DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the Applicant’s Application filed on June 20, 2025.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 have been amended.
Applicant's amendments necessitated new grounds of rejection.
This action is made final in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are independent. As a result claims 1-20 are pending in this office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 20, 025 regarding the rejection of claims 1, 11, and 20 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/20/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-3, 11-13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris et al. (US 2017/0212910) hereinafter Morris in view of Kuo et al. (US 2019/0065619) (hereinafter Kuo).oH
Regarding claim 1, Morris teaches a system comprising: at least one hardware processor (see Fig. 7, discloses a processor); and a memory storing instructions that cause the at least one hardware processor to perform operations (see Fig. 7, para [0089], discloses a memory) comprising: receiving a first set of statements to create an image repository, the first set of statements comprising a set of Structured Query Language (SQL) statements (see Fig. 1, para [0041], discloses receiving SQL queries (set of SQL statements) to create cloud database (image repository) that stores the SQL queries); creating the image repository, the creating including generating a uniform resource locator (URL), the URL associated with a location for storing data (see Fig. 1, para [0041], discloses generating URLs associated with image locations in user-specific databases); performing a domain name service (DNS) mapping of the URL to an image registry service (see Fig. 1, para [0069], discloses DNS mapping to URL to verify URL is valid).
Morris does not explicitly teach receiving a first command to tag a container image to an alias corresponding to the URL, the container image comprising application code, and a runtime environment configuration for executing an application; assigning the alias to the container image; receiving a second command to push the tagged container image to the image repository; and sending the tagged container image to the location to store the tagged container image.
Kuo teaches receiving a first command to tag a container image to an alias corresponding to the URL (see Fig. 2A, para [0039], discloses receiving a routed client request to a container deployment system that includes a version (alias) of an application, corresponding to a descriptive URL), the container image comprising application code, and a runtime environment configuration for executing an application (see Figs. 1-2A, para [0025], discloses container image comprising code, runtime, and configuration to run packaged application software on a container deployment system); assigning the alias to the container image (see para [0025], discloses respective container image corresponds to a version of an application); receiving a second command to push the tagged container image to the image repository (see Fig. 2B, Fig. 4, para [0040-0041], discloses a set of resource parameters indicating how resources should be allocated when running software of container image instances and storing container images in a container images data store (image repository) associated with a set of application parameters indicating which versions of the applications are in the packaged software); and sending the tagged container image to the location to store the tagged container image (see Figs. 2A-2B, Fig. 4, para [0040-0041], discloses sending container images to container image data store).
Morris/Kuo are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Morris to tag a container image from disclosure of Kuo. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Kuo as “a more reliable manner by deploying containers that have resources dedicated to the subset of web applications associated with the container” (para [0009]) and tagging a container image is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Regarding claim 11, Morris teaches method comprising: receiving a first set of statements to create an image repository, the first set of statements comprising a set of Structured Query Language (SQL) statements (see Fig. 1, para [0041], discloses receiving SQL queries (set of SQL statements) to create cloud database (image repository) that stores the SQL queries); creating the image repository, the creating including generating a uniform resource locator (URL), the URL associated with a location for storing data (see Fig. 1, para [0041], discloses generating URLs associated with image locations in user-specific databases); performing a domain name service (DNS) mapping of the URL to an image registry service (see Fig. 1, para [0069], discloses DNS mapping to URL to verify URL is valid).
Morris does not explicitly teach receiving a first command to tag a container image to an alias corresponding to the URL, the container image comprising application code, and a runtime environment configuration for executing an application; assigning the alias to the container image; receiving a second command to push the tagged container image to the image repository; and sending the tagged container image to the location to store the tagged container image.
Kuo teaches receiving a first command to tag a container image to an alias corresponding to the URL (see Fig. 2A, para [0039], discloses receiving a routed client request to a container deployment system that includes a version (alias) of an application, corresponding to a descriptive URL), the container image comprising application code, and a runtime environment configuration for executing an application (see Figs. 1-2A, para [0025], discloses container image comprising code, runtime, and configuration to run packaged application software on a container deployment system); assigning the alias to the container image (see para [0025], discloses respective container image corresponds to a version of an application); receiving a second command to push the tagged container image to the image repository (see Fig. 2B, Fig. 4, para [0040-0041], discloses a set of resource parameters indicating how resources should be allocated when running software of container image instances and storing container images in a container images data store (image repository) associated with a set of application parameters indicating which versions of the applications are in the packaged software); and sending the tagged container image to the location to store the tagged container image (see Figs. 2A-2B, Fig. 4, para [0040-0041], discloses sending container images to container image data store).
