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 .
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 2 and 11-20 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.
Claims 2, 11, and 16 contain the trademark/trade name Kubernetes. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a component of the system and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites “[a] system, comprising: a processor; a memory including instructions, which when executed, cause the processor to perform operations including: providing an interface between an observability tool and at least one component of the system; verifying an output of the observability tool; verifying a current condition of a state of an application pod; and based on a result of verifying the output and a result of verifying the current condition, executing a configuration change in the application pod.”
Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea):
The limitation of “verifying an output of the observability tool,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
The limitation of “verifying a current condition of a state of an application pod,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
The limitation of “based on a result of verifying the output and a result of verifying the current condition, executing a configuration change in the application pod,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting “processor” and “memory” nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the processor and memory language, “verifying” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper verifying information. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Additional Elements):
The limitation of “providing an interface between an observability tool and at least one component of the system.” Extra-Solution Activity.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Inventive concept):
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of a processor and memory to enact the verifying steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites “[t]he system of claim 1, wherein the at least one component is selected from the group of components consisting of a Machine Learning Operations (MLOPs) tool, a continuous integration/continuous deployment (CI/CD) pipeline tool, and Kubernetes.”
Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea):
The limitation of “wherein the at least one component is selected from the group of components consisting of a Machine Learning Operations (MLOPs) tool, a continuous integration/continuous deployment (CI/CD) pipeline tool, and Kubernetes” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Additional Elements):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Inventive concept):
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 recites “[t]he system of claim 1, wherein the at least one component is a continuous integration/continuous deployment (CI/CD) pipeline tool and the operations further include utilizing the output of the observability tool as an automatic trigger to self-heal the application pod.”
Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea):
The limitation of “wherein the at least one component is a continuous integration/continuous deployment (CI/CD) pipeline tool and the operations further include utilizing the output of the observability tool as an automatic trigger to self-heal the application pod,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Additional Elements):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Inventive concept):
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 recites “[t]he system of claim 1, wherein the operations further include utilizing the observability tool to validate the application pod.”
Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea):
The limitation of “wherein the operations further include utilizing the observability tool to validate the application pod,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Additional Elements):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Inventive concept):
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 recites “[a] system of claim 4, wherein the operations further include validating the application pod by comparing the current condition with a reference condition.”
Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea):
The limitation of “wherein the operations further include validating the application pod by comparing the current condition with a reference condition,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Additional Elements):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Inventive concept):
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 recites “[t]he system of claim 1, wherein the output of the observability tool is an alert of the observability tool and an input to the MLOPs tool.”
Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea):
The limitation of “system of claim 1,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Additional Elements):
The limitation of “wherein the output of the observability tool is an alert of the observability tool and an input to the MLOPs tool.” Extra-Solution Activity.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Inventive concept):
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 recites “[a] system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured with logic for verifying an alert from the observability tool.”
Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea):
The limitation of “wherein the processor is further configured with logic for verifying an alert from the observability tool,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Additional Elements):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Inventive concept):
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 recites “[t]he system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured with logic for fixing an error in the application pod.”
Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea):
The limitation of “wherein the processor is further configured with logic for fixing an error in the application pod,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Additional Elements):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Inventive concept):
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 recites “[t]he system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the operations continually.”
Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea):
The limitation of “wherein the processor is further configured to execute the operations continually,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Additional Elements):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Inventive concept):
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 recites “[t]he system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to automate self-healing of the application pod.”
Step 2A Prong 1 (Abstract Idea):
The limitation of “wherein the processor is further configured to automate self-healing of the application pod,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
Step 2A Prong 2 (Additional Elements):
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Inventive concept):
Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 11-15 are rejected based on similar rationale given to claims 1 and 4-7.
Claims 16-20 are rejected based on similar rationale given to claims 1 and 4-7.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al. US 2023/0111430 (hereinafter “Wu”).
