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
This action is responsive to amendment filed June 9, 2026.
Status of Claims
Applicant amended the claims in the filed amendment. Claims 1-20 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 6/9/26, have been fully considered.
The previous claim objections and 112b rejections are withdrawn.
Applicants arguments regarding the Double Patenting is not persuasive. Therefore the Double Patenting rejection remains and is incorporated herein by reference.
Applicants arguments regarding the previous 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. However a new grounds of rejection is made under 103 based on Kamimura in view of Multani, as presented below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection of the Office Action dated 3/9/25 is incorporated herein by reference.
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 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.
Claims 1,3-9,11,13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamimura et al (US Publication 20120284244) in view of Multani et al (US Patent 10025943).
In reference to claim 1, Kamimura a method of setting service configuration information in a computing environment (see ¶s 2,4,25, where Kamimura teaches configurations in a relational database environment), comprising:
receiving, at a host, a request for service configuration information for a target service of a plurality of services; (see at least ¶s 26,30,43, where Kamimura teaches receiving transaction information for a target application service)
retrieving a current revision identifier of a current revision of service configuration information for the target service from a revision index key in a local replica of a configuration store, (see at least ¶s 41,44,47, where Kamimura teaches acquiring version information for log information related to a local application service)
the revision index key storing one or more key-value pairs, a specific key-value pair of the one or more key-value pairs having a key that identifies the target service and a value that stores the current revision identifier; (see at least ¶s 39,40,46, where Kamimura teaches the log information storing key-value pairs identifying information related to the application service)
assigning, to a new revision of the service configuration information for the target service, a new revision identifier based on the current revision identifier; writing the new service configuration information into the new revision in the local replica of the configuration store; (see at least ¶s 41,49,50, where Kamimura teaches assigning a new version based on incrementing the current version, and writing the update to the log information related to the application)
updating the value of the specific key-value pair of the revision index key in an atomic compare-and-swap operation, the atomic compare-and-swap operation comprising: (see at least ¶ 50,55,56, where Kamimura teaches committing the update by utilizing a CAS (compare and swap) command)
a compare that verifies that the current revision identifier stored in the value of the specific key-value pair of the revision index key has remained the same since the retrieving; (see at least ¶s 51,52,61-63, where Kamimura teaches comparing to verify that the version value has remained the same) and
a swap that, conditioned on success of the compare, updates the value of the specific key- value pair to store the new revision identifier, wherein the method is performed using one or more processors. (see at least ¶s 53,54,64-66, where Kamimura teaches swapping to commit the key-value pair update)
Kamimura fails to explicitly teach a method of setting service configuration information in a distribute computing environment, and receiving, at a host, a request to set new service configuration information for a target service of a plurality of services available in a distributed computing environment; and writing the new service configuration information into a new revision, including writing one or more keys that each include the new revision identifier as part of the key. However, Multani teaches configuration management in a distributed environment (see Multani, at least Background, Fig 5 & column 6 lines 58-67). And discloses receiving a request to set new configuration and writing the new configuration into a new version (see Multani, see at least column 3 lines 27-33 and column 7 lines 24-50), and discloses writing the keys in an extended manner so as to include the version identifier with the key (see Multani, at least column 5 line 57 – column 6 line 10 and column 7 lines 1-23). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kamimura based on the teachings of Multani for the purpose of improving data management and quality control over data storage and data sharing.
In reference to claim 3, this is taught by Kamimura, see at least ¶s 25,40-43, which teaches the logs comprise character strings for the application service and the configuration information comprising key value pairs.
In reference to claim 4, this is taught by Kamimura, see at least ¶ 42, which teaches new WAL identifier values which are smaller than the current values.
In reference to claim 5, this is taught by Kamimura, see at least ¶s 40,41, which teaches key value pairs as identifiers.
In reference to claim 6, this is taught by Kamimura, see at least ¶s 49-52, which teaches verifying the writing is successful before updating the values.
In reference to claim 7, this is taught by Kamimura, see at least ¶s 51,52, which teaches verifying the key version has stayed the same.
In reference to claim 8, this is taught by Kamimura, see at least ¶s 42,48,52, which teaches subsequent configurations, and indicating a failure when a failure occurs.
In reference to claim 9, this is taught by Kamimura, see at least ¶s 59-65, which teaches subsequent configurations, subsequent compare and swap operation, and indicating a failure when a failure occurs.
Claims 11,13,19 are slight variations of the rejected claims 1,3-9 above, and are therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
Claims 3,10,12,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamimura et al (US Publication 20120284244) in view of Multani et al (US Patent 10025943) in further view of Abdelaziz et al (US Publication 20040044727).
In reference to claim 3, Kamimura fails to explicitly teach a request received via a localhost network interface of the host. However, Abdelaziz teaches sharing resource configuration indexes between hosts, and receiving a request via localhost of the host interface (see Abdelaziz, at least Abstract & ¶s 11,128,653,663). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kamimura based on the teachings of Abdelaziz for the purpose of enabling resource configuration sharing across in a diverse computing environment.
In reference to claim 10, this is taught by Abdelaziz, see at least ¶s 21,675,676, which teaches advertisement between other hosts which notify resource configurations. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify Kamimura based on the teachings of Abdelaziz in accordance to the rationale as given for claim 3.
Claim 12,20 is a slight variation of the rejected claims 3,10 above, and are therefore rejected based on the same rationale.
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.
For any subsequent response that contains new/amended claims, Applicant is required to cite its corresponding support in the specification. (See MPEP chapter 2163.03 section (I.) and chapter 2163.04 section (I.) and chapter 2163.06) Applicant may not introduce any new matter to the claims or to the specification.
In formulating a response/amendment, Applicant is encouraged to take into consideration the prior art made of record but not relied upon, as it is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached Form 892.
Contact & Status
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAMY M OSMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4008. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 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, Ario Etienne can be reached at 571-272-4001. 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.
/Ramy M Osman/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2457
August 18, 2026
Prosecution Insights