrator control plane of a cloud infrastructure orchestration service, a build plan comprising a plurality of ordered steps for bootstrapping one or more services, the build plan being generated based at least in part on one or more service plans and manifests, a service plan and manifest of the one or more service plans and manifests specifying a deterministic process for bootstrapping a service of the one or more services;
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,572,365. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the U.S. Patent No. 12,572,365 teaches or at least suggests each and every limitation of the instant application. See claim correspondence below.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,572,365
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
providing, by a cloud infrastructure orchestration system of a cloud-computing environment, a plurality of regional orchestrators, each regional orchestrator of the plurality of regional orchestrators executing in an isolated hosting environment;
a region orchestrator executing within an isolated testing environment to execute a test build of the one or more services according to the build plan;
generating, by an orchestrator control plane of the cloud infrastructure orchestration system, a build plan for bootstrapping a plurality of services within a data center, the build plan being generated based at least in part on a service build definition of a plurality of service build definitions, the service build definition specifying a deterministic process for bootstrapping a service of the plurality of services;
3. The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: pausing, by the region orchestrator, the test build during execution; receiving, by the orchestration control plane, an updated service plan; generating, by the orchestration control plane,
instructing, by the orchestrator control plane, a regional orchestrator of the cloud infrastructure orchestration system to initiate bootstrapping the plurality of service according to the build plan; and tracking, by the orchestrator control plane, a state associated with the bootstrapping of the plurality of services by the regional orchestrator of the cloud infrastructure orchestration system.
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising: generating, by an orchestrator control plane of a cloud infrastructure orchestration service, a build plan comprising a plurality of ordered steps for bootstrapping one or more services, the build plan being generated based at least in part on one or more service plans and manifests, a service plan and manifest of the one or more service plans and manifests specifying a deterministic process for bootstrapping a service of the one or more services;
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,541,373. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the U.S. Patent No. 12,541,373 teaches or at least suggests each and every limitation of the instant application. See claim correspondence below.
Instant Application
U.S. Patent No. 12,541,373
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
1. A computer-implemented method, comprising:
providing, by a cloud infrastructure orchestration system of a cloud-computing environment, a plurality of regional orchestrators, each regional orchestrator of the plurality of regional orchestrators executing in an isolated hosting environment;
obtaining, by an orchestration service of a cloud-computing environment, a plurality of configuration files corresponding to a plurality of services to be bootstrapped within a region corresponding to one or more data centers
generating, by an orchestrator control plane of the cloud infrastructure orchestration system, a build plan for bootstrapping a plurality of services within a data center, the build plan being generated based at least in part on a service build definition of a plurality of service build definitions, the service build definition specifying a deterministic process for bootstrapping a service of the plurality of services;
in accordance with traversing to a first node of the build dependency graph, instructing, by the orchestration service, a provisioning and deployment service of a control plane to bootstrap a first set of resources corresponding to a first service of the plurality of services
instructing, by the orchestrator control plane, a regional orchestrator of the cloud infrastructure orchestration system to initiate bootstrapping the plurality of service according to the build plan; and tracking, by the orchestrator control plane, a state associated with the bootstrapping of the plurality of services by the regional orchestrator of the cloud infrastructure orchestration system.
perform within the region a first set of bootstrapping tasks corresponding to the first service; and in accordance with traversing to a second node of the build dependency graph, instructing, by the orchestration service
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Scheiner (US 2016/0239280) discloses “generate a deployment plan that can then be read by the deployment automation server 105 to perform the deployment of the artifacts onto the target system(s) without the further intervention of a user” (¶ 17), which relates to the disclosed machine-generated deployment plan with release/artifact data.
Messerli (US 2014/0059226) discloses a first and second cloud controller for managing resources in respective cloud infrastructures (abstract), which relates to the disclosed regional orchestrators.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB D DASCOMB whose telephone number is (571)272-9993. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00.
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, Pierre Vital can be reached at (571) 272-4215. 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.
/JACOB D DASCOMB/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Prosecution Insights