DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claims 21-40 are pending.
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 22, 30, and 38 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 22 recites “adapt a behavior of the first non-compute resource”. It is unclear what it means to “adapt a behavior”. Both what kind of adapting and what kind of behaviors, lack clarity.
Claim 30 recites “adapt a behavior of the first database”. It is unclear what it means to “adapt a behavior”. Both what kind of adapting and what kind of behaviors, lack clarity.
Claim 38 recites “adapt a behavior of the first database”. It is unclear what it means to “adapt a behavior”. Both what kind of adapting and what kind of behaviors, lack clarity.
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.
Claim(s) 21, 23-29, 31-37 and 39-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Divilly et al. (US 20150095343) in view of Rao Krishnagi (US Patent 11645297) and in further view of Joshi (US 20120159468).
Regarding claim 21, Divilly teaches
A system for using interchangeable non-compute resources, the system comprising:
at least one processor;
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to perform a set of operations, the set of operations comprising:
in response to deploying an application to a first non-compute resource:
by updating a deployment manifest by specifying details for enabling the application to interface with the first non-compute resource based on a selection of the first non-compute resource; ([0039], “In step 414, application server 144 establishes a connection for accessing the target database schema. This step may comprise generating and/or opening a new connection to the target database system where the target database schema is located and establishing a database session for the target database schema.” Where the server is configured to interface with the target database once the server receives the request from the application and thus when the application has been deployed/generated. [0035] also describes an access request containing instructions relating to deployment i.e. loading data into the database for use by the deployed application)
Rao Krishnagi teaches
updating a deployment manifest by specifying details for enabling the application to interface with the first non-compute resource based on a selection of the first non-compute resource; (col. 2, lines 50-52, “create a jaas configuration file that contains Kerberos login module to connect to the target database”)
configuring the system to interface with the first non-compute resource based on the deployment manifest; (col. 14, lines 37-45, “The Jaas configuration file containing Kerberos login module configuration may use an existing credential cache to acquire the TOT or use a Keytab file containing a secret key to authenticate a principal. Once it authenticates successfully, it establishes the connection to the database 412 for the subject as shown in FIG. 4.”)
wherein the application is the same when the deployment manifest is updated based on the selection of the first non-compute resource as when the deployment manifest is updated based on the selection of the second non-compute resource. (col. 14, lines 37-45, “the SDDM 406 may utilize Jaas to authenticate the application 403, 603 with minimal configurations, not requiring any application level code changes. The Jaas configuration file containing Kerberos login module configuration may use an existing credential cache to acquire the TOT or use a Keytab file containing a secret key to authenticate a principal. Once it authenticates successfully, it establishes the connection to the database 412 for the subject as shown in FIG. 4.”)
Divilly and Rao Krishnagi are analogous art. Rao Krishnagi is cited to teach a similar concept of deployment of applications with databases. Rao Krishnagi teaches that the application will stay the same will it establishes a connection to a different database. Based on Rao Krishnagi, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Divilly to maintain the same application with minimal configuration changes to the manifest/configuration while changing databases. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the invention it would have been advantageous to make this modification because “improvements effected by the instant disclosure may include platforms for implementing a smart database driver that provides a suite of JDBC drivers for seamless integration with Java applications that run in containers or third-party products/applications to connect to databases” cols.17-18 and lines 67-5.
Joshi teaches
in response to a selection of a second non-compute resource, deploying the application to the second non-compute resource by: ([0020], “([0020], “the change may include an update to a database used by the application or the addition of a new database. … In response to the change, the host computing device 120 may automatically update the stored manifest file 123”)
updating the deployment manifest, while deploying the application to the second non-compute resource, by specifying details for enabling the application to interface with the second non-compute resource: and ([0020], “the change may include an update to a database used by the application or the addition of a new database. … In response to the change, the host computing device 120 may automatically update the stored manifest file 123, the stored parameters file 124, or any combination thereof. For example, the host computing device 120 may add an identifier for a new database to the manifest file 123 and may add destination-dependent parameters of the new database to the parameters file 124.”)
re-configuring the system to interface with a second non-compute resource based on the deployment manifest ([0020], “the change may include an update to a database used by the application or the addition of a new database. … In response to the change, the host computing device 120 may automatically update the stored manifest file 123, the stored parameters file 124, or any combination thereof. For example, the host computing device 120 may add an identifier for a new database to the manifest file 123 and may add destination-dependent parameters of the new database to the parameters file 124.”)
