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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Examiner notes: Applicant’s specification states [0065]: “A computer-readable storage medium, as that term is used in the present disclosure, is not to be construed as storage in the form of transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freely propagating electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves propagating through a waveguide, light pulses passing through a fiber optic cable, electrical signals communicated through a wire, and/or other transmission media”. Therefore, Examiner interprets this to mean the medium is non-transitory.
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 1-6, 9-14, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding independent claims the limitations selects an instance, as drafted, recites functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a function that could reasonably be performed in the mind, including with the aid of pen and paper, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, the limitations as cited above as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process.
The specification provides the following that allows for the interpretation that the mental concept of selecting may be performed by a user utilizing the interface [0066] With respect to FIG. 12, computing environment 1200 contains an example of an environment for the execution of at least some of the computer code involved in performing the inventive methods, such as receiving service information from a monitoring agent to use to select an instance of a service in an embedded OS environment to which to direct a client request. [0076] END USER DEVICE (EUD) 1203 is any computer system that is used and controlled by an end user (for example, a customer of an enterprise that operates computer 1201) and may take any of the forms discussed above in connection with computer 1201. EUD 1203 typically receives helpful and useful data from the operations of computer 1201. For example, in a hypothetical case where computer 1201 is designed to provide a recommendation to an end user, this recommendation would typically be communicated from network module 1215 of computer 1201 through WAN 1202 to EUD 1203. In this way, EUD 1203 can display, or otherwise present, the recommendation to an end user. In some embodiments, EUD 1203 may be a client device, such as thin client, heavy client, mainframe computer, desktop computer and so on. The end user device 1204 may comprise the clients 108 described above.
Thus, these limitation falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1.
Under Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional limitations: stack, agents, operating system environment, processor, medium. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or mere computer components, MPEP 2106.05(f), and steps of receiving and routing (i.e. gathering data) do nothing more than add insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception of merely gathering data. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g) (Ex. v. Consulting and updating an activity log, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 715, 112 USPQ2d at 1754).
Under Step 2B, the claims do 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 elements of stack, agents, operating system environment, processor, medium, amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. Furthermore, the limitations directed to receiving, and routing the courts have identified mere data gathering is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d) (Ex. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93;).
The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception, and mere data gathering do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 4, 6, 13, 14, 18, 19 the limitations of selecting, determining, are functions that can be reasonably performed in the human mind, thus, additional mental process defined in the claims. The claim does not include any additional element, thus, no limitation that needs to be analyzed under prong 2 for practical application, or under step 2B for significantly more. The step of forwarding, receiving, and routing are functions of gathering/storing data, the results of the judicial exception, is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. Details of the services are considered mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception.
Regarding claim 2 the limitation details of the stack are considered mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception. Accordingly, the additional element recited in claim 3 fails to provide a practical application under prong 2, or amount to significantly more under step 2B.
Regarding claim 3, 12 the limitations of forwarding information are nothing more than insignificant extra solution activity which is not a practical application under prong 2. Under step 2B, the courts of identified the generic function of gathering/storing data, the results of the judicial exception, is well-understood, routine and conventional activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network);
Regarding claim 5, the limitations of selecting are functions that can be reasonably performed in the human mind, thus, additional mental process defined in the claims. The claim does not include any additional element, thus, no limitation that needs to be analyzed under prong 2 for practical application, or under step 2B for significantly more.
Regarding claim 10 the limitations of determining and notifying, are functions that can be reasonably performed in the human mind, thus, additional mental process defined in the claims. The claim does not include any additional element, thus, no limitation that needs to be analyzed under prong 2 for practical application, or under step 2B for significantly more.
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.
Claim/s 1, 2, 10, 11, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunsmore (Pat. No. US 11,743,325) in view of Cormack (Pub. No. US 2021/0173720).