Morris/Kuo are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Morris to tag a container image from disclosure of Kuo. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Kuo as “a more reliable manner by deploying containers that have resources dedicated to the subset of web applications associated with the container” (para [0009]) and tagging a container image is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Regarding claim 20, Morris teaches a non-transitory computer-storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a machine, configure the machine to perform operations (see Fig. 7, para [0089], discloses a medium and processor) comprising: receiving a first set of statements to create an image repository, the first set of statements comprising a set of Structured Query Language (SQL) statements (see Fig. 1, para [0041], discloses receiving SQL queries (set of SQL statements) to create cloud database (image repository) that stores the SQL queries); creating the image repository, the creating including generating a uniform resource locator (URL), the URL associated with a location for storing data (see Fig. 1, para [0041], discloses generating URLs associated with image locations in user-specific databases); performing a domain name service (DNS) mapping of the URL to an image registry service (see Fig. 1, para [0069], discloses DNS mapping to URL to verify URL is valid).
Morris does not explicitly teach receiving a first command to tag a container image to an alias corresponding to the URL, the container image comprising application code, and a runtime environment configuration for executing an application; assigning the alias to the container image; receiving a second command to push the tagged container image to the image repository; and sending the tagged container image to the location to store the tagged container image.
Kuo teaches receiving a first command to tag a container image to an alias corresponding to the URL (see Fig. 2A, para [0039], discloses receiving a routed client request to a container deployment system that includes a version (alias) of an application, corresponding to a descriptive URL), the container image comprising application code, and a runtime environment configuration for executing an application (see Figs. 1-2A, para [0025], discloses container image comprising code, runtime, and configuration to run packaged application software on a container deployment system); assigning the alias to the container image (see para [0025], discloses respective container image corresponds to a version of an application); receiving a second command to push the tagged container image to the image repository (see Fig. 2B, Fig. 4, para [0040-0041], discloses a set of resource parameters indicating how resources should be allocated when running software of container image instances and storing container images in a container images data store (image repository) associated with a set of application parameters indicating which versions of the applications are in the packaged software); and sending the tagged container image to the location to store the tagged container image (see Figs. 2A-2B, Fig. 4, para [0040-0041], discloses sending container images to container image data store).
Morris/Kuo are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Morris to tag a container image from disclosure of Kuo. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Kuo as “a more reliable manner by deploying containers that have resources dedicated to the subset of web applications associated with the container” (para [0009]) and tagging a container image is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Morris/Kuo teach a system of claim 1 and a method of claim 11.
Morris further teaches wherein the location for storing data comprises a cloud storage platform (see Fig. 1, Fig. 7, para [0020], discloses storing data in a cloud environment).
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris et al. (US 2017/0212910) hereinafter Morris in view of KuooH
, as applied to claims 1 and 11, and in further view of Carl (US 2015/0281111) (hereinafter Carl).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Morris/Kuo teach a system of claim 1 and a method of claim 11.
Morris/Kuo do not explicitly teach wherein performing the DNS mapping of the URL comprises: mapping a hostname from the URL to a port of a network load balancer (NLB) provided by a compute service manager.
Carl teaches performing the DNS mapping of the URL comprises: mapping a hostname from the URL to a port of a network load balancer (NLB) provided by a compute service manager (see Fig. 1, para [0032], discloses URL named resource mapped to the load balancer).
Morris/Kuo/Carl are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Morris/Kuo to map data to load balancer from disclosure of Carl. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Carl as “DNS service component being configured to cache domain names associated with the corresponding IP address in order to respond to a DNS query more efficiently” (para [0044]) and mapping data to load balancer is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Claims 4-5 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris et al. (US 2017/0212910) hereinafter Morris in view of Kuo as applied to claims 1 and 11, and in further view of Kale et al. (US 2024/0077997) (hereinafter Kale).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Morris/Kuo teach a system of claim 1 and a method of claim 11.
