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 office action is in response to the application filed on 11/19/2024. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application. Claim 1, 10, 16 are independent claims.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 11310508, filed on Feb 7th 2024.
Claim Objections
Claim 14, 19 objected to because of the following informalities: The claims recites the limitation “furthering comprising”. This appears to be a typo and the claim should state “further comprising”. For examination purposes, claim 14, 19 will be considered as “further comprising”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, it has not been integrated into practical application and the claims further do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Regarding claims 1, 10, 16 the limitations “setting a flag for the feature to a value …”; “tracking a version of first software installed for a first client ”; “determining that the version of the first software installed for the first client does not support the feature”; “determining that the version of the first software installed …”; “associating the first client with a second value of the …“ and “replacing the second value of the …” as drafted, are functions that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. These limitations encompass a human mind carrying out these functions through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation recites and falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 step 2A.
Under Prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements “at least one hardware processor”, “at least one memory”, “one or more computer-readable storage media”, “one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media”, and “receiving a request to activate code …”, “in response to the request …” merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, thus is not a practical application under Prong 2. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (g), respectively.
Under Step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above in prong 2, the additional elements “receiving a request to activate code representing a feature of a software application”, and “in response to the request…“ are merely gathering data which the courts have identified as well-understood, routine conventional activity. See for example Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362, MPEP 2106.05(d). Therefore, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
Regarding claim 2, 11, 17 the limitations “determining that the second client has been updated to a version of the first software that does support the feature”, “replacing the third value with the first value”, “associating the first client with a second value of the …“ recite the functions that can be mentally done in human mind under Prong I step 2A. The other limitations “one or more non-transitory” are the additional elements that recites at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f); and merely gathering data which the courts have identified as well-understood, routine conventional activity. Therefore, the additional elements as recited do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding claim 3-4, 12-14, 18 the limitations “first client and the second clients are tenants in a multitenant computing cluster”, “first client and the second client receive tasks from a common application instance.” are considered as additional elements and analyzed under Prong II as merely recited instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, thus does not integrate into a practical application.
Regarding claim 5, 14, 19, the limitation “deploying updated content to a repository” recites the functions that can be mentally done in human mind under Prong I step 2A. The other limitations “as part of an update of second software…”; “the repository includes content compatible with both the version” are the additional elements that recites at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the additional elements as recited do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation “modifying a data schema…” recites the functions that can be mentally done in human mind under Prong I step 2A. The other limitations “as part of an update of second software...”, “while making data from the data schema ....” are the additional elements that recite at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the additional elements as recited do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding claim 7, 15, 20, the limitation “modifying an application programming interface” recites the functions that can be mentally done in human mind under Prong I step 2A. The other limitations “application programming interface” is the additional element that recites at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the additional elements as recited do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “receiving a first request from a first external client associated”, “routing the first request from the first external client to an application programming interface…” recites the functions that can be mentally done in human mind under Prong I step 2A. The other limitations “as part of an update of second software that interacts…”, ““based on determining…” are the additional elements that recite at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the additional elements as recited do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “receiving a second request from the first external client”, “routing the first request from the first external client to an application programming interface…” recites the functions that can be mentally done in human mind under Prong I step 2A. The other limitations “as part of an update of second software that interacts…”, ““based on determining…” are the additional elements that recite at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer, and/or generic computer components. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Therefore, the additional elements as recited do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “the machine learning model” merely recite instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer or merely uses a generic computer or computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea, thus is not a practical application under Prong 2.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(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 1-5, 10-14, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Eberlein (US 11,379,217 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Eberlein teaches A computing system comprising: at least one hardware processor; at least one memory coupled to the at least one hardware processor; and one or more computer-readable storage media comprising computer-executable instructions that ( Fig. 6; Processor 610, memory 620, storage device 630), when executed, cause the computing system to perform operations comprising:
Eberlein teaches receiving a request to activate code representing a feature of a software application (Col. 2 , lines 7-10:” receiving, by a customer cockpit, a toggle notification indicating that an edge feature of an edge component of a hybrid software deployment is to be activated” e.g. a request to activate the feature), the feature having a first value for an identifier that the software application uses to call functionality of the feature( Col 11, lines 37-38:”toggled <ft-1> to on (i.e., activated the feature <f-1>” e.g. <f-1> is the first value);
Eberlein teaches in response to the request, setting a flag for the feature to a value that indicates that the feature is activated for use by clients (Col. 10, lines 17-20:” In further detail, the vendor cockpit 204 can be used by a software vendor to publish component versions, features, and feature deadlines, and the information is communicated to each of the customer cockpits 206.” E.g. making the feature available for activation for all clients.)