Divilly, Rao Krishnagi, and Joshi are analogous art. Joshi is cited to teach a similar concept of deployment of applications using remote databases. Based on Joshi, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains to have modified Divilly and Rao Krishnagi to automatically update the deployment manifest based on the database used. Furthermore, being able to update the manifest of the application improves on Divilly and Rao Krishnagi by being able to update automatically the manifest without user intervention. To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the invention it would have been advantageous to make this modification because “the data store may maintain an updated record of application-specific information (e.g., manifest information and parameters information) and device-specific information (e.g., device-specific parameter values for each computing device where the application is installed).”, [0002]
Regarding claim 23, Divilly teaches wherein the first non-compute resource is one of a database, caching system, or messaging queue. ([0039], “In step 414, application server 144 establishes a connection for accessing the target database schema.”)
Regarding claim 24, Divilly teaches wherein the configuring comprises configuring the application to be deployed from a compute resource to the first non-compute resource.([0039], “In step 414, application server 144 establishes a connection for accessing the target database schema. This step may comprise generating and/or opening a new connection to the target database system where the target database schema is located and establishing a database session for the target database schema.”)
Regarding claim 25, Divilly teaches wherein the compute resource is configured to perform computations via a processor.([0056], “a computer system 600 upon which an embodiment of the invention may be implemented. Computer system 600 includes a bus 602 or other communication mechanism for communicating information, and a hardware processor 604”)
Regarding claim 26, Rao Krishnagi teaches wherein the application comprises source code, and wherein the application being the same when the deployment manifest is updated based on the selection of the first non-compute resource as when the deployment manifest is updated based on the selection of the second non-compute resource comprises the source code of the application being the same when the deployment manifest is updated based on the selection of the first non-compute resource as when the deployment manifest is updated based on the selection of the second non-compute resource. (col. 14, lines 37-45, “the SDDM 406 may utilize Jaas to authenticate the application 403, 603 with minimal configurations, not requiring any application level code changes. The Jaas configuration file containing Kerberos login module configuration may use an existing credential cache to acquire the TOT or use a Keytab file containing a secret key to authenticate a principal. Once it authenticates successfully, it establishes the connection to the database 412 for the subject as shown in FIG. 4.”)
Regarding claim 27, Joshi teaches wherein the configuring and the re-configuring are performed via a resource connector. ([0020], “the change may include an update to a database used by the application or the addition of a new database. … In response to the change, the host computing device 120 may automatically update the stored manifest file 123, the stored parameters file 124, or any combination thereof. For example, the host computing device 120 may add an identifier for a new database to the manifest file 123 and may add destination-dependent parameters of the new database to the parameters file 124.” Where a resource connector is interpreted as anything that performs the operation of connecting the application with the databases)
Regarding claim 28, Divilly teaches wherein the re-configuring comprises re-configuring the system to interface with the second non-compute resource at the deployment, instead of the first non-compute resource, thereby disconnecting the interface from the first non-compute resource. ([0014], “connections to a cloud database may be routed and multiplexed based on uniform resource identifiers (URIs).”)
Regarding claim 36, Divilly teaches wherein the first database is one or more of a cloud database, a relational database, a distributed relational database, or a sequel database. ([0014], “connections to a cloud database may be routed and multiplexed based on uniform resource identifiers (URIs).”)
As to claims 31, Divilly, Rao Krishnagi, and Joshi teach these claims according to the reasoning provided in claim 24.
As to claims 32, Divilly, Rao Krishnagi, and Joshi teach these claims according to the reasoning provided in claim 25.
As to claims 33 and 39, Divilly, Rao Krishnagi, and Joshi teach these claims according to the reasoning provided in claim 26.
As to claims 34, Divilly, Rao Krishnagi, and Joshi teach these claims according to the reasoning provided in claim 27.
As to claims 35, Divilly, Rao Krishnagi, and Joshi teach these claims according to the reasoning provided in claim 28.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant’s representative argues that the new amendments are not taught by the references. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Since Divilly, Rao Krishnagi, and Joshi teach the amended claims as shown in the U.S.C. 103 rejection above and the Applicant does not describe why the rejections are not taught, the arguments are not persuasive. The rejection is maintained.
Regarding the U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 22, 30, and 38 is not persuasive. The Applicant argues that paragraph [0061] as the part of the specification that teaches “adapt a behavior”. While paragraph does describe some aspects about what adapting a behavior means, the claims are read in light of the specification but not into the claim language. Therefore, the arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
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 CHERI L. HARRINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-0468. The examiner can normally be reached Generally, M-F, 7:30a-4p.
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, Jaweed Abbaszadeh can be reached at 571-270-1640. 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.
/CHERI L HARRINGTON/Examiner, Art Unit 2176 June 23, 2026
/PHIL K NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2176
Prosecution Insights