Morris/Kuo do not explicitly teach wherein the set of SQL statements comprises at least one SQL statement comprising a create image repository statement
Kale teaches wherein the set of SQL statements comprises at least one SQL statement comprising a create image repository statement (see Fig. 3, Fig. 5, para [0059], discloses using BigQuery to access stored data in Cloud SQL and convert DCM file).
Morris/Kuo/Kale are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Morris/Kuo to create image repository statements from disclosure of Kale The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Kale as “performing diagnosis and analysis of the medical images of any pathological slides in an efficient and accurate manner” (para [0024]) and create image repository statements is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Morris/Kuo teach a system of claim 1 and a method of claim 11.
Morris/Kuo do not explicitly teach wherein an image registry service receives the first set of statements to create the image repository.
Kale teaches wherein an image registry service receives the first set of statements to create the image repository (see Fig. 5, para [0047], discloses using BigQuery to access cloud stored images and identify regions of interest in extracted and stored metadata in Cloud SQL).
Morris/Kuo/Kale are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Morris/Kuo to create image repository statements from disclosure of Kale The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Kale as “performing diagnosis and analysis of the medical images of any pathological slides in an efficient and accurate manner” (para [0024]) and create image repository statements is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Claims 6, 8, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris et al. (US 2017/0212910) hereinafter Morris in view of Kuo as applied to claims 1 and 11, and in further view of Kale et al. (US 2024/0077997) (hereinafter Kale) and Vogel (US 2016/0026858) (hereinafter Vogel).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Morris/Kuo teach a system of claim 1 and a method of claim 11.
Morris/Kuo do not explicitly teach wherein the operations further comprise: receiving the tagged container image, the tagged container image being in a first format; generating a set of portions of the tagged container image, each portion including a particular set of files, the set of portions being in a second format different than the first format; generating metadata including information related to each particular set of files from each portion of the set of portions of the tagged container image, the metadata being in the second format different than the first format; and storing the set of portions of the tagged container image and the metadata in the location for storing data.
Kale teaches wherein the operations further comprise: receiving the tagged container image, the tagged container image being in a first format (see Fig. 8, para [0047], para [0050], discloses receiving tagged image in an original Whole Slide Image, WSI format (first format)); generating a set of portions of the tagged container image, each portion including a particular set of files, the set of portions being in a second format different than the first format (see Fig. 5, para [0047], para [0059], discloses Regions of Interest, RoI (set of portions) of Whole Slide Image, WSI of files, the Regions Of Interest, RoI are in DICOM format using a conversion tool to convert WSI format to DICOM format, that is a second format that is different than first format WSI).
Morris/Kuo/Kale are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Morris/Kuo to create image repository statements from disclosure of Kale The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Kale as “performing diagnosis and analysis of the medical images of any pathological slides in an efficient and accurate manner” (para [0024]) and create image repository statements is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Morris/Kuo/Kale do not explicitly teach generating metadata including information related to each particular set of files from each portion of the set of portions of the tagged container image, the metadata being in the second format different than the first format; and storing the set of portions of the tagged container image and the metadata in the location for storing data.
Vogel teaches generating metadata including information related to each particular set of files from each portion of the set of portions of the tagged container image, the metadata being in the second format different than the first format (see Figs. 2-3, para [0026], para [0034-0035], discloses respective formatting tags and data type (first and second formats) metadata for a portion of an image retrieved from a document)); and storing the set of portions of the tagged container image and the metadata in the location for storing data (see Fig. 7, para [0057], discloses storing portions of image in data store that have been converted into an object that is detected in searchable content).
Morris/Kuo/Kale/Vogel are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Morris/Kuo/Kale to generate metadata related to particular set of files from disclosure of Vogel the motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Vogel as “allow the other applications to search for the object using the searchable content” (para [0012]) and generating metadata related to particular set of files is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Morris/Kuo teach a system of claim 1 and a method of claim 11.
Morris/Kuo do not explicitly teach wherein the first format comprises a storage format that is native to a cloud storage platform providing the location for storing data.
Kale teaches wherein the first format comprises a storage format that is native to a cloud storage platform providing the location for storing data (see Fig. 3, para [0009], discloses original format WSI format stored in cloud image store).