Eberlein teaches for a first client, associating the first client with a second value of the identifier of the feature that differs from the first value of the identifier of the feature( Col. 14, lines 10-13:”FIG. 4 depicts an example timeline 400 representing toggling in accordance with implementations of the present disclosure. In the example of FIG. 4, a toggle-off period 402 and a toggle-on period 404 are depicted.” e.g. before activation, each edge instance’s toggle is in off state; Col. 9, lines 21-25:” In some examples, the edge controller 210 accesses and interacts with meta-data 250. The meta-data 250 includes, for example, actually used CV in the edge component 214 (i.e., the current, active CV), available Fs, and toggle status per F.”) e.g. client’s value of the identifier is distinct from global active value );
Eberlein teaches tracking a version of first software installed for a first client (Col. 9, lines 21-25:” In some examples, the edge controller 210 accesses and interacts with meta-data 250. The meta-data 250 includes, for example, actually used CV in the edge component 214” e.g., tracking for the (first) client’s edge component’s version of its installed software);
Eberlein teaches at a first time, determining that the version of the first software installed for the first client does not support the feature (Col. 13 lines 42-46:” the customer cockpit 206 enables management of feature toggling, where features can only be toggled, when specified toggle-pre-conditions are met. For example, for type [a], the edge component to be switched is at least on version <n1> for feature <f-1>” e.g. before the specific toggle-precondition are met, the tracked version is determined to not support the feature.);
Eberlein teaches at a second time, determining that the version of the first software installed for the first client has been updated to a version that does support the feature(Col 13, lines 48-53:“If the feature is implicitly activated upon deployment to the edge, the feature toggle in the cloud tenant for this edge instance is set automatically by the deployment tool, once the deployment to the edge is completed successfully (more precisely, once the edge software version is switched to the new version” e.g. the tracked version has been updated to a version that support the feature.);
Eberlein teaches and at the second time, the second time being after the first time, in response to determining that the version of the first software installed for the first client does not support the feature, replacing the second value of the identifier of the feature with the first value of the identifier of the feature as associated with the first client, thereby enabling functionality of the feature for the first client (Col. 13, lines 58-63:” In some examples, the customer cockpit 206 notifies selected edge instance(s) about imminent toggle change for the feature <f-1>. The edge instance(s) finish currently running processes, switch the toggle to on, send toggle-switch confirmation” e.g. the inactive-state value is replaced by the active state value enabling the feature’s functionality for that edge component i.e. the first client).
Regarding claim 2, Eberlein teaches The computing system of claim 1, the operations further comprising:
for a second client different than the first client, associating the second client with a third value of the identifier of the feature that differs from the first value of the identifier of the feature, wherein the third value is the second value or is another value other than the first value ( Fig. 5 Step 506, 516; e.g. looping over edge components 1..n each edge component has its own toggle value in the off state.);
while the first client has the version of the first software that does not support the feature, determining that the second client has been updated to a version of the first software that does support the feature (Pg. 14, lines 15-19 :” While the processes 404 are executing, a toggle on notification is received (1). That is, each edge instance is notified that a feature is to be toggled on. When each process 404 completes, the feature is toggled on at the respective edge instances (2)” e.g. the program loops over the edge components, independently evaluate thus a second edge component can be determined ready while the first is not.);
and while the first client has the version of the first software that does not support the feature, replacing the third value with the first value ( Fig. 5 step 508, 510, e.g. ECi is toggled to the activated state as soon as it is individually ready independent of other EC state i.e., while a first not ready client’s value remains unreplaced. ).