Claims 1, 11, 16, Dunsmore teaches “a computer program product for routing client requests to a service in target stacks, the computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having computer readable program code embodied therein that when executed performs operations, the operations comprising: … using, by the distributing stack, the status information to select an instance of the service in one of the instances of the embedded operating system environment residing in the target stacks, for a client request for the service; and routing, by the distributing stack, the client request to a specified target stack including the instance of the embedded operating system environment in which the selected instance of the service resides ([Col. 21, Lines 57-Col. 22, Lines 37] (82) In some embodiments, the discovery coordinator service 506 can utilize other information from this request — e.g., the source network address of the DNS resolver 502A that originated the request, a resource identifier assigned to the DNS resolver 502A by the provider network 100, etc. — to determine a location of the DNS resolver 502A / PSE 300A. For example, upon deploying the PSE 300A, the location (e.g., a GPS coordinate, latitude and longitude, assigned unique location identifier that is within the context of the provider network, etc.) of the PSE 300A can be provided to the discovery coordinator service 506 together with an identifier of the PSE 300A or DNS resolver (e.g., its IP address, or other unique resource identifier issued by the cloud provider network 100). (83) Additionally, or alternatively, the request may carry other information, such a network address (e.g., IP address) of the client electronic device 212A, a client network (or subnet) associated with the client electronic device 212A (e.g., a /24 block), etc., which the discovery coordinator service 506 may similarly use to determine a location associated with the client electronic device 212A, e.g., by performing a lookup or query to a database, service, etc., that can identify a location. In some cases, this client information may be passed within an extended DNS type message, such as an Extension mechanisms for DNS (EDNS) message. The translation of a client’s network address or subnet/network into a location may include, for example, obtaining mapping information from a corresponding communications service provider indicating where particular IP addresses/networks are currently located (e.g., via identifiers of which cells, base stations, cities, etc. these addresses are utilized at). This information may be pushed by the communications service provider networks to the discovery coordinator service 506, the discovery coordinator service 506 may “pull” this information (e.g., on a scheduled basis, or on-demand) from the communications service provider networks, etc. In some embodiments, this information may also include one or more identifiers of PSEs 300 that are nearby the associated client, as the communications service provider may have explicit knowledge of the locations of various PSEs 300 within its network, the location of the client, and may thus identify one or more PSEs that may be closest to the client from its perspective. Thus, as described later herein, the discovery coordinator service 506 may select a compute instance within one of these identified PSEs, or potentially another PSE (that may be, for example, not associated with the communications service provider), as the optimal location. [Col. 16, Lines 11-23] Though each container runs isolated processes, multiple containers can share a common operating system, for example by being launched within the same virtual machine. In contrast, virtual machines are an abstraction of the hardware layer (meaning that each virtual machine simulates a physical machine that can run software). Virtual machine technology can use one physical server to run the equivalent of many servers (each of which is called a virtual machine). While multiple virtual machines can run on one physical machine, each virtual machine typically has its own copy of an operating system, as well as the applications and their related files, libraries, and dependencies.).
However, Dunsmore may not explicitly teach the remaining limitations of details of collecting status data.
Cormack teaches “receiving, by a distributing stack, status information on instances of services from monitoring agents, wherein the instances of the services and the monitoring agents are implemented in instances of an embedded operating system environment that reside in instances of a primary operating system environment of target stacks ([Fig. 2] agents providing information to 142 [0062] Example 20 is at least one computer-readable medium (CRM) having instructions stored therein, to cause an embedded system, in response to execution of the instruction by the embedded system, to operate a plurality of orchestration agents in a plurality of local compute clusters formed with a plurality of corresponding System-of-Chips (SoCs): wherein the plurality of orchestration agents provide to an orchestration scheduler of the embedded system, live execution telemetry data of various applications executing at the corresponding local compute clusters, and status of accelerate compute resources of the local compute clusters; and wherein the status of the accelerate compute resources of the local compute clusters are used by the orchestration scheduler to map a task of an application to execute in a selected one of the accelerate compute resources of the local compute clusters.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Cormack with the teachings of Dunsmore in order to provide a system that teaches details of collecting information. The motivation for applying Cormack teaching with Dunsmore teaching is to provide a system that allows for design choice. Dunsmore, Cormack are analogous art directed towards distributed computing. Together Dunsmore, Cormack teaches every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Cormack with the teachings of Dunsmore by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim 2, the combination teaches the claim, wherein Cormack teaches “the computer program product of claim 1, wherein the distributing stack implements the primary operating system environment ([Fig. 2] OS on SoC 1 as primary OS).
Rationale to claim 1 is applied here.
Claim 10, the combination teaches the claim, wherein Dunsmore teaches “the computer program product of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: determining, by the primary operating system environment in the specified target stack, whether a connection with an instance of a proxy service in the embedded operating system environment has been established or terminated; and notifying, by the specified target stack, the distributing stack of status information on instances of connections through the proxy service, to discover created or closed connections within the embedded operating system environment ([Col. 21, Line 52-Col. 22, Line 4] (81) The discovery coordinator service 506 may use the identified domain from the request (example.com) to identify, at circle (3), an associated registry 510A and a set of “candidate” network addresses registered in association with the domain. (82) In some embodiments, the discovery coordinator service 506 can utilize other information from this request — e.g., the source network address of the DNS resolver 502A that originated the request, a resource identifier assigned to the DNS resolver 502A by the provider network 100, etc. — to determine a location of the DNS resolver 502A / PSE 300A. For example, upon deploying the PSE 300A, the location (e.g., a GPS coordinate, latitude and longitude, assigned unique location identifier that is within the context of the provider network, etc.) of the PSE 300A can be provided to the discovery coordinator service 506 together with an identifier of the PSE 300A or DNS resolver (e.g., its IP address, or other unique resource identifier issued by the cloud provider network 100).)”.
