DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
The present application is being examined under the AIA (America Invents Act) First Inventor to File.
This Office Action is Final.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent claims. Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-200 are dependent claims.
This action is responsive to the following communication: the response filed on 05-22-2026.
Double Patenting
The non-statutory 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. See 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 nonstatutory 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); 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) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Effective January 1, 1994, 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).
For faster processing of Terminal Disclaimer 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.
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim Analysis
Claims 1-20 of the instant application are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of nonstatutory double patenting over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 11,593,118 & over claims 1-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,086,606 since the claims, if allowed, would improperly extend the "right to exclude" already granted in the patent.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because as illustrated by the table below, each feature claimed is directly mapped and taught by the cited prior art that is commonly owned. For example, analysis of each of the claims represented below are directed to a method and system for installation of a package to at least one or more. Furthermore, these claims are further directed to an installation package that provides a microservice and resides within one or more registries. Thus, combining the above facts, a later application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus).” ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Inst. Appl. 18/806,617
Patent No. 11,593,118
Patent No. 12,086,606
Claim 1
A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon a sequence of instructions which, when stored in memory and executed by a processor cause the processor to perform acts, the acts comprising:
receiving an installation package at a first node,
wherein the installation package was sent from a second node that is remote from the first node, and the second node holds container registry content to be sent to local nodes;
installing a local container registry that is local to the first node;
a microservice from the installation package at the first node from the local container registry.
Claim 1
A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon a sequence of instructions which, when stored in memory and executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform acts
for bootstrapping a microservices container registry, the acts comprising: receiving an installation package at a computing system node;
and bootstrapping an invocation of a microservice at least by installing a local container registry from the installation package and further at least by installing the microservice from the installation package,
wherein the installation package comprises a file system composed of a first code image of the local container registry and a second code image that corresponds to a microservice URL, and the microservice URL is referenced in the first code image using at least a fully qualified domain name (FQDN).
Claim 1
A non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon a sequence of instructions which, when stored in memory and executed by a processor cause the processor to perform acts, the acts comprising:
bootstrapping an invocation of a microservice at a leader node in a first domain at least by installing a microservice registry and
the microservice from an installation package that is sent to the leader node, wherein a leader-follower relationship is established between the leader node and the follower node in a second domain, and a server points to the microservices registry at the leader node; and responsive to an event where the follower node is unable to reach the leader node, changing an entry in the server to point to a network address at the follower node in the second domain.
Claims Objections
Claims 7, 14 are objected to because the use of symbol “/” may interpreted in different ways, thus making the claims unclear.
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, 8,15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2020/0348846 (hereinafter, “Chopra”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2017/0344910 (hereinafter, “Wu”).
As per claims 1, 8, 15 1 discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium having stored thereon a sequence of instructions which, when stored in memory and executed by a processor cause the processor to perform acts, the acts comprising:
receiving an installation package at a first node, (Fig. 1 illustrates one or more production hosts, in which according to ¶ [0018]-[0019] they may be client devices. These client devices are further configured to received an “ installation package” ¶ [0002]. ) wherein the installation package comprises container registry contents (the agent repository (124) may include the corresponding computer executable code for the various application specific agents (e.g., Agent C (114C), Agent D (114D) that are uses by production hosts; ¶ [0024]) and a [unique components] for a [unique service] to be installed at the first node, and (inter alia: populate the local registry with data structures that may identify the software component as either being “unique” or “common”. ¶s [0035], [0038], [0059]. Because of that, it is therefore seen that the type of software component serves as having a specific utility to one or more client production hosts. ) the installation package was sent from a second node that is remote from the first node; (management device 120 may be implemented as a computing device ¶ [0028] that is responsible for providing the installation package as further illustrated by Fig’s 1- 3 )
installing, using the installation package received at the first node, a local container registry at the first node using the container registry contents (The backup agent may also include functionality to query and/or populate the local registry (119) (described below) as part of installing one or more agents) and the [unique components], wherein the installed local container registry at the first node contains the [unique components] for the [unique service] to be installed at the first node; and (inter alia: populate the local registry with data structures that may identify the software component as either being “unique” or “common”. ¶s [0035], [0038], [0059]. Because of that, it is therefore seen that the type of software component serves as having a specific utility to one or more client production hosts. )
installing, on the first node, the [unique service] included in the installation package from the local container registry the first node. (inter alia: populate the local registry with data structures that may identify the software component as either being “unique” or “common”. ¶s [0035], [0038], [0059]. Because of that, it is therefore seen that the type of software component serves as having a specific utility to one or more client production hosts”. )
Chopra does not distinctly disclose where the claimed feature microservice image that provides microservices.