Regarding claim 1, Wu teaches: A system, comprising: a processor; a memory including instructions, which when executed, cause the processor to perform operations including: (FIGs. 1-2)
providing an interface between an observability tool and at least one component of the system; (FIG. 1: Controller Node 104 and Client Node 110 are interfaces of the Orchestration Platform 100 that run the computer implemented method.)
verifying an output of the observability tool; (FIG. 8 and 0102: “The computer uses the temporary ingress controller configuration… based on the health check indicating that the temporary ingress controller pod did not crash while running the temporary ingress controller.” Here, the computer verifies the output, i.e., the controller pod did not crash.)
verifying a current condition of a state of an application pod; and (FIG. 8 and 0102: “The computer uses the temporary ingress controller configuration… based on the health check indicating that the temporary ingress controller pod did not crash while running the temporary ingress controller.” Here, the computer also verifies a state of an application pod, i.e., the controller pod did not crash.)
based on a result of verifying the output and a result of verifying the current condition, executing a configuration change in the application pod. (FIG. 8 and 0102: “The computer uses the temporary ingress controller configuration as a configuration for an ingress controller located in the ingress controller pod of the computer based on the health check indicating that the temporary ingress controller pod did not crash while running the temporary ingress controller with the temporary ingress controller configuration corresponding to the ingress configuration change set (step 808).” Here, the computer uses the controller configuration as a configuration based on the health check.)
Regarding claim 4: The system of claim 1, wherein the operations further include utilizing the observability tool to validate the application pod. (FIG. 8 and 0102: “The computer uses the temporary ingress controller configuration as a configuration for an ingress controller located in the ingress controller pod of the computer based on the health check indicating that the temporary ingress controller pod did not crash while running the temporary ingress controller with the temporary ingress controller configuration corresponding to the ingress configuration change set (step 808).” Here, the computer verifies that the pod did not crash while running.)
Regarding claim 5: The system of claim 4, wherein the operations further include validating the application pod by comparing the current condition with a reference condition. (FIG. 8 and 0102: “The computer uses the temporary ingress controller configuration as a configuration for an ingress controller located in the ingress controller pod of the computer based on the health check indicating that the temporary ingress controller pod did not crash while running the temporary ingress controller with the temporary ingress controller configuration corresponding to the ingress configuration change set (step 808).” Here, the computer verifies that the pod did not crash while running. The reference is the temporary ingress controller configuration. Also see 0050.)
Regarding claim 7: The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured with logic for verifying an alert from the observability tool. (FIG. 1: Controller Node 104 and Client Node 110 are interfaces of the Orchestration Platform 100 that run the computer implemented method; and
FIG. 8 and 0102: “The computer uses the temporary ingress controller configuration… based on the health check indicating that the temporary ingress controller pod did not crash while running the temporary ingress controller.” Here, the computer verifies the output, i.e., the controller pod did not crash.)
Regarding claim 8: The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured with logic for fixing an error in the application pod. (0053: “illustrative embodiments avoid single ingress configuration error crashes of the entire ingress controller pod in a running orchestration platform by preventing any invalid incoming ingress configuration changes to be merged with the configuration of the ingress controller… Therefore, performance of the running orchestration platform is maintained by preventing failures or crashes of the ingress controller pod.”)
Regarding claim 9: The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to execute the operations continually. (0053: “illustrative embodiments avoid single ingress configuration error crashes of the entire ingress controller pod in a running orchestration platform by preventing any invalid incoming ingress configuration changes to be merged with the configuration of the ingress controller. Consequently, illustrative embodiments prevent negative impact on current services hosted by the orchestration platform that may be caused by invalid or conflicting ingress configuration changes. Therefore, performance of the running orchestration platform is maintained by preventing failures or crashes of the ingress controller pod.” Note, the orchestration platform is being run continuously and errors are being prevented by the continuous operation of the invention.)
Regarding claim 10: The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to automate self-healing of the application pod. (0053: “illustrative embodiments avoid single ingress configuration error crashes of the entire ingress controller pod in a running orchestration platform by preventing any invalid incoming ingress configuration changes to be merged with the configuration of the ingress controller… Therefore, performance of the running orchestration platform is maintained by preventing failures or crashes of the ingress controller pod.”)
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.
