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 .
Priority
This application claims domestic priority to PCT/EP2021/079426 filed on 10/22/2021.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Page 5, lines 18-19, Page 6, line 27 and Page 24, lines 15-16, discloses a “first upper resource limit being one of equal to and greater than the second upper resource limit”. A limit cannot be one of equal to and greater than something, rather it should be equal to or greater than.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 14 are objected to for the same reason as above: the limit should be equal to or greater than, not equal and greater. Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-8, 11, and 13-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palanisamy et al. Pub No. US 2023/0111795 A1 (hereafter Palanisamy) in view of Myrick et al. Pub. No. US 2020/0174802 A1 (hereafter Myrick).
Regarding claim 1, Palanisamy teaches “A network node configured to manage a lifecycle of a container configurable to run on the network node ([0013] teaches a controller), the network node comprising: a communication interface ([0019] teaches a network interface) configured to: receive a container operation configuration ([0038] teaches the controller receiving a container specification containing configuration information for managing a container, including resource limits), the container operation configuration including a first container operation configuration … , the first container operation configuration including a first upper resource limit, … ; and processing circuitry in communication with the communication interface ([0024] teaches a processing resource that may execute management instructions to perform the method), the processing circuitry configured to: determine a maximum resource limit associated with a network node resource usable by the container to run on the network node based at least in part on a first mode of container operation, … , and the received container operation configuration ([0030-0034] teaches the processing resource executing instructions to determine whether resource availability of the controller is greater than the resource limit of the container such that it may determine the maximum limit of the controller based on at least in part the configuration information).”
Palanisamy does not explicitly teach of the configuration information containing a first and second container operation configuration.
Myrick teaches different configurations for different states such that it teaches the limitation “the container operation configuration including a first container operation configuration and a second container operation configuration, the first container operation configuration including a first upper resource limit, the second container operation configuration including a second upper resource limit; … determine a maximum resource limit associated with a network node resource usable by the container to run on the network node based at least in part on a first mode of container operation, a second mode of container operation, and the received container operation configuration ([0007] teaches that a memory consumption limit for an application is determined based on a state associated with the application. [0066] teaches that different memory consumption limits are generated for different application states).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date to combine the teachings of Myrick to the invention of Palanisamy in order to show there may be different operation configurations of a container that may specify different resource limits, as applications and containers are substitutes of each other. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination in order to maintain stability of memory usage within a device (Myrick [0032]), allowing for efficient use of resources. Also see (Myrick [0062-0064]).
Regarding claim 11, it is similar to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons. Claim 11 is directed towards “A method (Palanisamy [0023])”.
Regarding claim 3, wherein the combination, Myrick teaches “The network node of Claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine that the container is operated in any one of the first mode of container operation and the second mode of container operation based, at least in part, on probe information ([0055] teaches an application state manager that monitors the state of each application).”
Regarding claim 13, it is similar to claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 4, wherein the combination, Myrick teaches “The network node of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine that the maximum resource limit equals any one of: the first upper resource limit of the first container operation configuration when the container is operated in the first mode of container operation; and the second upper resource limit of the second container operation configuration when the container is operated in the second mode of container operation, the first upper resource limit being one of equal to and greater than the second upper resource limit ([0060] teaches that memory consumption of a second state is smaller than that of the first state such that the first state is greater than the second. [0063] teaches changing the memory consumption limit associated with the first state to the second state)”.
Regarding claim 14, it is similar to claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 5, wherein the combination, Myrick teaches “The network node of claim 1, wherein the second mode of container operation causes at least a portion of the network node resource usable by the container during the first mode of container operation to become available ([0028-0030] teaches when an application transitions between different states, memory may be freed/unallocated).”
Regarding claim 15, it is similar to claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 6, wherein the combination, Palanisamy teaches “The network node of claim 1, wherein the container operation configuration is part of a modified container resource model ([0038-0040] teaches a container specification including configuration information for managing a controller. The configuration information may be modified by an admin. It is also known in the art that specifications may be modified via templates such that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the resource model to specify different resource limits)”.
Regarding claim 16, it is similar to claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 8, wherein the combination, Palanisamy teaches “The network node of claim 1, wherein the network node resource usable by the container to run on the network node includes any one of a processor and a memory ([0063])”.
Claims 2, 7, 12 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palanisamy and Myrick as used above in claims 1 and 11, and in further view of WU et al. Pub. No. US 2020/0322263 A1 (hereafter Wu).
Regarding claim 2, wherein the combination, (Myrick [0007]) teaches of different states of an application such that one of ordinary skill in the art would consider a startup state and a runtime state. In lieu of Myrick, Wu teaches monitoring the operational state of a container, and adjusting resources isolated by the container when the operational state changes such that it teaches the limitation “The network node of Claim 1, wherein the first mode of container operation is a startup phase of the container, and the second mode of container operation is a runtime phase of the container ([0037] teaches monitoring the operational state of a container and adjusting resources based on state change such that operational states of a container may inherently include a startup state and a runtime state. [0036] teaches analyzing a startup parameter of a newly launched container and allocating resources to container such that it teaches a startup state. An obvious transition from a startup state would be to a runtime state in which the operational state changes which causes an adjustment of resources).”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date to combine the teachings of Wu to the combination of Palanisamy and Myrick in order to show that a container may have a startup and a runtime state, each state associated with a different resource amount. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to show that containers may have different modes of operation associated with a resource amount.
Regarding claim 12, it is similar to claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 7, the combination teaches “The network node of claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: manage the lifecycle of the container based on the determined maximum resource limit, managing the lifecycle of the container including any one of starting the container and running the container (As previously disclosed, Myrick [0007] teaches of managing application states such that one of ordinary skill would consider the startup and runtime of an application as states. Wu [0036-0037] also teaches monitoring and managing operational states of a container, such states including startup and runtime states)”.
Regarding claim 17, it is similar to claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 9, 10, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palanisamy and Myrick as used above in claims 1 and 11, and in further view of Maurya et al. Pub. No. US 2022/0035651 A1 (hereafter Maurya).
Regarding claim 9, wherein the combination, Palanisamy [0021] teaches a pod of containerized application, however does not explicitly teach that the container is associated with a pod.
Maurya teaches of containers running in pods such that it teaches the limitation “The network node of claim 1, wherein the container is associated with a pod ([0030] teaches that containers are running within pods such that the containers running are associated with a pod)”.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date to combine the teachings of Maurya to the combination of Palanisamy and Myrick in order to show that a container may associate with a pod. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination to show that pods are the standard execution and management unit for containerized workloads.
Regarding claim 19, it is similar to claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 10, the combination teaches “The network node of claim 1, wherein the network node includes a Kubernetes kubelet running on a Kubernetes worker node (Maurya [0030]),the network node resource is a node resource associated with the Kubernetes worker node (Maurya [0009]), and the container is configured by a Kubernetes scheduler to run on the network node (Palanisamy [0015] teaches the scheduling of containers to be executed on controllers; the scheduler is not disclosed however the prior art is based on the Kubernetes container system such that a Kubernetes scheduler may have been used to schedule the containers).”
Regarding claim 20, it is similar to claim 10, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the applicant’s disclosure.
US20220164208A1
teaches
COORDINATED CONTAINER SCHEDULING FOR IMPROVED RESOURCE ALLOCATION IN VIRTUAL COMPUTING ENVIRONMENT
US20180129537
teaches
MANAGING MEMORY USAGE USING SOFT MEMORY TARGETS
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON A NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6074. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri (10am-6pm).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Aimee Li can be reached at (571) 272-4169. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRANDON NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2195
/PIERRE VITAL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2198
Prosecution Insights