However, Wu discloses that. In particular, Wu discloses the following:
receiving an installation package at a first node, (Fig. 2 illustrates one or more client service node that may receive container “packages” from a provisioning node 102, ¶ [0037] ) wherein the installation package comprises container registry contents ( deploys the model container to one or more serving nodes of the serving node cluster 214.; ¶ [0026] and a microservice to be installed at the first node, and (the provisioning of the containers may allow “ micro-services” ¶ [007])
installing, using the installation package received at the first node, a local container registry at the first node using the container registry contents and the microservice image, each serving node of the serving node cluster 214 contains a local container registry ; ¶ [0038] wherein the installed local container registry at the first node contains the microservice image for the microservices to be installed at the first node; and (Fig. 2 illustrates one or more client service node that may receive container “packages” from a provisioning node 102, ¶ [0037] that may allow microservice ¶ [ 007])
installing, on the first node, the microservice included in the installation package from the local container registry the first node. (Fig. 2 illustrates one or more client service node that may receive container “packages” from a provisioning node 102, ¶ [0037] that may allow microservice ¶ [ 007])
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Chopra and Wu because both references are in the same field of endeavor. Wu’s teaching of micro-services would enhance Chopra’s system by allowing development that is more scalable and fault tolerant than a monolithic services.
Claim(s) 2, 9, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2020/0348846 (hereinafter, “Chopra”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2017/0344910 (hereinafter, “Wu”) and further view of U.S. Publication No. 2019/0339986 (hereinafter, “Khatri”) .
As per claims 2, 9 and 16, Chopra as modified discloses non-transitory computer readable medium, wherein the installation package is downloaded to the first node by at least one of, and wherein the local container registry is installedbefore invocation of the microservice. (Chopra: local and global registry for installing unique and common software components; Fig’s 1, 6) & (Wu: local and global registry for installing container for microservices; Fig. 2, ¶s [0035], [007], [0026] ) )
Chopra as modified does not distinctly disclose a basic 11O system (BIOS) or a pre-boot execution environment PXE.
However, Khatri explicitly discloses a basic 11O system (BIOS) or a pre-boot execution environment PXE. ( provisioning system includes a pre-boot execution environment system coupled to a server device through a network.; abstract)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Chopra as modified and Khatri because all references are in the same field of endeavor. Khatris’ teaching of implementing an PXE technology would enhance Chopra’s as modified system by provisioning software packages to bare machines without physical local memory, thus enhances costs in deploying large scale software to computer systems.
Claim(s) 3, 10, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2020/0348846 (hereinafter, “Chopra”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2017/0344910 (hereinafter, “Wu”) and further view of U.S. Patent No. 10,623,508 (hereinafter, “Chauhan”) .
As per claims 3, 10, 17, Chopra as modified discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium wherein the installation package to at least one microservice that is referenced in the of the local container registry (WU: receiving, storing, and sending files having unique and common components using local and global registry ¶ [0040], Fig’s 1, 6), (Chopra: contents may be implemented using file system ¶s [0064], [0066] )
Chopra as modified does not distinctly a URL and using at least a fully qualified domain name (FQDN).
However, Chauhan explicitly discloses a URL and using at least a fully qualified domain name (FQDN). (implementing URLs and FQDNs for resource location; Col 37 lines 31-41)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Chopra as modified and Chauhan because all references are in the same field of endeavor. Chauhan’s teaching of URLs and FQDNs would enhance Chopra’s as modified system by allowing sharing of resources that are faster and more secure.