Regarding claim 3, Eberlein teaches The computing system of claim 2, wherein the first client and the second clients are tenants in a multitenant computing cluster (Fig. 2 Tenant Cloud Software (210) commutes with each Customer cockpit (206); Pg. 7, lines 11-21:” FIG. 1 depicts an example architecture 100 in accordance with implementations of the present disclosure. In the depicted example, the example architecture 100 includes a client device 102, a network 106, and a server system 104. The server system 104 includes one or more server devices and databases 108 (e.g., processors, memory). In the depicted example, a user 112 interacts with the client device 102. In some examples, the server system 104 represents a vendor-side of a hybrid deployment scenario, in which one or more components of a software system are provided as cloud-based components hosted in the server system 104.” )
Regarding claim 4, Eberlein teaches The computing system of claim 2, wherein the first client and the second client receive tasks from a common application instance( Col. 9, lines 55-67:” In some examples, the vendor cockpit 204 communicates with each of multiple customer cockpits 206, a customer cockpit 206 being provided for each customer using the software. Communication between the vendor cockpit 204 and each customer cockpit 206 can be two-way communication. For example, the vendor cockpit 204 can push information to the customer cockpit 206, and the customer cockpit 206 can push information to the vendor cockpit 204. In some examples, an event bus can be used to communicate information between the vendor cockpit 204 and the customer cockpit 206. In some examples, the vendor cockpit 204 can periodically pull information from the customer cockpit 206).
Regarding claim 5, Eberlein teaches The computing system of claim 2, wherein the operations further comprise:
during an update of the first client to a version of the first software that supports the feature, deploying updated content to a repository associated with the first client, such that after the deployment, the repository includes content compatible with both the version of the first software that supports the feature and the version that does not support the feature (Col. 8, lines 59-63:” component information including all component versions (CVs), features (F) for each CV, deprecated features (Fa) for each CV, deadline per F (e.g., deadline to toggle on), and a flag per F indicating a status of the F (e.g., on-hold, activated” e.g. deprecated feature is the version that does not support the feature.)
Regarding claims 10-14, they are method claims of computing system claims 1-5; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale in the computing system claims 1-5 respectively as shown above.
Regarding claims 16-19, they are non-transitory computer readable medium claims of computing system claims 1-5; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale in the computing system claims 1-5 respectively as shown above.
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eberlein et al. (US 11379217B1) in view of Mayer et al (US10789220B2).
Regarding claim 6, Eberlein does not teach as part of an update of second software that interacts with the first software, modifying a data schema used by the second software while making data from the data schema prior to modification available to the first client while the first client has the version of the first software that does not support the feature.
Mayrer teaches as part of an update of second software that interacts with the first software, modifying a data schema used by the second software (Col. 2, lines 14-16:” while a lifecycle management procedure can modify table structures, can copy database tables from one name to another, and can change field types.”) while making data from the data schema prior to modification available to the first client while the first client has the version of the first software that does not support the feature (Col 5, lines 5-9:” During a zero downtime upgrade procedure, a new access schema is set up in parallel to the existing one to enable deployment of new versions of database objects, while the start release (e.g., V1) objects are still used and unchanged.”).
Eberlein and Mayer are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are both directed toward software/feature upgrade/update without downtime i.e. maintaining access to the older version while newer version is being updated. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Mayer “as part of an update of second software that interacts with the first software, modifying a data schema used by the second software while making data from the data schema prior to modification available to the first client while the first client has the version of the first software that does not support the feature” into Eberlein’s invention in order to support the older version while the update is in progress in order to keep the system up and running.
Regarding claim 16, it is method claim of computing system claim 6; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale in the computing system claims 6 as shown above.
Regarding claim 20, it is non-transitory computer readable medium claim of computing system claims 6; therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale in the computing system claims 6 as shown above.
Claim 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eberlein et al. (US 11379217B1) in view of Mayer et al (US 10789220B2) and in view of Gopalraj et al.(US9262237B2).