Claims 2-3, 6, and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Kramer et al. US 2025/0265545 (hereinafter “Kramer”).
Regarding claim 2, Wu teaches the system of claim 1. Wu does not expressively disclose wherein the at least one component is selected from the group of components consisting of a Machine Learning Operations (MLOPs) tool, a continuous integration/continuous deployment (CI/CD) pipeline tool, and Kubernetes. However, he does teach “dynamically verifying whether incoming ingress configuration changes, which are submitted by a set of users, are valid based on performing pre-verification, parallel verification, and final verification processes on temporary ingress controller configurations,” i.e., components. Wu at 0038.
Kramer teaches: wherein the at least one component is selected from the group of components consisting of a Machine Learning Operations (MLOPs) tool, a continuous integration/continuous deployment (CI/CD) pipeline tool, and Kubernetes. (FIG. 9 and 0139: “AI Artifacts 905 may represent artifacts that need to be scanned for vulnerabilities. They may be obtained automatically, generated, and/or provided by one or more users and/or systems. These may be provided by, for example (but not limited to), scanning a system's files, in a CI/CD pipeline, in a DevSecOps pipeline, in an AIOps pipeline, in a MLOps pipeline…”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have combined Wu’s method for verifying ingress changes with Kramer’s method that scans artifacts for vulnerabilities in a CI/CD pipeline or MLOPs pipeline, thereby devising a method for monitoring components in a CI/CD pipeline or MLOPs pipeline. The motivation to have combined the prior arts come from Wu merely not exhaustively listing all the different types of configuration changes that can be verified. Kramer lists several types of pipelines which configuration files can be scanned.
Regarding claim 3: The system of claim 1, wherein the at least one component is a continuous integration/continuous deployment (CI/CD) pipeline tool and (Kramer, FIG. 9 and 0139: “AI Artifacts 905 may represent artifacts that need to be scanned for vulnerabilities. They may be obtained automatically, generated, and/or provided by one or more users and/or systems. These may be provided by, for example (but not limited to), scanning a system's files, in a CI/CD pipeline, in a DevSecOps pipeline, in an AIOps pipeline, in a MLOps pipeline…”)
the operations further include utilizing the output of the observability tool as an automatic trigger to self-heal the application pod. (Wu, 0053: “illustrative embodiments avoid single ingress configuration error crashes of the entire ingress controller pod in a running orchestration platform by preventing any invalid incoming ingress configuration changes to be merged with the configuration of the ingress controller… Therefore, performance of the running orchestration platform is maintained by preventing failures or crashes of the ingress controller pod.”)
Regarding claim 6: The system of claim 1, wherein the output of the observability tool is an alert of the observability tool and (Wu, FIG. 1: Controller Node 104 and Client Node 110 are interfaces of the Orchestration Platform 100 that run the computer implemented method; and
FIG. 8 and 0102: “The computer uses the temporary ingress controller configuration… based on the health check indicating that the temporary ingress controller pod did not crash while running the temporary ingress controller.” Here, the computer verifies the output, i.e., the controller pod did not crash.)
an input to the MLOPs tool. (Kramer, FIG. 9 and 0139: “AI Artifacts 905 may represent artifacts that need to be scanned for vulnerabilities. They may be obtained automatically, generated, and/or provided by one or more users and/or systems. These may be provided by, for example (but not limited to), scanning a system's files, in a CI/CD pipeline, in a DevSecOps pipeline, in an AIOps pipeline, in a MLOps pipeline…”)
Claims (11) and 12-15 are rejected based on the same citations and rationale given to claims (1-2) and 4-7, respectively.
Claims (16) and 17-20 are rejected based on the same citations and rationale given to claims (1-2) and 4-7, respectively.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hulick et al. US 2025/0099417 (FIG. 9, abstract, background, and summary)
Juneja et al. US 2025/0021343 (abstract, background, and summary)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN D GIBSON whose telephone number is (571)431-0699. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 A.M.-4:00 P.M..
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, BRYCE P BONZO can be reached at (571)-272-3655. 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.
/JONATHAN D GIBSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113
Prosecution Insights