Claim(s) 4, 11, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2020/0348846 (hereinafter, “Chopra”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2017/0344910 (hereinafter, “Wu”) and further view of U.S. Publication No. 2015/0370866 (hereinafter, “Schneider”) .
As per claims 4, 11 and 18, Chopra as modified does not distinctly disclose a non-transitory computer readable medium further comprising instructions which, when stored in memory and executed by the processor cause further acts of unpacking at least a portion of a domain name service at the first node to host an initial domain name service is hosted at a node-local IP address, and such that at least one DNS entry of the initial domain name service refers to the node-local IP address of the local container registry that was extracted from the installation package.
However, Schneider explicitly discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium further comprising instructions which, when stored in memory and executed by the processor cause further acts of unpacking at least a portion of a domain name service at the first node to host an initial domain name service is hosted at a node-local IP address, and such that at least one DNS entry of the initial domain name service refers to the node-local IP address of the local container registry that was extracted from the installation package. (¶ [106] states “The browser 112 extracts the domain name from the URL and passes the domain name to the resolver 114 on the client-side of the DNS application. As part of a DNS query message, the DNS client 114 sends the domain name to a DNS server system 121 connected to the Internet. The DNS client 114 eventually receives a reply, which includes the IP address for the domain name. The browser then opens a TCP connection 116 to the HTTP server process 120 located at the IP address” )
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Chopra as modified and Schneider because all references are in the same field of endeavor. Schneider’s teaching of extracting information form domain to pass IP addresses would enhance Chopra’s as modified system by allowing quick and secure data sharing.
Claim(s) 6-7, 13-14, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2020/0348846 (hereinafter, “Chopra”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2017/0344910 (hereinafter, “Wu”) and further view of U.S. Publication No. 2019/0102155 (hereinafter, “Garvey”) .
As per claims 6, 13 Chopra as modified discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium further wherein the first node hosts a first instance of the local container registry to a first availability and a second instance of the local container registry is deployed to a second node in a second availability domain. (Chopra: discloses a creating a production hosts that are implemented having unique and common software components using based on the local registry; Fig’s 1, 6)
Chopra as modified does not distinctly disclose a first computing cluster having one or more domains.
However, Garvey discloses a first computing cluster having one or more domains. (Fig 7 illustrates a computer cluster comprised of sub-clusters)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Chopra as modified and Garvey because all references are in the same field of endeavor. Garvey’s teaching of arranging a computer cluster as subclusters would enhance Chopra’s as modified system by allowing the user to easily identify relationships between different computer nodes, thus enhancing configuration settings.
As per claims 7, 14, 20, Chopra as modified discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium further comprising instructions which, when stored in memory and executed by the processor cause further acts of executing at least a portion of the installation package to establish a leader/follower relationship between a first node in the first availability domain and a second node in the second availability domain. (Garvey: abstract discloses “deployments of a software resource” that are arranged based on relationships defined as parent node/child node ¶ [0137] )
Allowable Subject Matter Over 35 USC § 102/103
Claims 5, 12, 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 05-22-2026 associated with the amendments have been fully considered and addressed by the rejection above.
For at least the above reasons the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUREL PRIFTI whose telephone number is (571)270-1743. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8 a.m.- 6 p.m..
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew J. Jung can be reached on 571-270-3779. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AUREL PRIFTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Aurel Prifti
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2175
Tel. (571) 270-1743
Fax (571) 270-2743
aurel.prifti@uspto.gov
1 As per independent claim(s) 8 and 15, these claims are substantially equivalent to product claim(s) 1, because the additional feature(s) presented in the system claim are present on any off the shelf general-purpose computer. Therefore, for at least this reason, claims 8 and 15 also stand rejected. Indeed, at least Fig’s 1-3 of cited prior art further discloses the claimed system features.
Prosecution Insights