Morris/Kuo/Kale are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Morris/Kuo to create image repository statements from disclosure of Kale The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Kale as “performing diagnosis and analysis of the medical images of any pathological slides in an efficient and accurate manner” (para [0024]) and create image repository statements is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris et al. (US 2017/0212910) hereinafter Morris in view of Kuo as applied to claims 1 and 11, and in further view of Kale et al. (US 2024/0077997) (hereinafter Kale) and Vogel (US 2016/0026858) (hereinafter Vogel) and Hodgeman et al. (US 2023/0253096) (hereinafter Hodgeman).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Morris/Kuo teach a system of claim 1 and a method of claim 11.
Morris/Kuo/Kale/Vogel does not explicitly teach wherein the second format comprises a custom filesystem, the custom filesystem comprising a metadata blob format for the metadata and a content blob format for the set of portions of the tagged container image.
Hodge teaches wherein the second format comprises a custom filesystem, the custom filesystem comprising a metadata blob format for the metadata and a content blob format for the set of portions of the tagged container image (see para [0076-0077], discloses BLOB storing data sets).
Morris/Kuo/Kale/Vogel/Hodgeman are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Morris/Kuo/Kale/Vogel to include BLOB format for metadata and set of portions data from disclosure of Hodgeman. The motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Hodgeman as “improving the integrity of stored data” (para [0089]) and including BLOB format for metadata and set of portions data is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Claims 7, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris et al. (US 2017/0212910) hereinafter Morris in view of Kuo as applied to claims 1 and 11, and in further view of Kale et al. (US 2024/0077997) (hereinafter Kale) and Vogel (US 2016/0026858) (hereinafter Vogel) and Zhang et al. (US 2021/0097477) (hereinafter Zhang)
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Morris/Kuo teach a system of claim 1 and a method of claim 11.
Morris/Kuo/Kale/Vogel do not explicitly teach wherein the operations further comprise: receiving, from a container services cluster, a particular command to run a container based on the tagged container image; performing a read operation on the metadata stored in the location for storing data; and sending the metadata to the container services cluster to facilitate running the container.
Zhang teaches wherein the operations further comprise: receiving, from a container services cluster, a particular command to run a container based on the tagged container image (see para [0015-0016], discloses receiving a command to execute container based on specified tagged container image); performing a read operation on the metadata stored in the location for storing data (see para [0008], para [0047-0048], discloses performing read operation in container image database that stores node information); and sending the metadata to the container services cluster to facilitate running the container (see para [0049-0050], discloses sending destination and command execution content to container image management module).
Morris/Kuo/Kale/Vogel/Zhang are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Morris/Kuo/Kale/Vogel to receiving commands from a container services cluster from disclosure of Zhang the motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Zhang as “the management efficiency of container images is improved, the rate of container operation information flows is accelerated, the persistent storage of all operation content of container images is realized,” (para [0035]) and receiving commands from a container services cluster is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Regarding claim 10, Morris/Kuo teach a system of claim 1.
Morris/Kuo/Kale do not explicitly teach wherein the operations further comprise: sending a particular portion from the set of portions of the tagged container image, the particular portion comprising a subset of files associated with the tagged container image, the subset of files being sufficient to run an instance of the container based on the tagged container image.
Vogel teaches wherein the operations further comprise: sending a particular portion from the set of portions of the tagged container image, the particular portion comprising a subset of files associated with the tagged container image, the subset of files being sufficient to run an instance of the container based on the tagged container image (see Fig. 3, para [0030-0032], discloses particular image portion 306 as a type of content rendered into chart 310 (subset of files), chart 310 includes chart title, labels and legends as searchable content and allowing access to identify contents of chart 310 through a search operation of metadata).
Morris/Kuo/Kale/Vogel are analogous arts as they are each from the same field of endeavor of database systems.
Before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the system of Morris/Kuo/Kale to generate metadata related to particular set of files from disclosure of Vogel the motivation to combine these arts is disclosed by Vogel as “allow the other applications to search for the object using the searchable content” (para [0012]) and generating metadata related to particular set of files is well known to persons of ordinary skill in the art, and therefore one of ordinary skill would have good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp that would lead to anticipated success.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY HARMON whose telephone number is (571)270-5861. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Ann Lo can be reached at 571-272-9767. 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.
/Courtney Harmon/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2159