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 application filed August 14, 2024.
This application is a Continuation of: application 18326930 (now Patent 12074942).
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 were presented, and are pending examination.
Drawings
Drawings filed on 8/14/24 are acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, lines 15-17 recite: “the compare…” and “the swap…”. However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim. The claim makes it unclear if these limitations are the same or different from the “atomic compare and swap operation” of line 14. Specifically the “atomic compare and swap operation” is presented as a single operation, while lines 15-17 do not refer back to said operation.
Claim 11 is a slight variation of claim 1 and is objected to based on the same rationale.
Dependent claims are also objected to for inheriting the same deficiency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
A registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being as being unpatentable over: Claims 1-20 of US Patent 10430240 (Grandparent application 15284959) in view of US Patent 12074942 (Parent application 18326930).
Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they contain overlapping and equivalent limitations which are obvious variations of each. All claim sets are drawn to conflict free change deployment.
As a representative example, the method claim 1 of the instant application is taught by the claims 1,2 & 4 of Patent `240 which teaches: receiving a request for a service configuration in a distributed computing environment, identifying a version identifier of a local replica of the configuration, identifying key value pairs associated with the replica and identifying the target service; assigning a response comprising a new identifier; performing a comparison match against other identifiers produced by the service.
Patent `240 fails to explicitly teach updating the revision identifier in an atomic compare and swap operation, the compare verifying the current identifier has remained the same since retrieving, and the swap comprising updating the key value pair with new revision identifier. However, Patent `942 teaches updating the revision identifier in an atomic compare and swap operation, the compare verifying the current identifier has remained the same since retrieving, and the swap comprising updating the key value pair with new revision identifier (see Patent `942, at least claims 1,3 & 5). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Patent `240 based on the teachings of Patent `942 for the purpose of ensuring the validity of shared and updated configurations.
The limitations of the dependent claims of the instant application are similarly found to have their equivalents in the dependent claims of Patent `240 & `942, and are deemed to be obvious variations over them.
Without a terminal disclaimer, the patented claims will preclude issuance of the instant generic application.
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 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 1 line 11 recites the limitation “assigning a new revision identifier…”. This limitation appears incomplete since it is not known what to what entity or to what claim element the identifier is assigned to. It is further unclear if the “assigning…” of line 11, and the “updating… with the new revision identifier” of line 17, are considered the same action or different actions (and how they would relate to each other). Accordingly the limitation omits essential information, where such omission amounting to a gap between the claim steps. See MPEP § 2172.01
Claim 11 is a slight variation of claim 1 and is rejected based on the same rationale.
Dependent claims are rejected for inheriting the deficiency of their respective parent claims.
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 Nandagopal et al (US Publication 20110023028).
In reference to claim 1, Kamimura a method of setting service configuration information in a computing environment, comprising:
receiving, at a host, service configuration information for a target service of a plurality of services; (see ¶s 26,30,31, 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 ¶s 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 key in a specific key-value pair of the one or more key-value pairs identifying the target service; (see ¶s 2,4,5,40, where Kamimura teaches the log information storing key-value pairs identifying information related to the application service)
assigning a new revision identifier based on the current revision identifier; writing the new service configuration information into a new revision of the service configuration information for the target service in the local replica of the configuration store; (see ¶s 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 revision index key in an atomic compare-and-swap operation, (see ¶ 50, where Kamimura teaches committing the update by utilizing a CAS (compare and swap) command)
the compare comprising verifying that the current revision identifier in the revision index key has remained the same since the retrieving, (see ¶s 51,52, where Kamimura teaches comparing to verify that the version value has remained the same)
the swap comprising updating the specific key-value pair with the new revision identifier, wherein the method is performed using one or more processors. (see ¶s 53,54, 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. However, Nandagopal teaches setting resource configuration information in a distributed environment, where new configuration information for a target virtual machine service is required for adjusting the resource utilization of the virtual machine services (see Nandagopal, at least Abstract & ¶s 16-18). 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 Nandagopal for the purpose of dynamically managing the configuration of resources and increasing system efficiency.
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 Nandagopal et al (US Publication 20110023028) 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
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
February 23, 2026