Regarding claim 7, Eberlein in view of Mayer teaches as part of an update of second software that interacts with the first software (Eberlein),
Eberlein in view of Mayer does not teach modifying an application programming interface used by second software while making a prior version of the application programming interface available to the first client while the first client has the version of the first software that does not support the feature;
Gopalraj teaches modifying an application programming interface used by second software (Col. 4, lines 58-61:“ Server program 134 may update or modify API methods contained in API library 132 that can be called by client program 122. Server program 134 may also create new versions of API methods”) while making a prior version of the application programming interface available to the first client while the first client has the version of the first software that does not support the feature (Col. 4 lines 28-31:” An API library, for example, API library 132 on server computing device 130, is installed and can contain older and newer versions of various API methods required by the client program 122”; Fig. 2 – Determine whether the server supports required version (206); Col. 5, 49-61:“Compatibility program 124 determines whether the server computing device is available to support client program 122, for example, whether API library 132 supports the required version of the API method (decision block 206). If API library 132 does support the required version (decision block 206, “yes” branch), which can be determined based on the server configuration information and the software configuration information, compatibility program 124 allows the call to the required version of the API method from client program 122 (step 208)”).
Eberlein in view of Mayer and Gopalraj are considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are both directed toward software/feature upgrade/update without downtime i.e. maintaining access to the older version while newer version is being updated. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to utilize the teaching of Mayer “modifying an application programming interface used by second software while making a prior version of the application programming interface available to the first client while the first client has the version of the first software that does not support the feature” into Eberlein’s invention in order to support the older version while the update is in progress in order to keep the system up and running.
Regarding claim 8, Eberlein in view of Mayer in view of Gopalraj teaches:
as part of an update of second software that interacts with the first software, while the first client has the version of the first software that does not support the feature, receiving a first request from a first external client associated with the first client (Gopalraj , Col. 5, 14-17 :”Compatibility program 124 receives a call for an API method (step 202). Client program 122 calls through compatibility program 124 to a required version of an API method on server computing device 130”);
and based on determining that the first client has the version of the first software that does not support the feature, routing the first request from the first external client to an application programming interface of the second software prior to an update of the second software (Gopalraj , Col. 5, 58-61: “If API library 132 does not support the required version (decision block 206, “no” branch), compatibility program 124 determines if there is an alternative version of the API method available in API library 132 (decision block 210).).
Regarding claim 9, Eberlein in view of Mayer in view of Gopalraj teaches:
as part of the update of second software that interacts with the first software, after the first client has been updated to the version of the first software that supports the feature, receiving a second request from the first external client ( Gopalraj teaches as above “Client program 122 calls through compatibility program 124“ e.g., all calls received via the compatibility program from the client program);
and based on determining that the first client has the version of the first software that does support the feature, routing the request from the first external client to an application programming interface of the second software after an update of the second software ( Gopalraj , Col 61-15:“Compatibility program 124 can also check client program 122 configuration information to determine whether client program 122 is newer than the server program. In an embodiment, the configuration information contains mapped information, which maps a new version of the required API method to the old version. If compatibility program 124 determines, for example, the client program 122 is newer than the server program 134, the mapped information allows compatibility program 124 to determine if there is a compatible alternative version of the required API method available. If compatibility program 124 determines that there is an alternative version of the required API method available (decision block 210, “yes” branch), compatibility program 124 redirects the call to the alternative version of the API method (step 212)”).
Regarding claims 10-14, they are method claims of computing system claims 1-5; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale in the computing system claims 1-5 respectively as shown above.
Regarding claims 16-19, they are non-transitory computer readable medium claims of computing system claims 1-5; therefore, they are rejected under the same rationale in the computing system claims 1-5 respectively as shown above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US20230168879A1 discloses system and method for staggering feature enablement based on call center tenant attributes to control release impact.
US20250028526A1 discloses changing software versions operating based on configuration data deployed in a distributed system while providing continued services.
US8875122B2 discloses tenant move upgrade.
US10579830B1 discloses just-in-time and secure activation of software.
US20190171437A1 discloses server and system for versioning for software in the context of multi-tenancy.
US9268561B1 discloses federated services to dynamically switch features in applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THUAN H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-0332. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-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, Chat Do can be reached at 5712723721. 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.
/THUAN HUU NGUYEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2648
/Chat C Do/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2193
Prosecution Insights