Claim/s 3, 12, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunsmore, Cormack in further view of Fantini (Pub. No. US 2010/0128696).
Claim 3, 12, 17 the combination teaches the claim, wherein Cormack teaches “the computer program product of claim 1, wherein the operations further comprise: forwarding, by the monitoring agents, the status information; and forwarding, by the target communication protocol stacks, the status information on the instances of the services, received from the monitoring agents, to the distributing stack ([Fig. 2] agents passing information to primary SOC 1)”.
However, the combination may not explicitly teach utilizing a protocol stack.
Fantini teaches “to target communication protocol stacks running in the instances of the primary operating system environment in the target stacks in which the monitoring agents reside ([0035] a virtual network interface virt11 having a virtual IP address IP1_V1, provided by a module, hereinafter referred to as virtual network interface module M1, of the kernel of the Operating System, adapted to operate between the TCP/IP protocol stack and the first and the second physical network interface modules N11, N12 to receive and transmit incoming and outgoing TCP/IP data packets through the physical network interface ph11 or ph12, depending on a predetermined resource management policy, e.g., depending on which physical network interface module N11 or N12 is experimenting the best propagation condition.).”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Fantini with the teachings of Dunsmore, Cormack in order to provide a system that teaches details of communication. The motivation for applying Fantini teaching with Dunsmore, Cormack teaching is to provide a system that allows for design choice. Dunsmore, Cormack, Fantini are analogous art directed towards distributed computing. Together Dunsmore, Cormack, Fantini teaches every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Fantini with the teachings of Dunsmore, Cormack by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim/s 4, 5, 13, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunsmore, Cormack in further view of Aithal (Pat. No. US 11,669,365).
Claim 4, 13, 18 the combination teaches the claim, wherein Dunsmore teaches “the computer program product of claim 1, wherein the client request is for a target service, wherein the instances of the services implemented in the instances of the embedded operating system environment comprise instances of a proxy service, wherein the instances of the proxy service connect to instances of the target service, …, wherein the specified target stack comprises a first specified target stack, wherein the operations further comprise: selecting, by a proxy service of the proxy services, an instance of the target service on a second specified target stack of the target stacks to which to direct the client request; and forwarding, by the proxy service, the client request to the selected instance of the target service on the second specified target stack ([Col. 21, Lines 57-Col. 22, Lines 3] (82) In some embodiments, the discovery coordinator service 506 can utilize other information from this request — e.g., the source network address of the DNS resolver 502A that originated the request, a resource identifier assigned to the DNS resolver 502A by the provider network 100, etc. — to determine a location of the DNS resolver 502A / PSE 300A. For example, upon deploying the PSE 300A, the location (e.g., a GPS coordinate, latitude and longitude, assigned unique location identifier that is within the context of the provider network, etc.) of the PSE 300A can be provided to the discovery coordinator service 506 together with an identifier of the PSE 300A or DNS resolver (e.g., its IP address, or other unique resource identifier issued by the cloud provider network 100).)”.
However, the combination may not explicitly teach status of proxy services.
Aithal teaches “wherein the status information comprises status information on the instances of the proxy service ([Col. 12, Lines 22-31] (50) In the example illustrated in FIG. 4, the instance 408 has an agent 416 running thereon which, for example, reports the status of the task 412 to the container management service 418. A container management service 418 may also use the agent 416 to monitor the instance 408, to gather one or more health metrics for the instance (i.e., to determine potential hardware and/or software issues), to update the instance 408 or software running thereon, to communicate with the customer 402, or to perform and/or provide other services related to the functionality of the instance.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Aithal with the teachings of Dunsmore, Cormack in order to provide a system that teaches details of status collection. The motivation for applying Aithal teaching with Dunsmore, Cormack teaching is to provide a system that allows for design choice. Dunsmore, Cormack, Aithal are analogous art directed towards distributed computing. Together Dunsmore, Cormack, Aithal teaches every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Aithal with the teachings of Dunsmore, Cormack by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim 5, the combination teaches the claim, wherein Dunsmore teaches “the computer program product of claim 4, wherein the using, by the distributing stack, the status information to select the instance of the service comprises using the status information to select one of the instances of the proxy service to which to forward a client request for the target service ([Col. 23, Lines 42-55] (89) In some embodiments, in addition to selecting an application network address based on distance, the discovery coordinator service 506 can also utilize various health / status information to further fine-tune the selection process. For example, FIG. 6 illustrates a DNS-based approach utilizing network and endpoint health checking for endpoint discovery involving provider substrate extension resources according to some embodiments. In this example, the operations with regard to circles (1)-(5) remain largely the same as in FIG. 5; however, the endpoint selection operations of circle (3) can be modified to take into account factors in addition to distance, such as the health of involved applications 505 and/or the status of the CSP network 302A or its visibility into the operation of the PSE 300A.)”.
Claim/s 6, 14, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunsmore, Cormack in further view of Belanger (Pub. No. US 2014/0099920).
Claim 6, 14, 19 the combination may not explicitly teach the limitation of the claim.
Belanger teaches “the computer program product of claim 1, wherein the operations further
comprise: receiving, by a target stack of the target stacks, a local request for a service in the
embedded operating system environment, from a local client running in the receiving target stack; determining, by the primary operating system environment in the receiving target stack, whether an instance of the service is available in an instance of the embedded operating system environment residing in the receiving target stack; and routing, by the receiving target stack, the local request to the instance of the service available in the instance of the embedded operating system environment residing in the receiving target stack ([0047] In lieu of the application program 114 sending the local request 124 to the operating system 112 to obtain private data associated with a user of the mobile device 102, in some embodiments, the application program 114 generates and sends a remote request 136 to the opt-in/opt-out server computer 128. The opt-in/opt-out server computer 128 then determines, in response to the remote request 136, whether the application program 114 is permitted to access the private data based upon the rules 134. The opt-in/opt-out server computer 128 then generates a remote response 138 to the remote request 136. The remote response 138 can include instructions for the application program 114 to either proceed to obtain the private data or to avoid obtaining the private data based upon the determination that the application program 114 is permitted to access the private data based upon the rules 134 or based upon the determination that the application program 114 is not permitted to access the private data based upon the rules 134, respectively. In some other embodiments, the operating system 112 receives the remote request 136 from the application program 114 and forwards the remote request 136 to the opt-in/opt-out server computer 128.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Belanger with the teachings of Dunsmore, Cormack in order to provide a system that teaches details of communication. The motivation for applying Belanger teaching with Dunsmore, Cormack teaching is to provide a system that allows for design choice. Dunsmore, Cormack, Belanger are analogous art directed towards distributed computing. Together Dunsmore, Cormack, Belanger teaches every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Belanger with the teachings of Dunsmore, Cormack by known methods and gained expected results.
Claim/s 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dunsmore, Cormack in further view of Hong (Pub. No. US 2018/0129525).
Claim 9, the combination may not explicitly teach details of security.
Hong teaches “the computer program product of claim 1, further comprising: blocking access to a monitoring system in one of the target stack to clients external to the target stack and clients running in the target stack that are not within an address space of a communication protocol of the target stack ([0042] With respect to the first access request including the first intermediate physical address IPA1 generated in the normal virtual machine group, the first intermediate physical address IPA1 may be used as a first physical address PA1 in physical address space 350 of memory device 240, and the hypervisor may control STG2 MMU 214 or hardware firewalls 260 and 270 to selectively block the first access request based on access permission information of the normal virtual machine group for a physical page of memory device 240 having the first physical address PAL Thus, the hypervisor may control STG2 MMU 214 or hardware firewalls 260 and 270 to block an access request from the normal virtual machine group which includes a physical address corresponding to a physical page of memory device 240 that is allocated to the privilege virtual machine group. For example, in a case where an access request having a virtual address VA1-1 is generated in the normal virtual machine group, and the virtual address VA1-1 of the access request is translated into an intermediate physical address IPA1-1 that is the same as a physical address PA2 corresponding to a physical page allocated to the privilege virtual machine group, the access request including the intermediate physical address IPA1-1 or the physical address PA2 from the normal virtual machine group may be blocked. Accordingly, computing system 200 may prevent data of a secure application executed in the privilege virtual machine group from being leaked to the normal virtual machine group.)”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to apply the teachings of Hong with the teachings of Dunsmore, Cormack in order to provide a system that teaches details of communication. The motivation for applying Hong teaching with Dunsmore, Cormack teaching is to provide a system that allows for design choice. Dunsmore, Cormack, Hong are analogous art directed towards distributed computing. Together Dunsmore, Cormack, Hong teaches every limitation of the claimed invention. Since the teachings were analogous art known at the filing time of invention, one of ordinary skill could have applied the teachings of Hong with the teachings of Dunsmore, Cormack by known methods and gained expected results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WYNUEL S AQUINO whose telephone number is (571)272-7478. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM EST M-F.
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, Lewis Bullock can be reached at 571-272-3759. 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.
/WYNUEL S AQUINO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2199
Prosecution Insights